Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Sunday night was just another self- inflicted crisis from Senator McConnell and the Republican leadership. Playing politics with our national security is reckless. And allowing others to play politics with our national security, against the majority of the U.S. Senate and House, is not leadership. The Republicans said, ``Put us in the majority and we will govern responsibly.'' They claimed there would be no more shutdowns, no more governing by crisis. Yet, on Sunday night our intelligence professionals were left without the important tools they need to fight terrorism. And now Republicans are at it again--proposing amendments that would delay the process and leave us without these critical capabilities for even longer. FBI Director Comey said that his Agency uses section 215 fewer than 200 times per year, but when the FBI uses it, ``it matters tremendously.'' And the White House National Security Council's Ned Price said that a sunset would result ``in the loss, going forward, of a critical national security tool.'' I can't believe Republicans would take us to the brink and put our country at risk. It is shameful. The USA FREEDOM Act is supported by a wide, bipartisan majority in both Chambers. It passed the House with 338 votes. A little over a week ago, a clear majority of Senators, 57, voted to proceed to this legislation. That still wasn't enough. Senator McConnell and his Republican colleagues blocked it from moving forward. On Sunday night, even more Senators did the right thing and voted in support of the USA FREEDOM Act. Mr. President, 77 Senators voted to proceed to a debate on the USA FREEDOM Act. I want to thank my colleagues who worked tirelessly on this legislation, who reached out to the intelligence community, technology companies, and privacy and civil liberties groups to come up with a set of reforms that maintains the important balance between protecting privacy and keeping our country safe. It is not easy to get this level of support. The USA FREEDOM Act strikes an important balance between protecting our privacy and defending our country. The bill reforms the PATRIOT Act by ending the bulk collection of Americans' telephone records while still providing the ability for investigators to get the records in a more targeted manner. It would improve the transparency of the government's surveillance activities by adding additional reporting requirements and giving private companies a greater ability to publically report when they receive requests for information from the FBI or NSA. And it would add a panel of experts to the FISA Court who can assist in providing additional points of view when cases involve significant or novel interpretations of the law. We need to pass this bipartisan bill immediately and send it to the President, without amendments to water it down and further delay the intelligence community's access to these important authorities.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, my heart and the hearts of my entire family go out to Vice President Joe Biden and his family on the tragic loss of his son, Beau Biden. As a mother of children about Beau's age I know that this is the age when our children are coming fully into their own and Beau Biden was already there. He was a skilled attorney general, a promising candidate for Governor, and above all an extraordinarily loving family member. The Vice President has suffered too many losses in his lifetime and each one has cut deep. I hope he knows that all of us who love him are praying that his faith and the deep love of his family will see him through this tragic loss. I know the people of California join me in sending the deepest condolences to the Biden family.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that since a strong bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the USA FREEDOM Act, that the motion to proceed be agreed to, that the bill then be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the USA FREEDOM Act.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let's be clear what happened here. We tried with the majority----

Mrs. BOXER. To protect this country, and the Republicans objected. Let's be clear.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senators Warren and Manchin, because what they tried to do here is to give to the American people the same opportunity they had when George W. Bush was President and a trade deal was being negotiated. Before fast-track came up, everybody saw the deal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to their bill.

Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate that. I am proud to stand with them on this. And I do respect Senator Hatch. He is my dear friend. But let's be clear. When you go down to that secret room--and I had the same experience as Senator Manchin. I couldn't take the proper staffers because they didn't have the clearance. This isn't about fighting ISIS or the war in Syria or any other very high security matter. It is about a trade deal that is supposed to be negotiated in the best interests of the people of this country. All my friends are saying is that before we give this President the ability to fast-track this deal, let's look at it. Here is what happens when he gets fast-track authority: Not one Member of this Senate and not one Member of the House can offer any amendment whatsoever. I think the Senator from West Virginia was very clear on the point. What if we find out that there is something horrible in there for our State? The Senator from Massachusetts pointed out that there are whole parts of this deal--and I know I am not speaking out of turn here--where it just says that they are still being negotiated. So how the heck do we know what we are even voting on? And here we have given away the store in this last vote so that we will not have an opportunity to make it better. When my friend talked about how many jobs were lost in West Virginia after NAFTA, my heart sank. Those are a lot of jobs in a smaller State. My State is a large State. We lost about 80,000-plus jobs. That is a lot. We are a larger State, though. Percentagewise, you had 2 million and at the time we had about 30 million. So in terms of percentages, your people suffered mightily. But we suffered mightily. More than 80,000 families lost their jobs. I don't want to keep my colleagues on the floor, but I am only going to speak for 60 seconds more because my colleague from Delaware is such a pal and said I could go before him. I have a very simple amendment I am fighting to get a vote on. Listen to what it is. It simply says you cannot get fast-track authority to negotiate with any country that doesn't pay at least a $2 minimum wage. I ask the people who are watching this debate here and at home: Do you know that out of the 12 countries we are negotiating with, 7 of them have less than a $2 minimum wage? Let me be specific. Chile has a $1.91 minimum wage. Malaysia has a $1.21 minimum wage. Peru has a $1.15 minimum wage. Mexico has an 80- cent minimum wage. Do you remember NAFTA? Let's do NAFTA. It is going to raise the standard of living in Mexico, and the Mexican people won't come across the border. We had all those factory jobs leave. And in this, Mexico is part of this deal. How about Vietnam? 58 cents. And how about Brunei and Singapore? They have no minimum wage. What kind of a chance do our workers have? I don't care how productive they are. We have the most productive workers. The people in these countries are very smart. They are terrific.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely, I am very proud to have Senator Warren.

