Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 18, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Fulfilling the Promise: Overcoming Persistent Barriers to Economic Self-Sufficiency for People with Disabilities.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2014.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2014, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Assessing and Enhancing Protections in Consumer Financial Services.''

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much, Madam President. I am here because I want to respond to the colloquy that was held on the Keystone Pipeline, but before I go there, I do want to make remarks about the very important vote we are going to be taking today both to keep the government open and to give the President the ability to train and equip vetted Syrian moderates so they can help us take the fight to ISIL. It is my privilege to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee. I have served on it for a very long time, and yesterday we had an important hearing where the Secretary of State laid out the President's plans for how we are going to meet this threat posed by ISIL. I have to say, before I explain the three options you have as an American as far as which option you embrace, I think I need to lay out the view of this organization ISIL or ISIS. There are different ways to describe them. They are an outgrowth of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which came about because of the catastrophic Iraq war that was based on false premises, that put us in the middle of a civil war, and created the worst sectarian tensions. One of my proudest moments was voting no on that. Then the Bush administration said Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/ 11, that he had nuclear weapons, and none of it was so. None of it was so. As a result we got in the middle of this war. We were told it would last 6 months, and then a year went by, another year, years, years, years, and it became one of our longest wars, and 4,000-plus Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded, some with very serious wounds--they will never get over them--and I would say well over $1 trillion that drew us into a terrible recession when we had previously had surpluses. What a nightmare. So that is the beginning of ISIL, an outgrowth of Al Qaeda. There were two authorizations for the use of military force that I got to vote on. One of them was right after 9/11 when I voted to go after bin Laden and Al Qaeda and any other affiliate organization that would come out of Al Qaeda. That is one I voted for. That is why I believe the President has the authority, based on that document, to move forward and take the fight to ISIL. The other authorization for use of force was permission to go into Iraq and go after Saddam Hussein. I voted no on that. I think it is important to the American people to remember why we are facing trouble, but it is what it is. There are some who say--because there are three approaches here--do nothing. There are some who say do nothing. My view is: How can we possibly do nothing in the face of a group that has beheaded two innocent freelance journalists? How can you do nothing in the face of a group that sells 14-year-old girls as slaves? How can you do nothing in the face of a brute, ISIL, who, if they don't sell a 14-year-old as a slave and they let her live, give her to a warrior as a reward? How do we sit back and do nothing? We saw what they did to minorities, the Yazidis. They said: Either you convert, flee, or we will kill you. We cannot sit back. They did it to Christians, Yazidis. They did it to Turkmen. They have taken hostages including more than 40 Turkish hostages. We don't even know the count or what are the nationalities, but we know their intent. This is a quote from them, that they are going to make sure their thirst for American blood is quenched. This is a sick situation, and to the people who say do nothing, I say to them: I understand your concern for unintended consequences, but don't count me in your camp, because I cannot do that. I am so cautious when it comes to voting to go to war. I know it is not easy. We don't know every single thing that can happen, what can go wrong. Things do go wrong. But my view is in this case if I were to sit back and say I am too afraid, I am too nervous, that is exactly the wrong signal to send a group of terrorists such as this. I have never seen a group like this. So one path is to do nothing. The other path is to start up the Iraq war all over again. Colleagues in this Chamber, pounding the table: Troops on the ground. Send our American troops back. No way, no way. I am not going to send our troops back to the middle of a civil war. What we are going to do is another way--President Obama's strategy, which is the moderate strategy here. It is to take our intelligence, our strategy, our Air Force assets, and make sure those in the region who have the most at stake--remember, ISIL has killed more Muslims than anybody else--that they will be the boots on the ground. We see that strategy is working in Iraq. It is early. We don't know how it is all going to go. But we have started this strategy where they will take back key pieces of territory--a dam, very important--and we seem to be able to coordinate well with the Kurds and the Iraqi forces. Clearly our President is right when he says this is about the whole world. The whole world has to care about this, because this is about, truly, civilization, and every civilized person has to stand up against this. What the President is doing with the Secretary of State and our Vice President is they are building coalitions. For the first time we see the Arab nations coming forward. So when