Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act of 2013. This legislation will implement a settlement concerning the water rights of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, who have been engaged for several decades in a struggle for recognition and protection of their federally reserved groundwater rights. Since 1951, the Pechanga have been involved in litigation initiated by the United States concerning water rights in the Santa Margarita watershed. The Pechanga's interest has been in protecting their groundwater supplies, which are shared with municipal developments in the San Diego region. Beginning in 2006, the Pechanga worked with local water districts to negotiate a cooperative solution and put an end to their dispute. The Pechanga Settlement Agreement is a comprehensive agreement negotiated among the Pechanga, the United States on their behalf, and several California water districts, including the Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, and the Metropolitan Water District. The Settlement recognizes the Pechanga's tribal water right to 4994 acre-feet of water per year and outlines a series of measures to guarantee this amount. It is a watershed wide solution that protects the rights of the Pechanga while providing greater certainty and resources to the management of the basin's water supplies. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation. Our bill not only provides the Pechanga with long-overdue assurances of their water rights, but also exemplifies all the good that can be accomplished when parties put aside their differences and come to the table to negotiate collaborative solutions.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the order in terms of time allocated?

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Chair remind me when I have spoken for 5 minutes so I can wrap up?

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. In 2007, in its landmark decision called Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court found very clearly that carbon pollution is covered under the Clean Air Act. I think it is important to note that the Bush administration took the position that carbon pollution could not be covered under the Clean Air Act. They wasted about 8 long years litigating the matter, and we lost a lot of time. But when the Supreme Court finally spoke out, this is what they said, and I quote from the decision: Because greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of ``air pollutant,'' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases. . . . Following the Supreme Court decision, the Obama administration issued an endangerment finding which showed that current and future concentrations of carbon pollution are harmful to our health. This finding built on the work of the Bush administration, and we found some of the raw data from the Bush administration, and we went public with it. This is what the endangerment finding said, among other things: No. 1, severe heat waves are expected to intensify, which can increase heat-related death and sickness. No. 2, climate change is expected to worsen regional smog pollution, which can cause decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, increased emergency-room visits, and premature deaths. So once that endangerment finding was made, the Clean Air Act clearly requires the Environmental Protection Agency to act to control greenhouse gas pollution because it is determined that that pollution causes harm. I wish to say, when I still had the gavel of the Environment and Public Works Committee, we called four former EPA administrators who served under Republican Presidents from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. Every single one of those Republicans called on us to act now to reduce carbon pollution. In that hearing, former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who served under George W. Bush, summed it up best--and I know my friends remember this. She said: I have to begin by expressing my frustration with the discussion about whether or not the Environmental Protection Agency has the legal authority to regulate carbon emissions that is still taking place in some quarters. The issue has been settled. This is a former Republican EPA administrator under George W. Bush. Continuing: EPA does have the authority. The law says so, the Supreme Court has said so twice. That matter, I believe, should now be put to rest. Given that fact, the agency has decided, properly in my view, that it should act now to reduce carbon emissions to improve the quality of our air, to protect the health of our people and, as part of an international effort, to address global climate change. Now, I was so proud in that particular hearing because I haven't found a Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee who really even believes that climate change is real, to be honest. So to have a Republican--the former head of the EPA under George W. Bush-- tell us it is time to move was very heartening to me because I believe action can't come too soon. The impacts that scientists predicted years ago are all around us and they are happening now. I wish to share a couple of charts. The prediction quite a while ago was that we were going to see extreme heat more frequently all around the world. Well, 2014 was the hottest year on record, according to NASA and NOAA, and 2015, the first half of this year, is the hottest on record, according to NOAA. Then, heat waves are more frequent. In Australia, in 2014, towns 320 miles northwest of Sydney hit 118 degrees.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. Areas affected by drought will increase. Look at what is happening in my great State, the worst drought, according to scientists, in 1,200 years. Fires are increasing--same thing--and I am just so disheartened by the fact that we lost a firefighter, a visiting firefighter. Firefighters are fighting those fires right now and putting their lives on the line every single day. Tropical storms, hurricanes--this is all happening--heavy precipitation, flooding events. Houston got 11 inches of rain in 24 hours in 2015. And there is decreasing polar ice, and, in addition, rising sea levels. So I will close with this. The evidence of climate change is here. To say you are not a scientist is no answer. We know you are not a scientist. Politicians as a group are not. But we should listen to the 98, 99 percent of scientists who are telling us our planet is in trouble. Our people are going to be in trouble. As long as I can stand up on my feet in this body, I am going to stand shoulder to shoulder--well, not quite; in my high heels shoulder to shoulder--with my friends because this is a moment in our Nation's history when our kids and grandkids will look back and ask: Why didn't they protect us? Why didn't they save us? As far as I am concerned, it is our duty and our moral responsibility. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I don't know if the Senator is aware of this, but I do know Senators Whitehouse and Markey know this since they serve with me on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, the Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee are going to put forward two bills, and they expect to pass them. One would stop the President's Clean Power Plan in its tracks without putting in anything to replace it--as a matter of fact, putting up obstacles, as I understand it, to any other plan. So it would stop it in its tracks and set up huge obstacles for another rule. The other one would say that if you spray pesticides on bodies of water and the pesticides get into the water, that spraying should be exempted from the Clean Water Act. I mean, it pains me. It pains me to say that this is coming from the environment committee. Why don't they just rename it the ``anti- environment committee'' when they are in charge because every week, every day on the environment they go in the wrong direction for our children and our grandchildren. I know my friend has young children. I have young grandchildren. Isn't it a shame that at the moment in time when the Environment and Public Works Committee--they did a great job--we did a great job, all of us, on transportation. We had a 20-to-0 vote. We are so proud of it. But on the environment, we are split down the middle, with Republicans trying to stop the Clean Power Plan, stop the advances in fighting climate change, stop the ability of regulators to protect the waters from pesticide spraying. Isn't it just shameful that this will be happening tomorrow?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Lois Horvitz, a beloved mother, grandmother, public health advocate, and extraordinary philanthropist who passed away on July 23, 2015. She was 88 years old. Lois Horvitz was born April 22, 1927 in Cleveland, OH. She attended the University of Wisconsin before marrying Harry R. Horvitz, a World War II naval officer and newspaper publisher. In 1962, Lois met Dr. Claude S. Beck, a renowned cardiac surgeon and pioneer of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the lifesaving technique more commonly known as CPR. Inspired by his work, Lois became an early advocate of CPR training, championing a wide spread public awareness campaign and establishing the Resuscitators of America to teach CPR classes. Lois' efforts to promote CPR awareness sparked her lifelong passion for philanthropy, inspiring her to dedicate her time and resources to improving lives in her community and country. In addition to serving on the boards of the Eisenhower Medical Center and the Betty Ford Center, Lois established the Harry R. Horvitz Center for Palliative Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in honor of her late husband of 44 years. An active member of her Indian Wells community, Lois created the Desert Town Hall in 1993, which became an annual speaker series featuring world leaders. I send my deepest condolences to Lois' children, Michael, Pam, and Peter, and their families. Lois' legacy of commitment and compassion will continue to inspire others for years to come.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Sergeant Scott Lunger, an exceptional law enforcement officer, loyal friend, and beloved father who was tragically killed in the line of duty on July 22, 2015. Scott Lunger was born on March 13, 1967 and grew up in Dublin, CA, where he played baseball and football at Dublin High School. After graduation, Scott followed his father and older brother's footsteps and entered the electrical trade, becoming a member of IBEW Local 595. However, a lifelong interest in law enforcement prompted Scott to switch career paths, and he began working as a Contra Costa County sheriff's deputy before transferring to the Hayward Police Department in 2001. During his 15-year career with the department, Sergeant Lunger was assigned to some of the most critical units, including the gang task force, SWAT team, and the special duty unit. Sergeant Lunger also worked as a field training officer and became the head of the field training unit, allowing him to mentor dozens of young officers on the force. Sergeant Lunger's colleagues recalled admiringly his ability to encourage his fellow officers to give their best effort, always leading by example. Sergeant Lunger dedicated his life to his family, his community, and his country. On behalf of the people of California, whom he served so bravely, I extend my gratitude and deepest sympathies to his daughters, Ashton and Saralyn; father, Paul; brothers, Mike and Todd; sisters, Michelle and Ciara; nieces and nephews; and entire extended family. His dedicated and courageous service will never be forgotten.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of my good friend, Joey Mendoza, a longtime pillar of the West Marin ranching community. Born in 1943, Joey grew up on his family's historic B Ranch in Point Reyes National Seashore, which had been purchased by his grandfather in 1919. After attending college at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, Joey returned to Marin County to work in the family business, becoming a third-generation dairyman. I first met Joey during my time as a Marin County supervisor, and although we did not see eye to eye on every issue, Joey was always willing to work together to try to forge consensus. He never let political differences get in the way of personal relationships, and over the years we formed an unwavering friendship. A well-respected and beloved member of the Marin community, Joey gave generously of his time and energy to numerous organizations throughout his career, including the Western United Dairymen and the Marin County Farm Bureau. A lifelong farming advocate, Joey worked tirelessly to preserve California's North Bay agricultural heritage. It is a testament to his lifelong passion that his children decided to follow in their father's footsteps by operating their own ranches, with Joey's son maintaining the family's operation at B Ranch nearly 100 years after his great-grandfather worked the land. Joey and his family's legacy will help ensure that ranching and dairy operations will be part of the fabric of the Marin community for generations to come. With his warm and welcoming nature, Joey remained a leading voice for the ranching community until his final days. I send my deepest condolences to Joey's wife Linda, his son Jarrod, his daughter Jolynn, his brother Jim, and his grandchildren, Collin, Luke, and Layla, along with his entire extended family.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Bakersfield Police Officer David Joseph Nelson, a beloved son, brother, and grandson who was tragically killed in the line of duty on June 26, 2015. David Nelson was born on November 16, 1988 in Burbank, CA. He graduated with top honors from Burbank High School in 2007, where he was a member of the Associated Student Body and the varsity swim and water polo teams. Officer Nelson attended Occidental College, earning a bachelor's degree in economics with a minor in public policy. He was also a member of Occidental's water polo and basketball teams. As a college student, Officer Nelson interned with the U.S. Department of the Treasury and was offered a position upon graduation. However, he chose to remain in California to follow his lifelong dream of pursuing a career in law enforcement. In 2008, he joined the Burbank Police Department as a police cadet and became an officer with the Bakersfield Police Department in 2013. At a memorial service on July 1, 2015, Bakersfield Police Sergeant Uriel Pacheco recalled that Officer Nelson was a ``dedicated, trustworthy, courageous and respectful'' member of the department. Others remembered David Nelson as a talented athlete with a great sense of humor and a strong desire to help those less fortunate. On behalf of the people of California, whom Officer Nelson served so bravely, I extend my deepest sympathy to his parents Larry and Mary, brothers Erik and Michael, grandmothers Elsie Nelson and Josephine Gutierrez, and many uncles, aunts, cousins and friends. We are forever indebted to Officer David Joseph Nelson for his courage and sacrifice, and he will be deeply missed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is regular order at this point? Parliamentary inquiry. What is the regular order?