Mrs. BOXER. What kind of chance do our workers have? Do you think a manufacturer in their right mind is going to stay here when they can go to Vietnam and have some terrific people? I know the Vietnamese community in my home State is fantastic. They are fantastic leaders. They are fantastic workers. It is sad that the ones who are left behind earn 58 cents an hour. What chance do our workers have? Now, we have 12 million manufacturing jobs left in this Nation of ours--this greatest of Nations. What kind of chance do they have? Do you know that I cannot get this amendment up for a vote? I think I know the reason. They do not want to have to vote against it. I am still hopeful. I am holding out hope. I am fighting for it. But it seems to me when you are saying to the American people: Do you want your Senator to have to go downstairs to a secure room, give up your electronics to a clerk, be told that if you take notes you have to leave them behind so the clerk can read it, but your staff cannot read it, you cannot discuss it with the people who do not have top clearance for the trade agreement? Then, you have to have the amendment that Senators Warren and Manchin have offered, which simply says: Make the trade agreement public before we give exceptional fast-track authority to any President. I do not care who it is--Democrat or Republican--this is not a partisan issue. I have voted for half of the trade agreements, so I have voted for many trade agreements but not with countries that pay slave wages. Let's be clear. This is a tough day for the U.S. Senate. I know we have been split up every which way on this, but I think there are certain things we have learned from this debate: Secrecy is no good. I respect my President. I have talked to him. I know in his heart he is doing what he thinks is right, but when he says this is not secret and everyone has access to it, I say to my President and I say to my friend Senator Hatch: This is not an open process. The secrecy is ludicrous. It is ridiculous. It is against the interests of the people we represent. I represent close to 40 million people. As Senator Manchin said, those people count on us, but if we do not know what is in an agreement, how can we be wise about what we want to say about it and what we want to do about it? I want to thank my friends for coming down here this afternoon. I know this is hard on the Senate. We are going to probably be here a very long time. But the fact is that people depend on us, and I am proud to stand with them. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I would like the floor. But I would yield the floor to Senator Hatch, and then ask my friends to stay on the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been listening to colleagues speak about the importance of having a very open process here where we can offer our amendments and make this fast-track a better deal for the middle class and for jobs in our Nation. It is rather shocking to recognize that this huge agreement, which is going to cover 40 percent of trade in this world, is being jammed down our throats in a couple of days. It is ridiculous. When we look at other agreements, they have had far more time. We have well over 100 amendments filed and we have been offered 6 amendments. I know the Senator from Washington has laid down the gauntlet on the Ex-Im Bank. I support her. We have differing views on the underlying bill, but I think she is right because it is really hard to imagine passing this huge bill and then ignoring the fact that Ex-Im Bank is going to go away. To me, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, recognizing that the entire highway bill is ending--the entire highway program is ending on May 31--to take up this bill without taking care of that is absurd. To take up this bill before raising the minimum wage is ridiculous. To take up this bill before we make sure we have comprehensive immigration reform so workers can come out of the shadows is just the height of insanity. To take up this bill before we have taken up the Ex-Im Bank, as I know my friend from Washington has explained, is absurd. We have deals that are pending with our small businesses through the Ex-Im Bank. They are going to be entirely upended. So I took the majority leader at his word. I thought we were going to have votes to put the enforcement inside this bill, and now that doesn't appear to be happening. Let me just tell my colleagues about the amendment I wish to offer. I think it would pass here overwhelmingly. I have no illusions that we will be allowed to vote on it, but it simply says: If a country doesn't have a minimum wage of at least 2 bucks an hour, we can't fast-track a trade agreement with that country. Let me reiterate. The amendment simply says: You can't be fast-tracked if you don't pay at least $2 an hour. Let's talk about it. Why is this important? I voted for fast-track for NAFTA. What a mistake that was. President Clinton promised us the world. Republicans and Democrats who were protrade promised us the world. Do we know what happened? We lost 700,000 jobs, mostly in manufacturing. What makes my colleagues think we are not going to see these 12 million manufacturing jobs leave when Chile pays $1.91 an hour--$1.91 an hour. Malaysia pays $1.21 an hour. Peru pays $1.15 an hour. Mexico pays 80 cents an hour. Vietnam pays 58 cents an hour. Brunei and Singapore, well, they have no minimum wage at all. So we have a very simple amendment here which I don't believe I will ever get a chance to offer, but it is simple. I know if I went outside and asked the average American how they felt and said: Do you think it is right for us to do a trade deal with countries that pay poverty wages, slave wages to their people--how are we going to compete with that? And people say: Oh, well, our workers are smarter. That is right. But those workers, let me tell my colleagues, are very smart in Chile and Malaysia and Peru and Mexico and Vietnam and Brunei and Singapore. They are very good. It is tragic that they are in countries that pay them slave wages. That is this great deal we are going to make. It is true that Australia has a very high minimum wage of $13.47; New Zealand, $10.87; Canada, $8.69. And I am embarrassed to say ours is still $7.25. Our States and cities are making up for it by raising their minimum wages. It is a tragedy. This is a race to the bottom. Japan has $6.51; and then we get to Chile at $1.91; Malaysia, $1.21; Peru at $1.15; Mexico at 80 cents; Vietnam at 58 cents; and Brunei and Singapore have no minimum wages whatsoever. So I have this very good amendment, and I hope it makes it onto the list, I say to the majority leader. Then I have a series of amendments that deal with the environment. If we are worried about an extrajudicial system to overturn our laws, all we have to do is look at what the World Trade Organization did yesterday when they said we cannot have country-of-origin labeling without getting tariffs put on our products. It had to do with beef. I am sure the Presiding Officer cares a lot about that. The fact is that country-of-origin labeling is critical. I want to know where the beef comes from because there have been all kinds of tragedies with diseases with beef, and I want to buy American. But the World Trade Organization said no. They said that is a trade barrier. Guess what it means? It means that if we don't cancel out that law, they are going to put tariffs not just on beef, they are going to put tariffs on wine, on our strawberries, our fruits, our vegetables, everything. They are going to put tariffs on it. So here we are about to go into this massive trade deal with countries that pay slave wages, that have terrible environmental laws, with an extrajudicial process where companies can sue our States, sue our Nation if they say that the laws we have are barriers, and we are going to do all this on a Thursday so people can go on their trips. Uh- uh. No. I say no. That is wrong. We need to have votes on all of these things. I will tell my colleagues, we could see polluters bringing cases in front of this new extrajudicial body and saying: Sorry, but the Clean Power Plan is making us spend too much money. Toxic laws here in America are making us spend too much money. Your laws against lead poisoning are making us spend too much money. Your laws controlling formaldehyde, California, are costing us too much money. Then we are going to see lawsuits--and we have seen them in the past--and all we have to do is look at what happened with the WTO, the World Trade Organization, and we are in big trouble. So on the one hand we are making a deal with seven nations that have slave wages or no minimum wage, so bye-bye, manufacturing; and secondly, we have this extrajudicial body that Senator Elizabeth Warren has been so eloquent about that can actually overrule America's laws and California's laws and Colorado's laws and Washington State's laws. And I have a number of amendments here that state that if we have laws that deal with toxic substances in toys--that is Boxer 1356--you can't mess with that. I have another one that says if we have laws that reduce exposure to known cancer-causing substances, you can't overrule those laws, but I can't get that on the list. My amendment is not on the list. I have one that says that if we have laws that make sure pesticides are safe, sorry, we are not going to stand by and allow this extrajudicial process to work. That should be exempted, and toxic gas pollutants should be exempted, such as mercury and asbestos exposure. So all of my amendments make sure we do not enter into new trade agreements that have the effect of changing our longstanding environmental principle of ``polluters pay'' into ``polluters get paid.'' That is what this is about. A polluter can sue in this trade agreement. I went downstairs. I had to give up all my electronics. I couldn't take notes with me, but I know enough to see what this is about. A polluter can go and make the case that Colorado or California has protective laws, and, by God, it made them pay more money to produce their products, and they ask for millions of dollars. This is not a fiction. This has happened in past trade agreements. Believe me. Countries have paid through the nose and have had to repeal their laws. So we are rushing into a fast-track vote on something that