I vote today for the continuing resolution, I want it to be clear to my constituents--and they are not all going to agree with me, I know that--that I am in favor of this strategy. I am in favor of training the moderate Syrians to take the fight to ISIL on the ground. And I can tell you because I was in Turkey in August--I had the privilege of meeting with the head of one of the moderate Syrian organizations. His comments were very strong that ISIL is absolutely going against the moderate Syrians. So it is very important that the moderate Syrians are able to fight back against ISIL. That is what we are voting for today, to allow the President to vet, train, and arm the moderate Syrian opposition to the Syrian President and also in that regard go after ISIL. I know everything is complicated in life and nothing is the perfect solution, but if I could say rhetorically, what is wrong is to do nothing. What is wrong is to go back into the Iraq war. What is right is to organize the world through a coalition, use the American assets-- because no one can do what we can do--but on the ground in the combat mission, utilize the regional forces. I wanted to be clear today where I stand. There are three choices, and I choose the path President Obama has put together. I think the vote in the House was a very important vote yesterday because it showed there is a majority of Democrats and Republicans who can come together. Following that, we were in the House this morning to hear the President of Ukraine. It was very touching and very moving. President Poroshenko laid out in the most beautiful language, I thought, because of its simplicity, the beauty of freedom and what they are fighting for. What I loved so much about it was the fact that his speech united everybody in the room. There wasn't one group that sat down or didn't stand up to express their appreciation for what his countrymen are going through. I hope we can get behind this President in this fight against the terror group that is probably the best-funded terror group ever in existence, the most barbaric I have ever seen. I hope there will be a good vote today. I think that would send a very important message that we are sincere and will bring more people to our coalition.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I said I was going to talk about an issue I know the Presiding Officer and I don't agree on. I have total respect for her view. The people of her State are so lucky to have her fighting their fight on energy. The people of my State have a disagreement. We are very fearful about climate change. So we are also worried about the health impact of the tar sands. I am going to make a few comments about why I think we should disrupt the process that is happening now with Keystone. It is a well- established process for considering projects such as this. The purpose of the review process isn't just to waste time. It is to determine whether the construction of the Keystone tar sands pipeline is in fact in the national interest. This is important. It is a major project. In the past, Republicans have attempted to circumvent the review process for Keystone by creating shortcuts that in my opinion put our families' health at risk. I want to show you a chart. It shows you that tar sands oil is one of the filthiest kinds of oil on the planet. Let's look at a place in Texas where we see the tar sands oil being refined. This is Port Arthur. We have had visits from the Port Arthur community, and they said, please, we want to bear witness to the fact that this is what it looks like when these tar sands are burned. It hurts the health of our people. Residents along the gulf coast are suffering from asthma, respiratory illness, skin irritation, and cancer, and to get to the gulf coast the tar sands will be transported by pipeline through communities in environmentally sensitive areas in six States. It will pass through key sources of drinking water. Look what happened in West Virginia when they couldn't drink the water there. It was a nightmare. We have had experience with tar sands. People talk about how the pipeline is one thing, but it is what goes through it that is critical, and what is going to go through it if it gets built is the dirtiest, filthiest kind of water we know. What happens in places such as Detroit and Chicago, where they store the byproduct known as petcoke--take a look at this. This is what it looks like. It looks like filthy, dirty pollution, and unfortunately for the people, that is what it is. When the wind is blowing, we see black clouds containing concentrated heavy metals. Children playing baseball have been forced off the field to seek cover to avoid the black dust that pelts their homes and cars. Petcoke dust is a particulate matter, which is the most harmful of all air pollutants. Why? Its particles are so small, they lodge in your lungs and cause terribly severe asthma attacks, aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body's ability to fight infections. Asthma affects 12 out of every 26 people--and 7 million of those are children. If I could, I would ask the people in the gallery how many of them have asthma or know someone who has asthma. I know a lot of them would raise their hands. It is ubiquitous. We don't need more asthma. There are other ways to go, and my State and other countries are proving it. We can move to clean energy. We need to have a comprehensive human health impact on the tar sands that would go through that pipeline because human health is important. If you can't breathe, you can't work. It is as simple as that. If you can't breathe, you can't go to school and get an education. If you can't drink the water, it is a serious problem. While my Republican friends come down and