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I was going to ask unanimous consent that following my friend from Louisiana I be given 2 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Whatever the Senator wants.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from Oklahoma for his generosity here. I tell him that I would really rather work with him on transportation. I gave birth to two premature kids, and I just don't like lectures from men about what it is like--and thank God they made it. I am pro-choice. I just have to say that using pregnancy as a political football doesn't sit well with the people I represent and the people of this country. We have to respect one another. I respect your view entirely. I am asking you to respect mine. Keep Uncle Sam out of my private life, and that of my children, my grandkids, and yours. Families will make these decisions with their God and their doctor. Ninety-seven percent of the work Planned Parenthood does has nothing to do with abortion. It is primary health care. I have to say that in 2011 Republicans threatened to shut down the government if Planned Parenthood wasn't defunded. I heard my friend from Washington, Patty Murray, say they were serious. They were going to shut down the government to deny health care to 2.7 million women and men every year--for some of them, basic health care. I will show you a particular person, Doreen from California, who said: I went to Planned Parenthood and I talked to the clinician. . . . She gave me a referral to a breast care center where I had a mammogram and a biopsy [and] was ultimately diagnosed with breast cancer. . . . I was scheduled for a lumpectomy in about two weeks. That woman could have died, and you say: Go to community health care centers. First, I find it ironic because they were set up in ObamaCare and all of you voted no on ObamaCare. We expanded community health centers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the community health care center association in California.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I will not object if Senator Blumenthal can respond with 1 minute.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, my friend and I have long worked together on infrastructure, and we did it this time under very difficult conditions. I would say to him that with his leadership on EPW, going to a markup, proving to the rest of the Senate that, in fact, our committee could work together, we got a 20-to-nothing vote. As a result of that, and as my friend has often said, our committee is really responsible for about 70 to 75 percent of the funding. So we were the key committee, and we proved that we could work together. It was a little tougher on the other committees. That is when it took Leader McConnell's leadership, Senator Durbin's leadership, and we came together. But I must say that those top staffers from Senator Inhofe's team, McConnell's team, Boxer's team, including Bettina Poirier, Neil Chatterjee, and Alex Herrgott really--friendships forged--worked on, and it was a pleasure to work with them. I will never forget this as long as I live. This has been a highlight of my career, and I have been here a very long time. I want to thank Andrew Dohrmann, David Napoliello, Tyler Rushforth, Jason Albritton, Ted Illston, Mary Kerr, Kate Gilman, Colin McCarthy, and Kathryn Backer in addition to Bettina, on my team. I want to thank Ryan Jackson, Shant Boyajian, Susan Bodine, Andrew Neely, and Chaya Koffman, along with Alex, on the Inhofe team. I want to thank Alyssa Fisher on the Durbin team. I want to thank Shannon Hines, Jennifer Deci, and Homer Carlisle on the Banking Committee team. I want to thank Kim Lipsky so much. What a job she did for Bill Nelson, and her team, Devon Barnhart and Matt Kelly, and Dave Schweitert on the Thune team. Notice we said ``team.'' This was about teamwork. This was not about me, me, me or I, I, I. It was all of us in friendship, in sincerity. We never surprised each other. When we couldn't do this, something happened, we would tell each other, and we never left the room until we figured it out. I will have more to write about this and say about it because truly these moments don't happen often around here. In my career this will stand out as truly spectacular--spectacular--the people who were so dedicated, and my friendship with my friend is just extraordinary. It stood the test of time. My new collegiality with Mitch McConnell, which has not existed until now, this is a miraculous thing that has happened. One of the things I have learned in life is it goes so fast and sometimes you don't mark those special moments. This moment will be forever marked with me and with my friends. We now are going to look forward to working with our friends in the House. We are going to infuse our spirit over there. We are going to make sure they know we can work together and be friends, and it has already started, as Alex has stated today. So we are ready for the next phase, the next step. What is most important? We are going to make sure we have infrastructure that works for this Nation; that you and I, Jim, don't have to stand here and show tragic photos, bridge collapses, and hear terrible stories about construction workers who can't make it and have to have food stamps, and businessmen who have literally cried in my office because they have no certainty, they can't function, and they may have to shut down. This is not what we want. We did the right thing for the country. It wasn't about us--we were the ones who made it happen--it was about America, and I couldn't be more proud. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here today. This has been a long and winding road to get to the point where we can pass a transportation bill which is a very good bill and which is very bipartisan. According to a formula, each and every one of our States will get more than they have in the past. This is what our States are facing. This is a bridge between Arizona and California. I am sure my friend knows what happened. People commuting between our States have had to go 400 miles out of their way. We cannot turn away from this vote today. I know and my friend from Oklahoma knows that each one of us would have written a different bill, but the process means we have to come together. This person says ``I don't like the process'' and this one says ``I don't like the pay- fors.'' Well, I am sure Senator Inhofe and I feel the same way, but we know that if we run into a construction worker who is unemployed and we say ``Well, we didn't vote for this because we didn't like the process,'' they would say ``I need a paycheck.'' So I am going to ask our colleagues to vote aye for three reasons. First, let's get our construction workers back to work. We have so many of them--hundreds of thousands--who are out of work. The general contractors told us last week that in 25 States they are seeing layoffs of construction workers because we are not doing a long-term bill. So let's help our construction workers get back to work. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record three letters of support from the Nation's leading construction unions and additional letters of support I received from the Transportation Construction Coalition and the Highway Materials Group.