is very dangerous. It is dangerous to the middle class. It is dangerous for jobs. And we are pushing it ahead of things that we ought to be doing, such as raising the minimum wage, passing the Ex-Im Bank, passing immigration laws, putting together the funding for a highway bill. We haven't raised the gas tax in 20 years. If we raise it a penny every quarter till we raise about 6 cents or 8 cents, it would cost the average driver 30 bucks. We can fix the 69 bridges that are collapsing. We can fix the 50 percent of roads that are out of compliance and not safe. And we can create 3 million jobs. But, oh, no, we are not doing that agenda for the middle class. We are doing things that threaten the middle class and that further threaten the health and safety of our people. So I hope working with Senator McConnell and Senator Brown and Senator Wyden, we can get a path forward here to hear our amendments. We have a promise from the majority leader: This is a new day. The press asked me: Is this a new day in the Senate with Senator McConnell? I said no--not. I can't get my amendments in. I have 10 amendments up. I can't get them on any list. Maybe it is because they don't want to vote on this-- the protrade people. They don't want to vote to say that any deal with a country that doesn't pay at least two bucks an hour can't be fast- tracked. It is a hard vote. It is a hard vote, and I want that vote. So I am going to do everything in my power to solve this. I am going to use every tool at my disposal. I know the Senator from Washington is already doing it for me, in a way, but I stand as a backup here, because I don't like this being jammed down the throats of the people. This is wrong. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I stand here as the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The day Senator Whitehouse got elected, I knew I wanted him on that committee. I think he has shown through the weeks and months and years that what he is going to do is very simple, which is to come to the floor and tell the truth to the American people about this issue and bring the facts about this issue to the Senate. What I think is fascinating and something he and I always look at is the deniers on the other side and their latest argument, which is that ``we are not scientists.'' Well, that is obvious. And we are not, either. That is the reason we listen to the scientists. There is no scientist who is going to say something because he feels it is going to benefit him or her. They are going to tell the truth. And 98, 99 percent of the scientists agree that what is happening in terms of carbon pollution is hurting this planet and will hurt it irreversibly forever. Anyone in this body who doesn't listen to this, who turns away from this will be judged by history and their Maker. But that is not good enough, because it is my grandkids and the grandkids of my colleagues who are going to have to deal with this. I will close with this. This whole notion of ``I am not a scientist'' is ridiculous and it is ludicrous. If one of our Republican friends went to the doctor and, God forbid, the doctor said you have a serious cancerous tumor and you really need to have it taken care of, they are not going to look at the doctor and say: Well, I don't know, I am not a doctor. You might get a second opinion. That is good. In the case of climate, we have 97, 98, 99 percent of scientists agreeing on this problem. You wouldn't say to your doctor: Gee, I don't know, maybe I will let this cancer go because I am not a doctor and what do I know? You have to rely on the people who know. And I have never seen anything like this. This is the tobacco company stance, when politicians cleared the way and tobacco businesses stood up and raised their right hand and said that nicotine was not a problem--and we know how that story ended--too late for a lot of people who died of cancer, too late for a lot of people who got hooked on cigarettes. We want to make sure Sheldon Whitehouse and those of us who agree with him are not going to wait too long. It is not going to be too late. We can actually save our families from the devastation of the ravages of climate change. So I say to Senator Whitehouse: It takes a lot of fortitude to stand up here in the Chamber time after time after time, and I think what he has done is make a record, which is very important because he has really touched on and continues to touch on all the new information. That is critical, and everyone should read it because it really does spell it out in very direct terms. It also shows the fight that Senator Whitehouse has, the belief that he has that we can win this battle. I share that view. It is because, as Senator Whitehouse points out, a vast majority of the American people, including the vast majority of Republicans out there, think if you are a denier, you are losing it--that is my vernacular. They just don't believe it. They can't believe it. They think there is something wrong with you if you are a denier. So that is what we have in our back pocket, and right here in the Senate we have this treasure of a person, a Senator who will continue to fight, continue to work, and I can assure him, as long as I am here and even when I am not, I will be echoing many of the things he is saying. Thank you very much. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership of Senator Wyden on this, because if you leave out certain bills that help workers, then what you are left with, essentially, is a package that ignores their needs. I do want to say that I hope we will not proceed to this debate on this free-trade agreement. I stand here as someone who comes from California, where I had voted for half of the trade agreements and I voted against half. I think I am a fair voice for what we should be doing. If there is one unifying principle about the economics of today, it is this: the middle class is having a very hard time in America today, perhaps the worst time in modern history. A new University of California study released last week makes it clear how our middle class is being hollowed out. In my State, we have a dynamic workforce. We have dynamic entrepreneurs. We are doing very well. But this study found that the lowest paid 20 percent of California workers have seen their real wages decline by 12 percent since 1979. Think about that. This is a great country. We always say we have to be optimistic about tomorrow. You do everything right, you play by the rules, and your income for your family, in real terms, goes down by 12 percent. There is something wrong with this. I think everyone will say they want to do more for the middle class, and there is a straightforward agenda we could turn to, to do just that. But instead what do we turn to: a trade agreement that threatens the middle class-- that threatens the middle class. What should we be doing here? Not confabbing in a corner over there about how to push a trade bill on this floor that doesn't help working America, we should pass a highway bill. The highway bill is critical--good-paying jobs, businesses that thrive in all of our communities. More than 60,000 of our bridges are structurally deficient, more than 50 percent of our roads are not in good condition. But, oh, no, even though the highway bill expires--we have no more authority to expend money out of that fund come the end of May--they are bringing forward a trade bill that is a threat to the middle class. Why don't we increase the minimum wage? The minimum wage needs to be raised. Oh, no, they do not want to do that. They have not done it in years. The States are doing it. Oh, no, let's keep people working full time in poverty. So instead of confabbing over there on how to push a trade bill onto this floor, we ought to be raising the minimum wage. What else should we be doing? We should make college more affordable. We have people here on Social Security in this country who are still paying off their student loans. That is a shame upon America. They cannot even refinance their student loans. Instead of confabbing in the corner about how to bring a trade bill to this floor, why don't we fix the student loan problem? Why don't we raise the minimum wage? Why don't we pass a highway bill that is funded to help middle-class people? It is all a matter of perspective, my friends. We still have not done equal pay for equal work, so women are not making what they should. That hurts our women when they retire. They have lost more than $400,000 in income. Instead of standing in the corner and figuring out how to bring a trade bill to the floor, they ought to be fixing equal pay for equal work. They ought to be fixing student loans for our students. They ought to be passing a highway bill. They ought to be increasing the minimum wage. They ought to deal with currency fairness because our trading partners play with their currency in order to push forward their products. But oh, no, that is not on the agenda. We could have an agenda for a vibrant middle class. But