say: Let's bypass all of this evidence and move forward, that is a dangerous idea. It is a dangerous idea. I went to China about a year ago. You cannot see one foot in front of the other in China. That is how bad the air is because they don't care about the environment. They say: Oh, we don't need rules; we don't need regulations. Build, build, build. Do it, do it, do it, do it. Go and get it out of the ground. There are moments we need to look at what we are doing. We are doing great right now on energy. Under this President we have become more energy efficient. Yes, there are places to drill, there are places to get energy, but it has to be clean and it has to be good. We have just come out of the hottest August ever known to humankind since we began keeping the records in the 1800s. Climate change is so real, the only place they don't know it is here is the United States Senate. They don't know. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Everything is great. Everything is good. My colleague from Vermont is brilliant on this point, and we know the Keystone tar sands pipeline will create 17 percent more carbon than domestic oil. This is a dirty, filthy oil that is the equivalent of adding 5.8 million new cars to the road, or eight new coal powerplants. The State Department has concluded that the annual carbon pollution from just the daily operation of the pipeline will be the equivalent to adding 300,000 new cars on the road. If we do this, we will go backward on climate change. We cannot afford to do it. I know people get impatient with decisionmaking--whether it is deciding how to take the fight to ISIL--and I am glad I have a deliberative President who didn't just say: Do this and this. He thought about it and came up with an idea for a coalition to do it right. When you are looking at something such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is going to vastly increase the importation of this filthy, dirty oil, we ought to take our time. My very last point. I am so proud to chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. Four former Republican EPA Administrators who served under Presidents Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush spoke out on the need to address the danger of climate change. Really, this is not about bipartisanship. Ninety-seven percent of scientists tell us climate change is real and caused by human activity. Please, let's take our time. When we are faced with a project that will set us back--the dirtiest, dirtiest oil--a picture is worth a thousand words, and this is not what I want to leave to our children. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the order?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak until I conclude. It may go over that time, but not by much.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Today I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 100th birthday and extraordinary contributions of former Congressman Don Edwards. Don was born on January 6, 1915, in San Jose, CA, where he attended public schools and graduated from the San Jose High Academy. He then attended Stanford University, where he was a star on the golf team, winning a State medal for match play along with several amateur titles. After graduating in 1936, Don earned his LL.B. at Stanford Law School. In 1940, Don was hired as a special agent by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When World War II broke out, he was activated from the Navy Reserve and served for 4 years as a naval intelligence officer and gunnery officer in the South Pacific, attaining the rank of lieutenant. In the 1950s, Don founded the Valley Title Company and built it into one of the Nation's leading title insurance companies. In 1962, he was elected to Congress. During his 32 years in the House of Representatives, Don Edwards became known as ``the Congressman from the Constitution,'' the leading congressional defender of civil liberties and chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. I was lucky enough to serve with Don for 10 years and see firsthand his steadfast dedication to his home State of California and the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans. In the 1960s, he helped guide landmark civil rights and voting rights legislation through Congress. In the 1970s, he led the efforts to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. A master consensus-builder, he helped forge large bipartisan majorities to pass the Voting Rights Act extension of 1982, Fair Housing Amendments of 1988, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Civil Rights Act of 1991. One of Don's proudest achievements was the creation of the Nation's first urban national wildlife refuge on the southern end of San Francisco Bay. Established in 1974, it was renamed the ``Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge'' in 1995. In 1981, Don married his longtime partner, Edith ``Edie'' Wilkie, director of Congress's Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus, and even after they retired, she remained active in arms control and international peace for the rest of her life. Today Don lives in beautiful Carmel among a tight circle of friends and family, including his sons, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. They will join him in January to celebrate his 100th birthday. As he reaches this milestone, I send him my best wishes, deep affection, and abiding gratitude.