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is rare to have the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce in agreement with the entire structure of the construction industry workers, all of those unions. I put their names into the Record. It is unique to have Mothers Against Drunk Driving in that coalition and to have the National Governors Association in that coalition and to have the mayors organization in that coalition. My friend from Oklahoma and my friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin, whom I thank from the bottom of my heart--we were kind of smiling the other day because we had the mayor of Oklahoma City and the mayor of New York ask us for a long-term bill; no more short-term extensions. That is the kind of coalition building we are seeing out in the country and one that I think we are living proof of here today. So I will close with where I started. To me, this is the poster child for why we have to act today. There are more than 60,000 bridges that are obsolete or deficient. If we don't pass this bill today and the House doesn't take it up and pass it or something else similar to it or get to conference, we are back to, I think it is, the 34th short extension. That is doomsday--doomsday. I am sad the House went out for a 5\1/2\-week break. It is the first time in 10 years they went out for an August break before August. I find it ironic that they went out even a day earlier so they are not there if we do, in fact, pass our legislation and send it over. Why are they doing this? They need to act. I am encouraged that Speaker Boehner said that he has asked his committee to act. If we can do it over here, they can do it over there. I will close with this: I am very pleased that we have reached this point. It has taken a lot of work and a lot of compromise. We had to give some ground, but we found common ground. We all believe this bill is so important for our Nation. I urge everyone, regardless of how we voted before, to understand this is not what we want to see in America. We can't have more of these bridge collapses, and we can't have more of these streets falling apart. Now, 50 percent are in disrepair. This is the day. I thank Senator Inhofe. I thank Senator Durbin. I thank Senator McConnell. I thank Senator Nelson. And later, when we finish with this, I will thank many others. The staffs have been unbelievable. We were working into the wee hours of the morning for the last week. I also thank you, Madam President, for your role in this and your help in this. I am proud that I serve on the committee with you. We have worked well together. I hope we have a good vote, a solid vote for this bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before the Senator from Hawaii leaves the floor, I just want to say what a breath of fresh air he is. That is something we say to compliment somebody, but in this case he is fighting for clean air. He is fighting for his kids and his grandkids. It has been an honor to work with him. The world understands this, Americans understand this; that we are facing a serious threat to our Nation--dangerous climate change. We absolutely need to act now. The evidence is all around us. I will highlight, in the brief time I have, some of the facts. These cannot be refuted. The evidence of climate change is around us. NASA and NOAA found that 2014 was the hottest year around the globe since recordkeeping began 134 years ago. How my colleagues could come to the floor and dispute this--if we were to ask people do you respect NASA, I would say everyone from our kids to our grandmas would say, absolutely, they are scientists. The American Meteorological Association, the society, reported that numerous key climate change indicators were at or near record levels. They found 2014 was the hottest year since recordkeeping began in 1880--2014 was the hottest year since 1880--and sea surface temperatures and sea levels were at record highs. This is the problem: When we have these kinds of record temperatures, they come with a cost--a cost to wildlife, a cost to human life. I don't have time to go into what we are beginning to see, but about 8 years ago when I did take the gavel of the Environment and Public Works Committee, we held a hearing. Everything that was predicted by the scientists is coming true--everything. Here is the good news. Here is the great news. My State of California is a true leader in this area. With the leadership of our State legislature, our Governor, Jerry Brown, and leading activists in our States, such as Tom Steyer and many others, we are seeing California stand up and address this issue. And what has happened? What has happened? All the gloom and doom: Oh, my God. If we try to move away from dirty energy, it is going to be terrible for everybody. Let me tell you the good news. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2011 California had over 360,000 green jobs, the most of any State, and in 2014 there were more than 2,094 solar companies at work throughout the value chain in California, employing 54,700 people. Let me say there are some days in California where we get half of our energy from the Sun--half of our energy from the Sun. Here is the other thing we have to know: California households pay the ninth lowest electricity bills in the country. So all the doom and gloom, we are going to have to pay more and all the rest, is so much talk. A long time ago, when I became aware of climate change, I looked at it and thought: Oh, my gosh. What are we going to do? But the longer I looked at it and the longer I studied it, the faster I recognized that if we address climate change in the right way, it will be a boon to our economy and it will be a boon to our health because we know for sure that asthma and respiratory ailments and cardiovascular disease are threats to our families, and they will go down--the risks will go down because when we clean up the carbon pollution, we clean up all the other pollutants that go along with it. Just this week one of our great leaders whom I mentioned, who was the leader of NextGen, the president and founder Tom Steyer, said the following: Our country needs bold leaders who will lay out a plan to achieve more than 50 percent clean energy by 2030, putting us on a pathway to a completely clean energy economy by 2050 and millions of new jobs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the fact sheet from NextGen Climate be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will yield 5 minutes to Senator Leahy.