instead of that, we are moving toward a trade bill. I know there are some who disagree with me and who come down to this floor and say: We are going to create jobs with this trade bill; it is going to be great. Let them explain how we are not going to see some of the 12 million jobs that are manufacturing jobs in America not move to countries that pay 56 cents an hour; another country, $1.19 an hour. I know they will disagree with me. They are making all of these promises. The more I hear it, the more I hear the echoes of the NAFTA debate. That was a long time ago, and I was here then. In 1988, I voted for fast-track authority to allow the administration to negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Then, 5 years later, I saw the deal. It was a bad deal, and I voted no, but it was too late--because when I saw the deal, I knew I could not fix it because that is what fast-track is. What this majority today is saying to us is vote for fast-track and give up your right, Senator Boxer, to amend this trade agreement. They say: Well, it is very transparent. Go down and look at it. Let me tell you what you have to do to read this agreement. Follow this: You can only take a few of your staffers who have to have a security clearance--because, God knows why, this is secure, this is classified. It has nothing to do with defense. It has nothing to do with going after ISIS. It has nothing to do with any of that, but it is classified. I go down with my staff whom I can get to go with me, and as soon as I get there, the guard says to me: Hand over your electronics. OK. I give over my electronics. Then the guard says: You cannot take notes. I said: I cannot take notes? Well, you can take notes, but you have to give them back to me, and I will put them in a file. I said: Wait a minute. I am going to take notes, then you are going to take my notes away from me, then you are going to have them in a file and you can read my notes--not on your life. So instead of standing in a corner trying to figure out a way to bring a trade bill to the floor that does not do anything for the middle class, that is held so secretively that you need to go down there and hand over your electronics and give up your right to take notes and bring them back to your office, they ought to come over here and figure out how to help the middle class, how to extend the highway bill, how to raise the minimum wage, how to move toward clean energy, how to fix our currency manipulation that we see abroad. Anyway, I take you back to 1988. I voted for fast-track for NAFTA. Instead of the millions of new jobs that were promised, by 2010 the United States had lost 700,000 jobs. Instead of standing in a corner figuring out how we are going to lose more jobs, we ought to do something that works for the middle class. Let me tell you what happened with NAFTA. Instead of improved pay for our workers, which was promised, NAFTA pushed down American wages. It empowered employers to say to their workers: Either accept lower wages and benefits or we are moving to Mexico. Instead of strengthening our economy, it increased our trade deficit to Mexico, which now this year hit $50 billion. Before NAFTA we had a trade surplus with Mexico. Now we have a trade deficit. So instead of standing in the corner and figuring out how to have more trade deficits with countries, we ought to do something to help the middle class. I want to talk about something that happened in California--in Santa Ana--right after NAFTA. The city had worked hard to keep a Mitsubishi plant that assembled big-screen TVs, securing tax credits to help the plant stay competitive. Even after NAFTA passed, company officials promised they would keep the plant in Santa Ana. But guess what, folks. Three years later, Mitsubishi closed the plant. Company officials said they had to cut costs, especially labor costs, so they were moving their operations to Mexico. We lost 400 good-paying, middle-class jobs, even though everyone promised NAFTA would never do that. This is going to be wonderful. I got suckered into voting yes on fast-track. I fear we see this pattern again. The definition of ``insanity'' is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. We have 12.3 million manufacturing jobs in this country. We are looking at a transpacific partnership deal, the largest trade deal in history, covering 40 percent of the world's economy. Tell me, what chance do our people who work in manufacturing have against countries that pay less than $1 an hour? In one case, I think it is 70 cents an hour. Of the 12 countries in the TPP, 3 have minimum wages that are higher than ours, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, but most of the countries have far lower wages, including Chile, with a minimum wage of $2.14; Peru, with a minimum wage of $1.38; and Vietnam, with a minimum wage of 70 cents. Brunei and Singapore don't even have a minimum wage. I think I have laid out the argument as to why all of these promises about better wages and more jobs fall flat on their face when we look at that last free trade deal--and this one involves more countries. Then there is the investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, which will allow polluters to sue for unlimited money damages. For example, they could use it to try to undo the incredible work in California on climate change by claiming that they were put at a disadvantage by having to live with California's laws. Polluters could seek to undermine the President's Clean Power Plan or the toxic mercury pollution under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards or they could sue because they had to spend a little money to make sure they didn't dump toxins into our waterways--drinking water. We have seen this happen before. SD Myers, Lone Pine Resources, and the Renco Group sued. They notified Peru in 2010 and intended to launch an $800 million investor-state claim against the government because they said the fair-trade agreement was violated because it said they did not really have to install all of these antipollution devices. Yet Peru forced them to do it, and what happened was that ``polluters pay'' turned into ``polluters get paid.'' So we have a trade agreement that threatens 12 million manufacturing jobs. We have a trade agreement that is pushing all of the things we need to do for our middle class off the floor. We have a trade agreement that sets up this extrajudicial board that can overcome America's laws. As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has warned, the consequences could be disastrous. He calls the TPP ``a Trojan horse in a global race to the bottom, giving big corporations and Wall Street a way to eliminate any and all laws and regulations that get in the way of their profits.'' We should set this aside and not go to this today. Let's work together as Democrats and Republicans for a true middle-class agenda, for a robust investment in our roads, bridges, and highways, and to fix our immigration system. I see Senator Leahy is on the floor. He put together a comprehensive immigration reform bill that was amazing, but it was stopped and never happened. We have workers in the dark who are afraid to come out into the sunlight, and that puts a downward pressure on wages. Let's pass that. Let's make college more affordable, ensure equal pay for equal work, and fight for currency fairness. We can do it.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will take about 3 minutes to talk about my last issue today, and that is the toxic reform bill that passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Mr. President, I have some great news about the toxic bill. The original Vitter-Udall bill was slain and is gone and in its place is a better bill. That is the great news. The bad news is it is still not a really good bill. We have to do better, and we can do better. What we did in this bill is to understand that we had to negotiate certain items out of it, and one of the items we had to negotiate was how far the original bill went in preempting State laws, which we have now addressed. Credit goes to 450 organizations that--although they still oppose this bill--pushed hard for those changes. Credit also goes to Senators Whitehouse, Merkley, and Booker, who told me they wanted to try to negotiate some changes. I blessed them, and they went and did it. For that I have to thank a Senator who is no longer with us, Ted Kennedy. He taught me that, as a chairman, you need to understand that sometimes you have to turn to your colleagues and let them move forward. And I was happy to do that. The changes that came back included a part-way fix on preemption, a full fix on preempting air and water laws when it comes to toxics. And coenforcement has been fixed. So we are very, very pleased. What is not really fixed, however, is that we want to make sure States have even more latitude to move if they see a danger. If there is a cancer cluster among kids or adults around this country, we want to make sure