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 40th anniversary of Swords to Plowshares, one of the preeminent organizations providing quality, compassionate care and services to veterans in the San Francisco Bay area. In 1974, six veterans concerned about the challenges facing soldiers returning home from Vietnam established a program to help ease their transition to civilian life by providing education, job training, and employment assistance. Swords to Plowshares quickly earned a reputation as a trusted resource for veterans, and over the years it has grown to meet the needs of each new generation of veterans. As veterans came home from Vietnam, Swords to Plowshares created extensive health, social services, legal services, and housing programs to support them. Following the gulf war, Swords began offering programs to address mental health and substance abuse among veterans. As veterans returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, Swords worked with vets and their families to identify gaps in VA services and established the Institute for Veteran Policy to make recommendations to the military and VA to better address the needs of our newest veterans. Today, with the help of more than 100 dedicated staff, Swords provides employment and job training, legal services, and housing assistance to more than 2,000 veterans in the San Francisco Bay area each year. I want to extend my special thanks to Michael Blecker, a U.S. Army veteran who joined Swords in 1976 and has served as its executive director since 1980. I am lucky to have known Michael for more than two decades, and there is no one who has been more dedicated to ensuring that veterans are treated with the dignity they deserve. Our service men and women and their families who have made tremendous sacrifices in service to America deserve not only our deepest gratitude but also our commitment to help them lead healthy and productive lives. As Swords to Plowshares celebrates its 40th anniversary, I offer my profound thanks for all it does to fulfill our sacred obligation to our Nation's veterans.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 85th birthday and extraordinary contributions of my dear friend, the Reverend Cecil Williams. For more than half a century, Reverend Williams has served as the founder and minister of Liberation at Glide Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco, CA. As a minister, community leader, author, lecturer, and champion of the poor and marginalized, Reverend Williams is widely recognized and revered as a national leader in the struggle for civil rights, human rights, and social change. Cecil Williams was born in San Angelo, TX, and from a very young age, this caring and sensitive boy was fondly known as ``the Rev'' by his close-knit family. Cecil grew up in the segregated South, but his strong, loving mother always told her son, ``You are going to be somebody.'' After graduating from Huston-Tillotson University and the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University, Cecil Williams became the pastor of Glide Memorial United Methodist Church at a time when its congregation was dwindling. Reverend Williams embarked on his life's work: to make this church the center of a vibrant community that would reach out to all, particularly the poor, oppressed, and marginalized. Reverend Williams welcomed worshippers of all backgrounds, races, and sexual orientations. In 1964, he helped establish the Council on Religion and Homosexuality an organization dedicated to educating religious communities about gay and lesbian issues and stood up to police who attempted to shut down a dance benefit to raise funds for the new organization. Reverend Williams was also one of the first clergymen to take a stand for same-sex couples by presiding over their weddings four decades before today's struggle to legalize gay marriage. Under his leadership, Glide Memorial thrived and became a cornerstone of the community. He hosted poets, jazz musicians, and political activists at the church and launched a free meals program that serves 750,000 meals a year, feeding more than 3,500 hungry people daily. Today more than 17,000 people participate in Glide programs, volunteering in its community clinic, childcare, and afterschool programs, housing services, and Daily Free Meals program. Reverend Williams is married to Janice Mirikitani, Founding President of the Glide Foundation, and together they direct Glide's many innovative social and cultural programs. In his life and work, Rev. Cecil Williams has embodied Glide Memorial's revolutionary mission: ``to create a radically inclusive, just and loving community mobilized to alleviate suffering and break the cycles of poverty and marginalization.'' I am proud to join his family, friends, and many admirers in celebrating the 85th birthday and extraordinary contributions of Rev. Cecil Williams.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the National Prostate Cancer Council Act with my colleague, Senator Sessions. This bipartisan legislation addresses the urgent need for a national strategy for the accelerated creation, advancement, and testing of diagnostic tools to be used in the fight against prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in the United States, and the second-leading cause of cancer-related death in men. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2014, 233,000 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed and almost 30,000 men will die from the disease. Early detection of prostate cancer saves lives. Unfortunately, current screening techniques result in numerous false-negatives, leaving men at risk to wrongly believe they are cancer-free, and false- positive alarms, which often lead to painful, costly, and unnecessary procedures. In addition, the prostate is one of the few organs in the human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer even when multiple samples are taken. The National Prostate Cancer Council Act mirrors the commitment the Federal government has made to fight Alzheimer's disease under the National Alzheimer's Project Act, which was signed into law in 2011. Similarly, this bill will bring together federal agencies, medical and scientific experts, advocacy organizations, and patient survivors to create a clear national plan for achieving the ultimate goal developing reliable tests that can detect prostate cancer and diagnose its severity. The National Prostate Cancer Council will evaluate our current efforts across all Federal agencies, and it will coordinate those efforts to be more effective. Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services will receive a report from the Council each year detailing the progress made toward fulfilling the national plan. A national strategy and commitment can be the key to diagnosing prostate cancer earlier and more accurately. It will help us identify the best use of our resources and focus on the most pressing needs, ultimately saving lives and reducing unnecessary procedures. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort, and to cosponsor this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the National Prostate Cancer Council Act with my colleague, Senator Sessions. This bipartisan legislation addresses the urgent need for a national strategy for the accelerated creation, advancement, and testing of diagnostic tools to be used in the fight against prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in the United States, and the second-leading cause of cancer-related death in men. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2014, 233,000 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed and almost 30,000 men will die from the disease. Early detection of prostate cancer saves lives. Unfortunately, current screening techniques result in numerous false-negatives, leaving men at risk to wrongly believe they are cancer-free, and false- positive alarms, which often lead to painful, costly, and unnecessary procedures. In addition, the prostate is one of the few organs in the human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer even when multiple samples are taken. The National Prostate Cancer Council Act mirrors the commitment the Federal government has made to fight Alzheimer's disease under the National Alzheimer's Project Act, which was signed into law in 2011. Similarly, this bill will bring together federal agencies, medical and scientific experts, advocacy organizations, and patient survivors to create a clear national plan for achieving the ultimate goal developing reliable tests that can detect prostate cancer and diagnose its severity. The National Prostate Cancer Council will evaluate our current efforts across all Federal agencies, and it will coordinate those efforts to be more effective. Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services will receive a report from the Council each year detailing the progress made toward fulfilling the national plan. A national strategy and commitment can be the key to diagnosing prostate cancer earlier and more accurately. It will help us identify the best use of our resources and focus on the most pressing needs, ultimately saving lives and reducing unnecessary procedures. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort, and to cosponsor this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the two nominees who are coming back to back. I thank Senator Vitter for allowing us to move these forward. I thank the majority leader for bringing them up. We are down on the membership of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We need to fill these positions. One of the nominees is Jeffery Baran. I will be very quick. Mr. Baran has had more than 10 years of experience, including his current role as staff director of energy and commerce on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where he actually oversaw the NRC and he staffed 13 hearings overseeing the NRC. The other nominee is Mr. Stephen Burns, who has served in many roles, most recently as general counsel for the NRC from 2009 to 2012. He has a wide range of experience in policy and enforcement issues. As long as I have been around, I have not seen two more qualified nominees. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and then, when we vote tomorrow, yes on the nominations themselves.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I urge an ``aye'' vote. I yield back all time.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Do I have a minute to speak in favor of this nominee?

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the current business?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in just a few minutes we are going to have a procedural vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act. If we truly believe women and men are equal and should be paid equally, this ought to be an overwhelming vote. The Senate women held a press conference after the last vote. The Republicans gave the first procedural vote so we were able to get to this point, but now we have to have 60 votes in order to move forward with an actual vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act. We all know what this vote is about. It is very simple. It is about women in America having the same opportunity for success as their male counterparts. No one should be paid less just for being a woman. This issue was brought to us front and center by Lilly Ledbetter, who was a manager at a Goodyear tire plant in the South and who discovered just by happenstance that although there were five managers doing the same job--she and four men--she was getting considerably less money. To make a long story short, the courts were stacked against her. At the end of the day, Lilly Ledbetter was told by the Supreme Court that she was too