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much. It is so interesting, coming away from the Transportation bill where we saw such cooperation between the two sides, and now we are headed back to our corners with the vast majority of Republicans attacking an organization that helps millions of Americans get fundamental health care. It is the same old sides again. My friend from Montana may not like Planned Parenthood, and he can tell his family and his friends not to go there, but he doesn't speak for the American people. They trust Planned Parenthood, an organization that has been around since 1916. Its founder was thrown in jail because she wanted to give birth control to people. Let's be clear. My friend and those who are writing this legislation state that they are not attacking health care. Yet they try to defund the one organization in the country that people trust to deliver that health care. It is interesting because it is part of the attack on health care that we see from my friends on the other side of the aisle. We celebrate the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid which have provided millions of Americans with accessible, affordable health care. This week we heard one of the leading Republican Presidential candidates talk about how it is time to end Medicare. This isn't a fringe candidate. I heard Newt Gingrich say years ago that Medicare will wither on the vine. They have been after Medicare forever and ever and ever. They don't like Medicaid. Some Republican governors are not providing their poor people with health care because they don't like Medicaid. These are lifelines that from their start have been attacked by Republicans. I have proof. I have spoken many times and quoted Republicans from past years going after Medicare, going after Medicaid, and now again going after Planned Parenthood and women's health care. This is an ideological attack, and it would put women's health and women's lives at risk. It is attacking women's reproductive health care, an issue that was resolved in 1973. I want to say to my friends on the other side--and they are my friends--why don't you just keep moving us forward like you did on the Transportation bill. We set aside our differences and we are moving forward. Now you are reopening, again, the attacks on health care. You tried to repeal ObamaCare more than 55 times now in the House. It didn't work. You tried it here the other day; it didn't work. You have attacked Medicare. You have attacked Medicaid, and now you want to take away women's health care provided by an organization that is chosen by millions of women and men every single year for lifesaving and preventive services. This legislation is being driven by an outrageous and potentially illegal act of an extremist group. It is just the latest chapter in the long history of attacks on Planned Parenthood and their health care providers who work there, and on the women and the men they serve. Again, one can go back to the beginning of Planned Parenthood, when America's first birth control clinic opened before women could vote. We forget that women got the vote in 1920. If we have a woman in the White House in 2020--something that I personally hope will happen--we will celebrate the fact that 100 years after women got the right to vote there is a woman in the White House. The point is that on the very day the clinic opened 100 years ago, dozens of women waited in line. Do you know what they wanted? Lifesaving birth control information. They wanted to plan their families. They wanted to avoid unplanned pregnancies and the options that they would face if they had an unplanned pregnancy. What was the response? The clinic was raided, the clinic was shut down, and nine days later its founder was thrown in jail. Planned Parenthood has been a target of attacks by extremists since 1916, and that attack continues on the floor today. Despite the effort of extremists, our country has come a long way since the days when a woman could be jailed for advocating birth control. We can't go back. We can't turn back the clock on women's health, and we still have people that are saying women shouldn't get free birth control through ObamaCare. They want it to go over the counter. We can't turn back the clock on women's health, but that is what is about to come. With all the problems facing us--we still have work to do on transportation, we still have work to do to avoid sequester and all the deep cuts to our military and to our domestic programs such as the FBI, Homeland Security, food inspection, and border patrol. All of that is going to be cut, but, oh no, we don't turn to that to fix that. What do we turn to? Another attack on Planned Parenthood, another attack on women's health. We know this extremist group went undercover and secretly taped people. That is what they did. If you approve of those tactics that is fine, but what I approve of is women getting health care. I think that when you scratch the surface, what you will find is that a lot of my colleagues don't think women should be able to plan their families. We are still debating birth control. You have got to be kidding. You have to look at the work Planned Parenthood does: cancer screening, STD tests, and other lifesaving health care. They want to deny women this health care. Do you know what I really find extreme? So many of my Republican friends tell me day after day, keep Uncle Sam out of our private lives. How true. I agree. Some of them even call themselves Libertarians. When you look up the meaning of Libertarian in Wikipedia, it is defined as one who ``seeks to maximize the autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizes political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.'' The primacy of individual judgment--that is the definition of Libertarian. Yet my colleagues decided they don't like a certain organization so they should say to everybody in the country follow us. No. No. It is not right. Planned Parenthood is the safety net for women's health care, and it has been so. This attack on women's health care is the opposite of liberty. I hope if this bill does come forward, we will debate it and debate it and debate it, because I don't think the people in this country want women's lives used as a political football. Women's health is not a game. It isn't something you should gain or lose votes on. Women's lives are not a game. We all have women in our lives, all of us, whom we adore regardless of our political party--our moms, our wives, our daughters, our sisters. Why would anyone in the Senate or anywhere else want to take away the health care that has benefitted one in five women in America, and more than 800,000 patients in my State every year? Why would anyone want to deny birth control to more than 600,000 Californians each year? Why would anyone want to deny women in my State 100,000 breast exams? Instead of listening to these extreme voices, Republicans should listen to women in their States. I will tell you about a woman in my State, Nicole Sandoval of Pasadena, CA. Planned Parenthood was there for Nicole when she needed it most. When she was 23 years of age, she had no insurance before ObamaCare. Planned Parenthood caught her cervical cancer early enough to treat it and to save her life. Instead of listening to these extreme voices, Republicans should listen to women such as Heather Penman of Concord, CA. Planned Parenthood was there for Heather when she needed it most, providing her with a cancer screening. They found precancerous cells, and it helped her get the lifesaving surgery she needed. She didn't say what my colleague said, standing up and attacking an organization that saved her life. She said, ``I might not be alive today'' without their help. She told me that a few years ago. She said, ``Planned Parenthood is about taking care of women's health and it shouldn't be reduced to some political argument.'' Imagine what would have happened if Planned Parenthood hadn't been there for Nicole or Heather. That is what Planned Parenthood does. There are millions of Nicoles and Heathers across America, each with her own story of how Planned Parenthood has been there for her. We are not going to allow Republicans to take away their health care. No, we are not. We are not going to allow Republicans to undermine the vital research that is helping treatments