that the Federal Government will move to help them. We want to make sure that asbestos is addressed directly in this bill because 10,000 people a year die from asbestos exposure. If there is a chemical stored near a drinking water supply, we want to make sure that it, in fact, will receive priority attention. What chemical is in there? We saw it happen in West Virginia. Senator Manchin wrote a really good bill with me. We should address that, and I was happy to see that we had some bipartisan votes on those last two fixes. We have to fix this bill, and I just don't agree with anyone who comes to the floor and says it is perfect. But what I think is not important. What is important is what 450 groups think, and they think the bill has to be fixed. Let's be clear. The people who say we have to fix the bill with perfecting amendments include the American Public Health Association and its Public Health Nursing Section, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, the Consumers Union, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the National Disease Clusters Alliance, the National Hispanic Medical Association, the Birth Defect Research for Children, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Maryland Nurses Association, the Massachusetts Nurses Association, the National Association of Hispanic Nurses, the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, the Breast Cancer Action, the Breast Cancer Fund, Huntington Breast Cancer Coalition, Kids v Cancer, and the Lung Cancer Alliance. It goes on and on. A full list of the organizations can be found at saferchemicals.org/coalition. I say to my colleagues that the Vitter-Udall bill is much better now than when it was introduced, and these 450 groups did everything in their power to help us fix the bill. We are halfway there. I hope we can negotiate some more fixes--and maybe we can do that. If we can pass four or five of these amendments, we are on our way. But if we cannot fix the bill and it does come here, there will be a lot of talking about how to fix it. There will be a lot of talking, a lot of standing on our feet, and a lot of rallies with 450 groups. That is the choice the Senate faces, and in the end, we will deal with this. I took to the floor today to thank my colleagues who helped negotiate this from a bill that was a disaster to a better bill, and I also want to make sure that these 450 organizations, including NRDC--what they did by standing up and calling for Safer Chemicals Healthy Families-- was so fantastic. They never allowed people to talk them down or bully them out of the room. I stand with them 100 percent. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization was incredible. We have some hope here. All we have to do is keep on fixing this bill, and it could come to a good place. I so appreciate the patience of my colleagues. I talked long about two bills which are very important. I hope we will not get on this trade bill. I hope we will move to an agenda for the middle class. As I said, the original toxic chemicals bill, S. 697, that according to a prize-winning reporter was written on the computer of the American Chemistry Council, was deeply flawed. That bill is gone. Thanks to the public health organizations, environmental organizations such as the Environmental Working Group, Safer Chemicals, the Breast Cancer Fund, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, NRDC, nurses, physicians, the media, and individuals such as Deirdre Imus, Linda Reinstein, and Trevor Schaefer. Those individuals and organizations put S. 697, the original bill, front and center and, despite its beautiful name, saw it for what it was. The amended version that was reported out of the EPW Committee last month included fixes to preemption of State air and water laws, co- enforcement of chemical restrictions by States, and removal of a harmful provision that would have undermined EPA's ability to restrict the import of dangerous chemicals from foreign countries. However, there are still critical changes that must be made in order for this bill to do what has been advertised and protect public health. Leading public health, labor, and environmental groups, including the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition, which represents 450 environmental, labor, and public health groups; the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization; AFL-CIO; Environmental Working Group, the Breast Cancer Fund, and the Center for Environmental Health, and others have made clear that they do not support the bill reported from the EPW Committee because key improvements are needed if we are to achieve real TSCA reform. Our common goal is real TSCA reform. We should fix the dangerous loopholes that could undo the good intentions of so many who have worked on this effort. As Lisa Heinzerling, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and former senior EPA official pointed out in a recent blog titled, ``Toxic Ambiguity: the Dangerous Mixed Messages of the Udall-Vitter Bill to Reform TSCA,'' these are serious loopholes that must be addressed. I believe the needed fixes are achievable. Some of these changes, which I offered in the EPW Committee, received bipartisan support. As we move forward, I ask my colleagues to join me to keep making this bill better. We need to address clusters of cancer, birth defects and other diseases, especially when children are affected. Communities should have the tools they need to determine whether there is a connection between these clusters and contaminants in the surrounding environment. Senator Crapo was a cosponsor of this common-sense provision and voted for it in the EPW Committee. We must ensure the chemicals that could contaminate drinking water supplies, such as the spill that occurred in West Virginia last year, are prioritized. Senator Capito from West Virginia supported this amendment in the EPW Committee. We must ensure States can continue to act. The bill reported from the EPW Committee could still shut the States out for years from the ability to protect their citizens from toxic hazards. The process for State action is complicated and confusing and likely to end up in the courthouse. If the intention is to allow the States to act if the Federal Government has not done so, the bill needs to be amended to make that clear. Asbestos has been a poster child for this bill and it is one of the most dangerous substances known to humankind--it takes 10,000 lives a year. We need to ensure that EPA can expeditiously review and take action to ban asbestos within 3 or less years. The legal standard of review in this bill is the same as the original TSCA. We must ensure that there are no opportunities for the fatal flaws of current TSCA to be retained in the new law. These are the kind of fixes I believe we can accomplish. I think my colleagues and I can agree that there are safeguards that still need to be put in place. Now it is time to ensure that these safeguards become a reality. We need to get it right this time. The stakes are high. I look forward to working with colleagues to make this chemical safety bill do the job that our families and children deserve. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President. Due to a commitment in my state, I was unable to be here for the votes on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. Had I been present, I would have voted in support of this bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much. I want to thank Senator Sanders for laying out the budget in a way that makes sense. It is a document that is supposed to reflect our values, who we are. It is supposed to be a roadmap for the future. What Mr. Sanders has just said is that it is a roadmap to disaster, and I intend to pick up on that theme. I want also to say that I know how hard it is to get a budget out. I was on the House Budget Committee for years and on the Senate Budget Committee. I want to compliment Senator Enzi. I know it is hard to put together a coalition, even within your own party. He has said that the Senate is under new management and he is very excited about it, and I understand that. I get it. I have been in both the majority and the minority and I like the majority a lot better. But the bottom line is, if this is the first big action of the new management, let's bring back the old one, because in this budget, the people who benefit are the very tippy top maybe two-tenths of 1 percent. It is unreal. I am not going to stand on the floor and just throw out barbs, I am going to give definite numbers so everybody sees what we mean. The only time we have had a balanced budget in recent history was when Bill Clinton was President and the Democrats controlled the Senate. I remember it well because we didn't get one Republican vote for that budget that was so critical. I remember my colleague Senator Bob Kerrey was thinking about it so hard. He saw all sides. He went to the movies, and during the movie he came to a--this was the right