late--she didn't know about this; it took her a long time to know about it--therefore she had no case. We fixed that problem, and we said: No more. We are not going to put a statute of limitations because someone may never find out about this unfair situation for many years and they shouldn't be disqualified from justice. But now we have more problems. We have testimony of people being harassed simply because they want to know whether they are getting paid fairly. I am so grateful to our colleague Senator Mikulski from Maryland for introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act which will help close the wage gap. We may say: Is there truly a wage gap? Yes, there is. Women get paid 77 cents for every dollar made by a man for the same work. That is not every woman. But when we average it all, that is what she gets. In terms of a yearly pay, it is $11,000. I think we ought to look at this $11,000 less a year. What could we buy for $11,000? One year of groceries, in many places a year of rent, in many places a year of daycare or a used car or community college. What does this mean? It means that because the woman is not getting paid fairly, her family suffers, whether in the quality of housing or their food or the quality of daycare, the quality of their car, and certainly the ability of that woman to get an education and move up the scale. Looking at it from a yearly standpoint I think is important, but I asked my staff: Let's look at it over a lifetime and what is the loss to this woman and her family in a lifetime. Almost one-half million dollars--$443,000--in a woman's lifetime if she gets 77 cents instead of a full dollar. What could she do with that? She could pay off one or two mortgages for that, send three kids to the University of California or buy 8,000 tanks of gas. What we don't say here is you need more security, and economic security today, which is so critical. Thanks to science, we are living longer and we know it gets more expensive to live. If I were to tell one of my Republican friends on the other side that somebody came up to a woman, knocked her on the head and took half a million dollars from her and stole it, they would be horrified and they would remedy it. They would bring in the law. Well, I am asking them to simply vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act. Just vote for it. Make sure women in this country earn what they deserve to earn. The wage gap not only hurts our families, it hurts our economy. If you add it all up, it is $200 billion a year in income that would be spent at the grocery, that would be spent at the gas station, that would be spent on vacation, that would be spent on local restaurants or in better housing. In the history of our Nation we have had a lot of fights before over the issue of discrimination. We know you cannot discriminate on pay because of race, disability, or age. What we are saying is you shouldn't be able to discriminate based on your gender. It is wrong. I would say if it were reversed, I would be standing here fighting for the men. It is not right. People have to be paid based on the work they do, and if the work they do is similar to the work of a man, as in the case of Lilly Ledbetter, they should be paid the same. What the Mikulski legislation does is it prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who shares information with their coworkers. Right now if you are around the cooler of your corporation and somebody says: Oh, my God, I cannot afford to get a babysitter for my child, I need a raise, and somebody says: Well, what do you make? And they say: I make X. Believe me, you can be fired for asking those questions. It is wrong. We have seen it happen. We want to make sure if there is a disparity in pay that it is warranted. Sure, if a woman is doing less than a man in a different job, of course that is not the same. We are saying if you do the same work, you have got to get paid the same. We have hundreds of personal stories from all over this great Nation from people who have faced pay discrimination. I have many of these stories from California. One of them is a woman from my State who had an identical advanced degree as her husband, and she landed the exact job as her husband, but they were at different worksites. Her husband was offered $5,000 more in starting salary for the same job with the exact same resume--same job, the woman gets paid $5,000 less. Then there is a health care worker in Long Island. She discovered she had been earning $10 an hour less than her colleagues with the exact experience. When she brought this up to her superiors, which you would expect her to do--you have got to fight for yourself. Don't we tell people that? Stand up, have respect, but ask the right questions. So she brought it up to her superiors. She was reprimanded. She was reprimanded and told not to discuss any type of wage gap. Then there is a female employee from a major corporation in Florida. She was told when she was hired that if she disclosed her salary to other workers, that was grounds for dismissal. So you have somebody who is well trained. She is great. Then you are talking to your friends in the workplace, you mention your salary. She was told in advance that this is grounds for dismissal. This bill is a major step in the right direction. I call on my Republican friends--we don't need many of you--five, is that right-- six, if everyone is here. We need a handful. Stand with women, stand with families, stand for children, stand for equality, stand for justice, stand for what is right. Don't play games with this. Don't take the side of a boss who is exerting all kinds of pressure on a woman to tamp down her salary. I think clearly if we do this together tonight--and I always