for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, HIV, and birth defects. The research has led to public health breakthroughs, including vaccines for polio, chickenpox, rubella and shingles. Instead of attacking this research, we should be supporting it. That is something we should all agree on. Republicans are pushing an extreme, dangerous agenda--an agenda that is out of touch with most Americans. We had a breather from that agenda when we had that Transportation bill. How excited was I. Then we turn around, we do this bill, we work together, and we are back in our corners again, with Republicans attacking women's health and Democrats defending women's health. A new poll released this week shows that a strong majority of Americans opposes defunding Planned Parenthood, even after these videos--these edited videos--have been put out. The American people are paying attention to this story. Women are paying attention to this story. We know this is a political attack on women's health. We know the group went in and secretly filmed people for 3 years. We knew what their objective was--to hurt women's health, women's reproductive health. We know because that is where they stand. They want Uncle Sam to tell a woman what her rights are. Well, I have to say that I am a Senator. I have strong views. I do not impose these views on anyone. I want people to choose the way they feel and make decisions between themselves, their family, their doctor, their God. That is up to them. I do not want any Senator in this body telling my family what to do or your families what to do because it is up to them. I respect their families. They will discuss it with their families. This is a political attack on women's health. We know it is an attack on a group that saves lives every day. This is a fight they have picked before. They come out here with this, as if this were the first time they have ever attacked Planned Parenthood. Well, we won it before, and we will win it again. I heard my colleague, Senator Murray, recall that in 2011--she thought it was 2011--the Republicans threatened to shut down the government because they wanted to defund Planned Parenthood. They were going to shut down the government. She said: You know what; we are not going do this to women's health. If that is what you want to do, shut it down. We will take this case to the American people. They backed off. We won that fight. We will win this fight as well. We are going to fight. We are going to fight to make sure that Nicole and Heather and women across America can continue to get the services they need: the birth control, the cancer screenings, STD screenings. That is what we are fighting for. We are going to make sure that Planned Parenthood is still there for the millions of women and families who depend upon it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. After stating their key findings, I will complete my presentation. How many more minutes do I have?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mrs. BOXER. Here is what NextGen found: Achieving more than 50 percent clean energy by 2030 will spur economic growth and create jobs. I agree. Second, most Americans support a goal of more than 50 percent clean energy by 2050. I think the polls bear that out. Third, climate change puts America's economy and security at risk. I absolutely agree with that. We have been told that by the defense establishment. Next, transitioning to a clean energy economy will prevent climate disaster. That is true. Lastly, they say 50 percent clean energy by 2030 is feasible. Although I haven't studied this myself, I can say the Energy Information Administration estimates that this can happen if we take the kind of steps President Obama is recommending and a lot of us in the Senate support, putting a price on carbon that will save us from devastating climate change. It will provide jobs and will make us a healthier nation. As I said, I rise today to talk about one of the most serious threats facing our Nation--dangerous climate change. We need to act now, but the Republican majority in Congress has no plan to address the threat posed to the American people. The evidence of climate change is all around us. NASA and NOAA found that 2014 was the hottest year around the globe since recordkeeping began 134 years ago. Earlier this month, the American Meteorological Society reported that numerous key climate change indicators were at or near record levels last year. 2014 was the hottest year since recordkeeping began in 1880; and sea surface temperatures and sea levels were at record high levels. And it is continuing--NOAA reported that January through June 2015 has been the hottest first half of any year on record. We must act now to address climate change by reducing dangerous carbon pollution from the biggest source--power plants. The President's Clean Power Plan will help America lead the way to avert the worst impacts of climate change--such as sea level rise, dangerous heat waves, and economic disruption. By reducing carbon pollution, we can also cut many types of air pollutants that threaten human health. I often say, if people can't breathe, they can't go to work or school. According to EPA, the powerplant proposal will avoid up to 150,000 asthma attacks in children, 3,300 heart attacks, 6,600 premature deaths, and 490,000 missed days at school and work in 2030. The Obama administration clearly gets it, and so do the American people. A Stanford University poll from earlier this year found that 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say if nothing is done to reduce carbon pollution, climate change will be a problem in the future. And 74 percent of Americans say the Federal Government should take action to combat climate change. Our businesses also get it. On Monday, 13 of the largest American businesses gathered at the White House to launch the American Business Act on Climate Pledge. These companies, including California-based Google and Apple, pledged to take steps to address climate change. But climate deniers in Congress still don't get it--they have made repeated attempts to block the Clean Power Plan and other commonsense steps. Last year, the EPW Committee heard from four former EPA administrators who served under Republican Presidents, from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush, and they all agreed that climate change requires action now. This should not be a partisan issue. President Obama has a plan, the American people want us to act, so I ask my Republican colleagues, what is your plan? I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for his remarks. I agree with him, and I will be speaking later on today on the same topic. I want to go back to speaking about the Transportation bill. I want to thank my colleagues for the strong show of support we had on this bill. We had 65 colleagues voting to end debate and get to a vote. We do expect a good vote tomorrow, but I have to say that the reaction of the House Speaker took me aback. Remember that the bill we passed was totally bipartisan, with a majority of Democrats and a strong majority of Republicans. Senators Inhofe, McConnell, Boxer, Durbin, and a host of others worked very hard on this bill. Why would the Speaker of the House be so negative about it? As a matter of fact, his comments that were reported in the Politico online version today were such that I can't repeat what was said on the floor of the Senate because I would be breaking the rules. I will leave it up to everybody to see exactly