budget--he came back and voted and it got done. Now, that was a Democratic budget that invested in the people of the United States of America, invested in their infrastructure, invested in their education, invested in their health care, and invested in them. It invested in them. Remember, President Clinton said: Put America's families first. And it worked because we invested in our people. We headed into a period of unprecedented growth--23 million jobs created under Bill Clinton and the budget balanced. As soon as George W. Bush took over, he did enormous tax cuts for the wealthiest at the top, got us into two wars--put them on a credit card--and we have been battling our way back after the worst economic downturn. If you look at the job creation under ``W,'' it is just shocking. Now, under President Obama, we have fought tooth and nail and we are coming back. This budget is an unmitigated disaster. Let's start. At a time when 16 million people have finally been able to get health insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, they want to repeal this law and throw these people out. They will not have health care, and then what will happen? They will suffer, their families will suffer, and the economy will suffer. At a time when nearly 70 million Americans rely on Medicaid and CHIP for health coverage--Medicaid, we know is for the working poor, CHIP is for children--they want to block grant that program and, while they are doing it, impose cuts of more than $1.3 trillion. So you have to ask this question--this isn't just a matter of putting a number on an easel--what will it mean for maternity care when half of all of our births in the United States are financed by Medicaid? Half of all births in the United States are financed by Medicaid, and they are cutting Medicaid by $1.3 trillion. So they will fight for your right to be born, but, boy, don't count on getting any help if you wind up in a maternity ward. At a time when more than 50 million senior citizens and disabled Americans are in the Medicare Program and baby boomers continue to age in, they propose cutting the program by $430 billion by placing the burden on the backs of seniors and privatizing that program through vouchers. They are going to end Medicare: Senior citizens, you are under new management here, and they are ending Medicare as we know it, as we know that great program. So after years of being the most successful program--and if you ask people on Medicare if they like it, they not only like it, they love it--they are ending it. As Senator Sanders pointed out, eloquently, I thought, they are saying to a sick person--you know, people are living longer. Thank God. So let's say a person is 85, 90 years old, having a hard time functioning and then gets a desperate cancer on top of it: Here is money. Go out and find the best insurance you can. Oh, yes, we know you are 90. Here is a Web site. Oh, I don't have a computer. Too bad. We are under new management over here. Oh, great. Bring back the old management. That is what I think. The old management wasn't perfect, but the old management had a heart, had a soul. No one will hear. Now, how is this: In case you are not sold about how devastating this budget is, the Republican budget resolution eliminates opportunities for the neediest students from preschool to college by cutting $270 billion from education and job training investments over the next decade. So while the Republican leadership is pushing for free trade, free trade, whatever, what is happening to training our workers? They are cut. At a time when less than one-half of eligible preschool-aged children are able to participate in Head Start, half of our eligible kids cannot get in. The Republican budget cuts the program by over $4 billion, resulting in over 400,000 children losing access to Head Start over the next decade. Now, tell me I am dreaming. This is the new management. We are going to take 400,000 children over the next decade and say: Sorry, no room for you. The door is closed. We all know Head Start is critical. We know the cost of college continues to rise. We all know it-- because we are alive, we have a heartbeat and a pulse, and everybody alive today knows what it is. I have met people who are still paying off their student loan debt when they are on Social Security. That is the new reality. What did they do? They cut Pell grant funding by more than one-third, making college less affordable for many of the more than 8 million students receiving aid. So let's see who is now in their line of fire: middle class, seniors, little babies, students, and workers. At a time when student loan debt has reached $1.2 trillion and students are graduating with over $28,000 in student loan debt, on average, the Republican budget resolution eliminates the in-school interest subsidy for need-based student loans, causing student loan debt to increase by nearly $4,000 for an estimated 30 million students. So it isn't bad enough for them to know that people are paying off their student loans when they are on Social Security, now they are increasing the cost of student loans even more, instead of working with us to decrease the cost to students. I will tell you, if every taxpayer in America is a shareholder, it is time to call a meeting and change this management. Now, if you are a renter, one in four renters is paying more than half their income on housing, placing them one paycheck away from homelessness--half your income. The Republican budget resolution eliminates housing assistance for 450,000 families due to a 14-percent cut to the section 8 rental assistance program--beautiful. At a time when 45.3 million people are living in poverty, the Republican budget resolution cuts about $800 billion from income security programs over 10 years. This category includes SNAP, Supplemental Security Income for low-income seniors and people with disabilities, and heating assistance for low-income families--lovely, lovely. Welcome to the new management that is the Senate. Here is the thing, this is even hard to imagine they did it. It upset them so much that the wealthiest 14 families might get hit with a little bit of the tax--and I am talking about people who are worth over $10 million, way more, 20, 30, 40, 50--you name it, the highest level. They give them a $3 million tax cut. They actually raised taxes by an average of $900 on 16 million low- and moderate-income families by allowing expansions to the EITC and child tax credit to expire, so there is no expansion of that program. Now, whom else could we hit? Well, maybe we could hit some of our States that are suffering from the realities of climate change, such as the Western States that are undergoing the longest recorded drought in history. Come talk to my farmers, ask them how happy they are that you are proposing dramatic cuts--and have imposed them in this budget--to the EPA, to the Department of Interior, DOE, and to NOAA--the agencies best equipped to steward our precious natural resources, develop a clean energy future, enforce our water laws, and protect our health. But wait a minute. There are a few people who were left--away from this budget knife. Well, if you drive a car or you drive a truck or you get on a bus, you get hit too. Listen to this one. At a time when 63,500 of our bridges are structurally deficient and 50 percent of our roads are in less than good condition, this budget cuts transportation and infrastructure investment by more than $200 billion over 10 years, a cut of 40 percent. I just had a press conference a couple of weeks ago with Republican business leaders and Democratic workers, and they have come together against this new management idea. They are looking to fund the highway trust fund. The whole fund expires this month. I haven't heard one word about how we are going to have a multiyear funding bill. We have six States today that have stopped spending on infrastructure. The last I checked, we are still the greatest Nation in the world. Tell me, how do you remain a great power if your bridges are structurally deficient--63,500 of them. How do you remain a world power when you cannot move goods efficiently or people efficiently? I will say, in all my years here, I have had the best relationship on infrastructure spending with my colleague Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma. This budget predicts a 40-percent decrease in infrastructure spending, so pretty much everyone--everyone who is impacted by this new management, which is all of us--is getting hit hard by this budget. A budget is a reflection of whom you fight for, whom you believe in, and what your values are. This budget will bring pain to middle-class families, to our working poor, to our children, to our seniors, to our students, to our drought-plagued or flood-plagued areas, and to the people who use their automobiles to go to work. In essence, this budget hurts the very people we should be fighting for. Instead of checking with those who actually balanced the