remain hopeful--if we do this together tonight, what we are going to see is an America that is fair, an America that is just when it comes to our women. I am really glad one of our colleagues is here to discuss this from her perspective. You know, my kids would say to me, ``Mom, this is a no-brainer.'' This is not complicated, equal pay for equal work. We stand for that as Democrats, and we are going to keep on fighting for it. Tonight is that moment in time when we will see whether our Republican friends stand with us to give a fair shot to the women in this country--a fair shot--or they will block us as they have done before. I hope maybe they will see the light tonight. I don't think anything I have said will influence them, but I hope it might, because I do think it is in their interests as well as the interests of the women in this Nation to stand united with the Democrats on this: equal pay for equal work, fairness and justice to the women in this Nation. They deserve it. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes, followed by Senator Merkley, who will speak for 8 minutes, followed by Senator Vitter, who will speak for 10 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I watched every word of the President's address to the Nation last night, and I have this to say to him: Thank you for your clarity. Thank you for taking the time you needed to put the pieces together so that we don't march into another Iraq war. When I hear my colleagues--cheerleaders for the war in Iraq who told us it would be over in 6 months--come down here and try to lecture this President on how to deal with ISIL, I get the chills. When I watch Dick Cheney come up here to talk to House Republicans and lecture them about how they had it right--had it right? They couldn't have had it more wrong. Because we know that the tragedy of 9/11--and as we revere the heroes and mourn the loss of those on that horrific day--was an attack by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It wasn't Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Our then-President Bush turned around--he could have had the whole world in his hand--but instead marches into Iraq. Thank the Lord I voted no on that. I voted yes to going after bin Laden and no to going into Iraq. All those sunny predictions--of the war being only 6 months, and they will have democracy, and we will get the oil and the money, and the rest--turned out to be the worst foreign policy disaster. These same people who backed that war now come down here and tell the President: Look me in the eye and tell me you want to do exactly what I want to do. Well, Mr. President, since they addressed you, I want to address you. First, I thank you for taking your time in putting together a winning strategy to defeat ISIL. We have to. We cannot sit by and watch a group with tens of thousands of members who are vicious and trained--some foreign, some I believe from this country--go around and behead people who won't convert. They want territory. They want to make their own state. We have to stop them with the world, with combat boots that are combat boots of those in the region, such as we are seeing in Iraq, and we will see in Syria if we give the President the funds he wants to train the moderate Syrians. Here is the deal from me: We are going to go after ISIL, we are going to do it with a coalition of the world, we are not going to have a drumbeat of going back into the Iraq war. This is a counterterrorism mission, and I voted for that when I voted to go after Osama bin Laden. I believe the President has this authority. I also have no problem with voting to put my feelings right there and I would be happy to take that vote. But beware of the people here who were the cheerleaders of the Iraq war who want to get this President to now say he is going to put combat boots on the ground. That is the wrong recipe. We already learned that. There are 4,000 dead Americans and tens of thousands wounded. Let's do this the right way and the way the President laid it out-- with a coalition. Let's not make any of the same mistakes. So, Mr. President, please keep on track--and Secretary Kerry--and keep building that coalition. We already have nine nations and NATO and the Arab League, and we are going to get the U.N. That is the way to go. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor to Senator Merkley.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we all know that our ally Israel is in a fight for survival because a terrorist group, so named by the United States and Europe, is at war with Israel right now. We remember how it all started, with the kidnapping of three Israeli boys and the torture and the deaths, and Hamas praised that. Tragically, there was a revenge killing, and the Israeli Government arrested the Israelis responsible for that and they are going to face justice, while Hamas praises-- praises--what happened. Today I spoke to the Ambassador, and this is what I heard him say-- and I haven't fact-checked this, but as I understand it there was a cease-fire in place, all sides agreed everything was clear. Israel was going to be allowed to clear out the tunnels which are being used to open to Hamas the country of Israel, where they go under the ground and they have one objective--to kill Israelis, to torture them, to kidnap them. No country--no country--could ever live with that, no country-- not our country. Imagine if we had 100 rockets a day coming from Mexico or Canada or from the sea, either side. We would never ever sit back for that. We would never sit back if under our great cities we had terrorists building tunnels so they could sneak in suicide bombers to kill our people. Here we had a cease-fire, and I know the Secretary of State worked