what he said about our bipartisan bill. Actually, the name on the bill is that of the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate. Yet the Speaker of the House demeans our bill. I want to be clear that I defend freedom of speech and I defend the right of Speaker Boehner to say whatever he wants; therefore, I can say whatever I want. What I would like to ask is why on Earth would you oppose a bill that is so bipartisan, that received 65 votes, and that the Republican leader has put his name to? Why would you do that? Another question is this--and I put up this chart. Where is the House bill? One could argue that you don't like our bill. Where is your bill? What have you done? Where have they been? We have known about this transportation crisis for a long, long time. The Presiding Officer and I have worked hard together on getting a strong bill, even though we disagree on so many things. The bill was voted out of the Environment and Public Works Committee 20 to 0. Yet the Republican Speaker of the House condemns the bill. Where is the House bill? We are about to pass the third extension since the last Transportation bill expired in 2014. There have been dozens and dozens of extensions--more than 30. We know that when the highway trust fund is extended for just a couple of months at a time--and Senator Inhofe has taught me this because I was not aware--it is administratively very expensive to do, and on the ground what is happening is States are shutting down their projects. Let's look at the seven States that have essentially canceled or delayed projects because there has been inaction. Arkansas has canceled or delayed highway projects, as well as Delaware, Georgia, Montana, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming. Why have these States done this? Because they are concerned that we don't have a long-term highway bill. That is why we are so excited about the bill that looks like it is on its way to passage because it is a 6-year authorization with a full 3 years of funding. Again, I ask the Speaker rhetorically what is it about the bill that he doesn't like? Let's go to the highlights of the bipartisan Senate bill. I will discuss them. I would put up the chart which asks ``Where is the House bill?'' because that is the common question I want to ask today. It is easy to throw darts at someone else and say I don't like what you did. What you did wasn't good enough. Where is your answer? They have nothing--nothing but another paltry extension. Why did they do that? Either they don't have an idea in the world as to how to proceed or they want to go on a 5\1/2\-week break. The American people--most of us--work. I ask rhetorically: How many people in America who hold down a job get a 5\1/2\-week break, which is called the August break, which begins in July, and they get that break without taking care of pressing business? I think your boss would say: You know what. You have a lot of problems here, so stay another couple of days. Oh, no, they want to get out of town. They originally were going to get out of town tomorrow. My understanding is they are trying to get out today. That gives them a 5\1/2\-week break without taking care of business. I think anybody who is watching this who really cares about the highway trust fund, transportation, and bridges collapsing--let's look at this one that happened in California. This is a frightening view of a bridge that collapsed. We were so lucky. We thank God that nobody was killed. California now has a bridge that has collapsed, and people have to go 400 miles out of their way to go from California to Arizona or Arizona to California. We are hoping to fix it with emergency funds, but we can't rebuild the part that fell that quickly. We need a long- term bill. I say to the Speaker: Don't go home. I say to the majority whip over there, my friend from California: Don't go home. Stay and do your job. The American people are not going to think very highly of you if you leave with this highway trust fund going broke on Friday. The Senate has passed a bill. It is a good bill. The Speaker has used some words I cannot use on the floor to describe it. I want to ask the Speaker what it is that he doesn't like. What is it that he doesn't like? Is it the $55 billion a year for 6 years, the first 3 years being fully paid for with every State getting more funding, including his State, for highways and transit? Does he not like that? Does he think we shouldn't spend funding on fixing up our bridges, roads, and highways? Does he not like the two new programs-- the freight program, which would provide funds for States to improve the movement of goods? Does he not like the assistance for major projects, a program which is going to help our States when they know there is a real problem in their community and they want to build a project? Does the Speaker not like the fact that we have tripled safety fines so when a Takata airbag problem happens the companies have to step up? Does he not like the fact that there is a new law in there that says consumers should be protected from renting a car that is under recall? We stopped that. Does he not like the first-ever commuter rail fund for positive train control, where we can actually help our computer railways put in positive train control so we will not have those tragedies that happened? Why doesn't he like this bill? It has a long list of supporters. Let's look at the supporters. I guarantee you it is rare that you see the U.S. Chamber of Commerce agreeing with the International Union of Operating Engineers. It is rare that the Laborers' International Union of North America agrees with the AAA, which agrees with the Conference of Mayors, which agrees with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, which agrees with the Association of State Highway and Transit Officials, which agrees with the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which agrees with the American Council of Engineering Companies. It goes on. It goes on. It is rare to see it. The American Highway Users Alliance, the American Public Transportation Association, the American Road & Transportation Builders, the Society of Civil Engineers, the trucking association, the equipment distributors, the general contractors, the equipment manufacturers, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the National Asphalt Pavement Association. It goes on and on and on. This is America. The National Association of Counties--I used to serve as a county supervisor. It is hard to get us to agree. They agree. Pass the bill. The National Association of Manufacturers, I understand they scored this vote. The National Association Of Truck Stop Operators, the National Governors Association, the League of Cities, the ready mixed concrete people, the stone, sand, and gravel people, the owner-operator independent drivers, the Portland Cement Association, the retail industry leaders. The AFL-CIO sent a statement yesterday to the House: Take up this issue. If they do not love our bill, I--it is fine. I do not expect them to, but I do say: Where is your bill? Where is it? You can stand on the Capitol steps and say: I don't like this about it. I don't like that about it. I don't like the pay-fors. I don't like what is on page 50 or page 150. That is your right and I respect it. I support your right to say this is not a good bill, if you don't think so. Where is your bill? Where is the House bill? Get it together. Do not go on vacation. Wait until you finish this job because