budget-- when Bill Clinton was President--they go off on an opposite tear, which is to take away investments--which is what led to the prosperity, which is what led to the balanced budget, which is what led to 23 million jobs--and put in place austerity. I gave you just a little look at some of these cuts. But, guess what, America, there is a secret in the budget. There is another $900 billion of cuts over the next 10 years in a secret little package, unspecified cuts, almost $1 trillion, because they don't even know where to go to cut. So if you didn't like the cuts I talked about, wait until they get to the unspecified cuts. Who do you think is going to get those cuts? Not the wealthy few families, it is going to be more pain for the middle class, more pain for the working poor, and more pain for the workers and businesses of the transportation sector. We are not going to see cures for Alzheimer's or cancer because, believe me, that is not going to happen, no initiatives there. This budget does not belong on the Senate floor. This budget is too painful to be enacted. This budget ought to be redone with an eye toward the balance we achieved those years ago by making smart investments in our people and by cutting back on wasteful spending but not bringing political vendettas to the table when already so many millions of our people have health insurance. You are going to take that away? You fought so hard for the chance to govern--you did, believe me--just as we are going to fight to get it back. That is what politics is. But now it is time to work together. This is a radical budget. This doesn't reflect any coming together. And as soon as we wake up America to the fact that this budget hurts them, maybe we will have a chance to fix it. I really hope so because our middle class can't take any more pain. Our drivers can't take any more pain. Our students can't take any more pain. Our seniors can't take any more pain. Our children can't fend for themselves. So I hope we will have a big ``no'' vote on this budget. I also hope, after we have our vote, that we come together and fix some of these major problems, starting with the highway trust fund, where already six of our States have stopped spending. There are still 800,000 unemployed construction workers and thousands of businesses suffering because we don't have a long-term solution to the highway trust fund. Why don't we take care of that? No, we are going to take up some fast-track, speedy trade bill that includes countries that pay their people 52 cents an hour. That is what we are going to do. We are going to rush to that. Why don't we fix the problems here? Why don't we fix the student loan rate so people aren't paying off student loans when they are on Social Security? Why don't we make sure people can afford to get educated? Why don't we improve the health care system and not throw people off the rolls? Let's do it the right way. Let's not do it ``my way or the highway'' because that only is going to wind up hurting the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Merkley for his leadership. This is an issue which is not getting the attention it should be getting, and we hope today, with the series of speeches we will start to make now, to wake up America to this threat. I have a bill that would ban the advertising of these cigarettes to children. Senator Merkley showed you and told you the names. Let's take a look at that again. Can anyone really tell you with a straight face that these marketers are not going after children? Cotton candy, gummy bear, and popsicle--those are the flavors. I mean, we really were not born yesterday. This is what they are doing. This is a moment for us--parents, grandparents, loving aunts and uncles--to stand up and say no to this. There are ways to do it. Before I get into those ways, I thank Senators Corker and Cardin for their extraordinary leadership on the underlying bill in Iran that is on the floor. I express my thanks to the entire committee, both sides of the aisle of the Foreign Relations Committee. I have been on that committee the longest of anyone else, and this was a tough time. Everyone had a different position, and everyone was in a corner. We all came together, and we crafted a delicate compromise that essentially allows the Senate and the House to vote on whatever agreement may emerge. I say ``may.'' We don't know if there will be one from the administration on Iran's nuclear weapons. We know that if we go down the path of poison pill amendments, this whole thing could be lost. I will close this little part and get right to the e-cigarettes with this. I was listening to Senator Rubio, whom I work with on the committee, and I love to work with him on issues where we find agreement, but he got up here and he said: All I want is a vote on my amendment, and we all know his amendment will derail this very delicately balanced agreement. He said: All I am asking for is a vote. And he said very eloquently: If you don't want to vote, don't be a Senator. And I thought: You are right about that. Then I checked his voting record and he stopped us voting on nominees 18 times in December alone. So I say to my friends: Don't come down here and preach to us about the fact that we are trying to keep poison pills off this for the good of the world, to stop a war; OK? And don't tell us we are stopping you, when you stopped a lot of us 18 times in December alone and once on Loretta Lynch--once on the new Attorney General. I had to say that. Mr. President, when I turn on the television, I don't know if it is 2015 or 1950. Tobacco companies are preying again on our youth. Just as we should be celebrating the decline of youth cigarette smoking rates, a new product is taking our high schools and middle schools by storm and they are called e-cigarettes. As Senator Merkley so well explained, we are seeing a startling increase in the use of these cigarettes by our teens, with 2.5 million teens using them--2.5 million teens. If we do nothing, the CDC says that every year another 1\1/2\ million kids are going to be using e- cigarettes. Now, what are they exposed to? Let us be clear, nicotine. We know nicotine is very dangerous to adolescent brain development. Let me say that again. Nicotine is very dangerous to adolescent brain development. In addition to nicotine, e-cigarettes have--and I hope young people are listening, including the ones right here--potentially dangerous chemicals, and chemicals we already know are dangerous, such as benzene, cadmium, formaldehyde, propylene glycol, and they also have nanoparticles that are present in traditional cigarettes--this all according to my health department in California. Now, we already saw how these children are lured. They are lured by the cigarette companies. And by the way, the big cigarette companies-- and I will finish in 1 minute and this is critical--have bought up the e-cigarette companies. I wrote to the executives and I said: Please, for the good of your children and my children and my grandchildren, don't advertise on television. If you ever saw these ads on TV, Senator Merkley, and Mr. President, you would just think that e-cigarettes were curing all the illnesses of the world. Well, they are not. They are not, and the studies that are already coming out are quite alarming. Sales to minors should be banned, and 42 of our States have done so, but it is not nationwide. Online sales should be banned. Companies should not be advertising. We have a potential crisis on our hands, and I will be working with Senator Merkley, Senator Blumenthal, and all of my colleagues because we were not born yesterday. We have seen this movie before and we want our kids to be healthy. The FDA can take a stand by finalizing the proposed regulation today. Too many lives have been endangered while we stand here waiting. Last month, more than 5,000 of my constituents signed a petition urging FDA to regulate e-cigarettes. Some of them told me why they were concerned, and I would like to share the words of Californian parents and teachers. Susan from Long Beach wrote: I am a 7th grade health teacher and it is clear that students think ``vaping'' is okay and a healthy alternative to smoking. Shops selling e-cigarettes have popped up in all the stores around their neighborhoods advertising their products. A clear message needs to be sent that e-cigarettes are not for children under the age of 18. Judith from Fairfield wrote: I teach high school, and too many students are using e- cigarettes, thinking they are safer than regular cigarettes. In the meantime, they are getting addicted to nicotine, and putting them at risk for a lifetime of impacts to their health. Sondra from Corona wrote: I have worked in our local high schools for almost 15 years. The e-cigarettes definitely need to be regulated for people under 18. I am consistently told by students that ``these are better'' than traditional cigarettes. They don't realize the harm and the addictive qualities are still present. Bob from Cathedral City wrote: We need to know what health and/or safety dangers are associated with e-cigarettes. And finally Julie from Huntington Beach wrote: My 14-year-old son was offered an e-cig. They are too easy for children to get. My constituents deserve Federal oversight of e-cigarettes. To protect the public health and our children, I join my colleagues and urge the Administration to finalize the pending regulation. I also call upon Congress to advance legislation that protects consumers from the health consequences of e-cigarettes. The data does not lie. We cannot wait another day.