hard. Yet and still what happened, even though it was known that Israel was permitted to continue clearing out these tunnels, a suicide bomber blew himself up, killed Israeli soldiers and someone else grabbed and kidnapped--we think--we think--an Israeli soldier. We don't know all the facts on it. This must be condemned. We have a bill, Senator Blunt and I, and it has 81 cosponsors on it. It is the Israeli American strategic partnership act, and it will send a strong signal today that we stand with Israel. We want peace. We want justice. We want a good life for the Israelis and the Palestinian people. But you cannot do it when you have a terrorist organization running, in essence, the Gaza Strip. In this bill Senator Blunt and I have worked on, there is a visa waiver section, and I want to go over that because I fear we may have objections to this. I am hoping not, I still hope we won't, but in this visa waiver section it does three things: First, it expresses the sense of the Senate that Israel should be designated as a program country under the Visa Waiver Program. Second, it urges United States engagement with Israel to help it meet the requirements of the waiver program; i.e., when Israelis come over they pay attention to the time on their visas and they go back to their country when the time is up. Third, it authorizes but doesn't require the administration to waive a nonimmigrant visa waiver requirement only if Israel meets all the other program requirements. Here is what is important. There are 38 countries in the Visa Waiver Program. These countries represent some of America's closest allies. In fact, 20 of the current Visa Waiver Program countries are NATO allies. So I want to say clearly to my friend Senator Sessions and anyone within the sound of my voice that the provision I hope he will not object to today, the provision gives Israel, the strongest ally of the United States in the Middle East, a chance to join the program. As a member of the Visa Waiver Program, Israeli citizens, many of whom have families in America, would be allowed to visit the United States for up to 90 days without first obtaining a visa. This deepens the ties between our nations. I want to read some of the countries that have these privileges: Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Estonia, the Czech Republic. I was proud to support them, but I am also proud to say that Israel deserves to be on that list. Why shouldn't they have the same opportunity? When we first wrote our visa waiver provision, there were objections that we didn't have enough flexibility. We changed it and now we have 81 sponsors on this legislation. I would ask, how many pieces of legislation have 81 cosponsors? You couldn't even get it for a Mother's Day resolution. I mean this is strong. And of all the times for us to object to this United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, it should not be today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 492, S. 2673; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I won't be long, but I am so disappointed. I know my friend wants to be helpful, but I have to say that the visa waiver section--I am not being stubborn about this--all it does is it says that Israel should have the same privileges as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the Czech Republic. Of all the days to say no to this bill, with what is going on over there. It hurts my heart. It breaks my heart, because this bill authorizes $200 million in the value of U.S. weapons sales in Israel to a total of $1.8 billion. It is a stockpile that is intended to be used by U.S. forces, but in event of emergency, Israel can tap that. And, my God, this is an emergency. It is so critical. In fact, just last week the United States provided Israel with ammunition from the stockpile after Israel requested help to replace its depleted supplies. We shouldn't be waiting another hour to pass this, and here we are as the clock ticks down and we go off on our break and as my friend knows, this bill doesn't cost one slim dime--not one slim dime--not one penny. It is such a signal to Israel that we stand with her. It also has an energy section where we help Israel develop her natural gas supplies to become energy independent. It is so sad for me today. Last night Senator Corker had an objection. He cleared it. He and I had a real go-to on it. I know we had a bit of a misunderstanding. He backed off. I am so appreciative. Then Senator Coburn had a problem, and he backed off and he said, ``No, I kind of like this section.'' Then Senator Lee had a problem and Senator Coburn talked to Senator Lee and Senator Lee was fine. We have 81 people on this bill, and 1 Senator this afternoon is holding it hostage because he doesn't like the program. Well, we can all work together on the program, but why single out Israel because you don't like the program? Let this go. We can have a colloquy. We can work together, Senator Sessions. We can make sure there is no abuse here. We changed this so we would be sure there is no abuse. I am very saddened at this, and all I can say is that Senator Blunt and I are coming back with this bill over and over and over again, and one way or the other we will get it done. I say to my friends in Israel: Take heart. Eighty-one of our Senators are with you on this bill, and only a handful haven't even gone on, and only one--only one--objected. So take heart, because we are with you and we will get this done. Mr. President, that is the end of my remarks, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if it would be more convenient for you to come to the desk, I am happy to sit in the Chair. Since the Presiding Officer can't answer my question, I will note the absence of a quorum.