I will tell you what happens when you do go on vacation. The first person in your State to see you who was laid off--because States are cutting back. We know from the Association of General Contractors that these States lost construction jobs last month because we have not acted on a long-term bill: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Just last month the General Contractors told us that construction workers were laid off because we have not acted. I want to say to the Speaker, Ohio is on the list. You lost jobs in Ohio. What are you doing by just saying you don't like this bill? Stay in. Do your work. You have terrific people on both sides of the aisle on your Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I had the privilege of working on both sides of the aisle with Chairman Shuster, with Ranking Member DeFazio, and many other members of that committee. I know the Speaker has told me he wants a 6-year bill. I believe him, but why put it off? We have the Inhofe-Boxer McConnell-Durbin product. It passed overwhelmingly. Take it up. Here is what the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said: It is refreshing to see Congress focus on a multiyear solution instead of another short-term patch. They say of our bill: This is a fiscally responsible bill that relies on solid offsets. Let me be clear. I did not love every offset. I see my friend from Maryland. He knows we tried desperately to get better offsets. There may be a lot of people in the House who don't like the offsets. Why don't you come together and figure out another way? Why don't you see if you can fully fund a 6-year bill? We fully funded a 3-year bill. So I ask the question of the Speaker: What is it about our bill that you don't like and where is your bill? Yesterday Chairman Shuster over there issued a statement: The House also needs to make its voice heard and put forth its own priorities. He is right. So why are you going home for a 5\1/2\-week break when the Senate is going to be in session next week? Put off your little break here--or your long-term break here, 5\1/2\ weeks. I do not know too many American workers who get that kind of a break in the summer. I say it is time to see your bill. I think we can get it done. I have a lot of faith in the people over there. I served in the House for 10 proud years. I know how things get done. It gets done a lot easier than over here because here we have rules that are very old, which can allow one person to hold up a bill for days and days, but they don't have it. They don't have that kind of situation. They can come together, go through the committee, come out with a rule, bring the bill to the floor, and get it done. Let me quote from the Washington Post editorial: The Senate bill authorizes 6 years of spending on transportation projects under a sensible plan Senators Boxer and Inhofe worked out. The bill provides 3 years of guaranteed funding for the spending plan, raised from a variety of sources. They basically say--they don't love the process, neither did any of us. But they say it is a ``significant improvement from what Congress has done for the past decade or so, as lawmakers fumbled from short- term funding patch to short-term funding patch, a non-strategy that often relied on budget gimmicks and made it difficult for transportation officials to conduct long-term planning.'' So we have an opportunity. The Senate has worked its will. We have a good bill. Is it great? Is it perfect? No. Are the pay-fors great and perfect? No. Is every policy in it perfect? No. But as Amy Klobuchar told me, we stood our ground, all of us, but we found common ground. That is important. We stood our ground, but we found common ground. That is how we are supposed to do things around here. I look at my friend who is going to speak shortly from Maryland. I know he set the pace with Senator Corker in working out some very difficult issues in the Foreign Relations Committee, on which I am so proud to serve and so proud of my leader on that committee, Senator Cardin. They set the pace over there. Then Patty Murray, working with Lamar Alexander--they came out with an education bill. Then I worked with Senator Inhofe, and he worked with me. Mitch McConnell worked with Senator Durbin. We came out with a product that is supported by a majority of both caucuses. I am proud of the product. I know it is not perfect. I know if I had my way, I would have drawn up a very different bill. So would Senator Inhofe. So would Senator McConnell. So would Senator Durbin. But here is what is at stake. I will show you the bridge again. This is what is at stake. This is the face of what we are doing. It is bigger than our egos. It is bigger than our taking a 5\1/2\-week break. I served as a county supervisor. We knew the building we were in was earthquake deficient. It is still beautiful, Frank Lloyd Wright's last built-out government building. I served in that gorgeous building. When I found out it could collapse in an earthquake and the five county supervisors found that out--we were told many, many years ago it was possible we could be held liable because we knew absolutely that this could crumble around us. I am not saying for one second that any colleague is liable if something like this happens again, but I will tell you I think it is in fact a moral question for us. How long can we put this off? I guarantee you a 3-month patch is not going to give the States the confidence to enter into any long-term agreements to fix any of the 60,000-plus bridges that are deficient and 50 percent of the roads that are not up to par. So I say to the House, if you don't stay here and you go home after passing a short-term extension and someone comes up to you and says, Congressman or Congresswoman, I just got laid off. I am a construction worker--I guarantee you are going to have a hard time explaining why you left and took a 5\1/2\-week break, August break, and you left before even August 1. It is the first time the House will have done that in 10 years. They have not left before August 1 in 10 years. There is a lot on our plates. Instead, we are going to talk about Planned Parenthood. Fine. I welcome the argument because to me it is the same old, same old argument about interfering with women's health. I will go there with you. I will be there with you. I will fight that battle for the people of America, the women of America. I don't mind that, but we have to do this. We have to do this in the House. We have to pass a bill. So I hope the House will change its mind. The Republican leadership, they know they control the schedule. They should cancel their recess and stay in an extra week. In that extra week, we can work together. If the Speaker does not like our bill, he can write his own bill. We will go to conference, we will start working on it, and we will get that bill. That is my ask today. My ask is, Where is the House bill? I am asking the House in the nicest way I know how: Please don't leave tonight or tomorrow on a 5\1/2\-week break with your desk a mess with this issue. It is a mess with this issue. The highway trust fund is going bust on Friday. If the best you can do after knowing about this for months and months and months is give us a paltry 3-month extension, then shame on you. The Senate has proven, on a very bipartisan basis, that we can do better--not a 3-month extension but 3 years of a paid-for bill, 6 years of an authorized bill. Surely you can meet us and we can get this done together. I yield the floor.