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to honor veterans from America's ``greatest generation'' who were held captive as prisoners of war, POWs, by Japan during World War II and to recognize seven veterans-- including three from California--who recently participated in a historic trip to Japan to promote reconciliation and remembrance. At the invitation of the Japanese Government, the veterans were joined by their family members to become the 5th delegation of American POWs to visit Japan as part of the official Japanese-American POW Friendship Program that began in 2010. These brave men fought in the historic first battles of World War II and endured years of hardship as POWs. This year, as we commemorate the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, I want to recognize them and honor their service and sacrifice. Anthony Costa, 95, from Concord, CA, was a private first class in the famed 4th Marine Regiment, also known as the China Marines, which arrived in the Philippines days before the Japanese invasion. He fought to defend the island of Corregidor in the Philippines from December 1941 to May 1942 before he was captured by the Japanese. As a POW, Private Costa was force-marched through Manila and taken to the Cabanatuan prison camp, where thousands of POWs died from starvation, dehydration and abuse. He was then moved to Japan to work as a slave dockworker in the freight yards in and around Osaka before being liberated in September 1945. He was awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. William Sanchez, 96, from Monterey Park, CA, was an Army sergeant with the 59th Coast Artillery assigned to the island of Corregidor in the Philippines where he helped defend the harbor against the Japanese invasion. In May 1942, Sergeant Sanchez and the rest of his division were captured and paraded through the streets of Manila to Bilibid Prison. He was later transported to Japan in the hold of a Japanese hell ship, where he endured a 33-day oceanic journey plagued by dysentery, malaria and malnutrition before reaching Camp Omori. At the POW camp, he was forced to work as a slave laborer and dockworker at the railway yards in Tokyo prior to his liberation in August 1945. Jack Schwartz, 100, from Hanford, CA, was a Navy lieutenant junior grade serving on Guam when the Japanese Navy attacked the island on December 8, 1941. When Guam fell to the Japanese, Lieutenant Schwartz was taken to a POW camp in Japan where he was repeatedly beaten, starved and provided insufficient clothing to endure the harsh winters. He was sent to several POW camps before being moved to Camp Rokuroshi, which was hidden in the Japanese Alps. After being liberated on September 8, 1945, he remained in the Navy and retired after a distinguished career in 1962. My constituents were joined on their trip by Daniel Crowley, 92, of Connecticut, an Army Air Corps infantryman who participated in the defense of Bataan and Corregidor; Oral Nichols, 93, of New Mexico, who served as a civilian medic in the historic defense of Wake Island; Warren Jorgenson, 93, of Nebraska, a marine who defended Corregidor; and Darrell Stark, 91, of Connecticut, who served as an Army infantryman on the Bataan Peninsula. This trip was part of a reconciliation process that, while undoubtedly painful, is critical to help provide closure to POWs and their families and continue building stronger relations between the U.S. and Japan. It is important that this reconciliation program continue so that this history is remembered and the families can continue to heal.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Between 1915 and 1923, the Ottoman Empire carried out genocide against the Armenian people. Over the course of 8 years, more than 1.5 million Armenians were marched to their deaths in the deserts of the Middle East, murdered in concentration camps, drowned at sea, and forced to endure unimaginable acts of brutality. Over the years, this deliberate massacre of the Armenians has been well-documented and confirmed by scholars and experts. And there are countless testimonies from victims who lived to tell of their harrowing experiences. In his memoirs, Henry Morgenthau, the American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire between 1913 and 1916, wrote: ``When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.'' Despite an irrefutable body of evidence, the U.S. Government has refused to call the deliberate massacre of the Armenians by its rightful name. Mr. President, 100 years have passed since the beginning of the Armenian genocide. It is long past time for our government to finally acknowledge one of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century for what it was--genocide. This year, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of a Senate resolution calling on the President to ``ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide.'' But each day that goes by without full acknowledgement by the United States prolongs the pain felt by the descendants of the victims of the Armenian genocide, as well as the entire Armenian community. By affirming the Armenian genocide, the United States would join countries across the globe--including Argentina, Canada, France, Italy, Poland, Russia, Switzerland, and Venezuela--as well as the Holy See and 43 U.S. States in standing on the right side of history. For years, I have urged both Democratic and Republican administrations to finally acknowledge the truth of the Armenian genocide. Today, I reiterate my call and I hope that this year the United States will finally correct this century-old injustice. During a recent mass commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, Pope Francis said: It is necessary, and indeed a duty, to honour their memory, for whenever memory fades, it means that evil allows wounds to fester. Concealing or denying evil is like allowing a wound to keep bleeding without bandaging it! On this April 24, as we take time to remember and honor the victims of the Armenian genocide, I hope the United States will heed the eloquent words of Pope Francis by formally and unequivocally affirming the incontestable fact of the Armenian genocide.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Officer Michael Johnson, a 14-year veteran of the San Jose Police Department who was tragically killed in the line of duty while responding to a call for help on March 24, 2015. Michael Johnson was born in Herlong, CA, where his father served as a military police officer before becoming a deputy for the Calaveras County Sheriff's Department. After moving to San Jose as a teenager, Officer Johnson graduated from Gunderson High School in 1995 and joined the San Jose Police Department in 2001, continuing his family's commitment to law enforcement. Those who knew Officer Johnson fondly remember him as a caring and trustworthy colleague who was passionate about his work and loved the community he served. An experienced patrol officer, he was recently promoted to serve as a field training officer and advise new members of the police force. Outside of work, Officer Johnson found joy in hobbies ranging from jujitsu and baking to scuba diving and world travel. He was also an outstanding marksman, winning several awards from the Police and Fire Games. Above all else, Office Johnson is remembered as a loving husband and devoted family man. In 2013, he married the love of his life, Nicole, and they planned to celebrate their marriage this summer with a large formal ceremony in Santa Cruz before starting a family. My heart goes out to Nicole and Officer Johnson's parents Daniel Johnson and Katherine Decker, his step-parents Dann Decker and Penny Johnson, his sister Jamie Radack, his brother-in-law Steve, and his niece Ami and nephew Eli. Officer Johnson's dedicated and courageous service will not be forgotten. On behalf of the people of California and San Jose, whom he served so bravely, I extend my gratitude and deepest sympathies to his family, friends, and colleagues.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my colleagues that when you put a price on carbon, it works. If you look at my State, we are creating jobs in clean energy. We are balancing our budget better than we ever have before. We have strong support from the people of California. I don't know why on Earth we would say no to something that leads to prosperity, jobs, and a clean and healthy environment.