Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is really almost hard to know where to start in my opposition to this amendment, but let me say that some people call it devolution, meaning you devolve all responsibility for the highways and transits to the States. I call it not devolution but complete and utter destruction of a system that has been in place that the States have grown to count on. That is why the States that my friend speaks from, the States' point of view--they oppose this amendment strongly. AASHTO--they represent not one State but every single State. There are so many things my friend said that we can't refute--that a State should have the right to spend whatever they want. Sure, they can. They can spend anything they want right now. But they count on the basic bread and butter of these grants. If we look at history, it has been Republican Presidents who have stepped to the plate on this all through history. That is why I think this is so radical. It is shocking to me. It is shocking to me because some of the biggest proponents of the Interstate Highway System and aid to the States have been Republican Presidents. Let's be clear. If, God forbid, this were to become the law, immediately the States would see a cut in their transportation funding of 80 percent. That is my friend's answer to gridlock--cut the funding to the States by 80 percent. The last time I heard and listened, we were one nation under God, indivisible. That is why the visionary Dwight Eisenhower saw this. He knew we had to be able to move equipment. He knew logistics because he was a general. He knew we were one Nation, sea to shining sea. And my friend would have us lose that. I really wish my colleague Senator Inhofe would come to the floor because I think he has a voting record that is as conservative as any, and he feels transportation is a basic function, along with defense. I think it is important to note that counties and cities and States depend on this program, and they have for years. Again, this is a national interest, to have this one Nation. If we really want to see Republicans and Democrats united around the country, look at who is opposing the Lee amendment: the American Trucking Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Highway Users Alliance, the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association, the general contractors, the Associated Equipment Distributors, and the Association of Equipment Manufacturers. And if they agreed with Senator Lee--set us free; set us free; we are going to build so much--I don't know what he is talking about, set us free. Set us free with 80 percent less money? That is really great. What are we going to build? Nothing. We are going to have to raise taxes. I was a county supervisor. That doesn't work. Proponents of this amendment weakly claim that with the completion of the interstate system, we don't need a Federal role in transportation. Well, guess what. We have to maintain our Federal highways even though they have been built. We have to maintain our bridges even though they have been built. I said on a TV show the other day: I know I have gotten a little older. I need more maintenance. That is just the way it is. I am not happy about it. Stop laughing. But that is a fact of life. So don't tell me ``we are free at last; do away with this'' and then think the States are going to be happy when the very States my friend says he speaks for are totally against his amendment. We would be massively cutting transportation infrastructure spending. Let's talk about the impact on thousands of businesses and millions of workers. I don't know if we have the picture of the stadium. I wish to show my friend--when he comes here and makes an ideological speech, I like to talk about the real world. Here is the real world. This is a Super Bowl game. This is a stadium that holds 100,000 people. We have seven stadiums full of unemployed construction workers. He wants to cut the Federal involvement by 80 percent. Just don't see some of these workers. It started out that we filled 20 of these stadiums in the height of the recession. Now we have got it down to seven, and we still don't have enough work. And this isn't make work. This is work our American businesspeople want. This is work our American workers want. This is work that can't be outsourced. This is work that pays a good wage. What a time to cut back our investment by 80 percent and sock it to the workers. The same people who vote for this amendment won't raise the minimum wage--support this pension smoothing that is taking away dollars from our employees' pensions. So I am at my wit's end to understand. My friend is a nice man, and I know he believes this. But don't come on the floor and say let's forget about Eisenhower's vision and have a new vision, which is that there is no more Federal role. Some will get up and say: Maybe it is better to do this than to do nothing. Maybe this is better. No. We have to do our job around here, and that is a multiyear bill. We are faced with a short-term extension because we haven't done our work. Senators Carper and Corker and I are going to put forward an amendment that is going to force us to do our work in December if we are lucky enough to have it passed. We hope it will pass because if we vote for that amendment, we are cutting back the short-term money we have to pay, and we are cutting back the time. And that is good. But we are not walking away from the responsibility we have as a nation, one nation under God, indivisible, from sea to shining sea, a vision of America that my friend's amendment would destroy. It is not devolution, it is destruction, and I hope we will vote no. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Corker for his remarks because I have been here a while, and I haven't heard a more honest speech in my life on the Senate floor. I haven't heard a more passionate speech, a speech in which the Senator just spoke from his heart and with his brain, which is quite competent. I thank the Senator for it because there are some times when you do feel like shouting. I guess that was a movie, ``I Can't Take It Anymore.'' It is ridiculous that we are where we are. We knew for 2 years--2 years--that the highway trust fund was going to run out of money. We knew it for 2 years. That is why in May Senator Vitter and I, Senator Carper, Senator Barrasso, and others on both sides of the aisle passed a 6-year bill. We knew it was coming. We wanted to wake up our colleagues. And we did wake them up but, sadly, to a short-term fix instead of a long-term fix, a multiyear bill. I so agree with my friend. It is the political will that is lacking. There is always an excuse followed by an excuse. The next thing we know they will say: The dog ate my homework. We have heard every excuse. And the Senator is so right. We will be in Presidential races, and then we will start with more Senate races and more congressional races, and people won't want to take a tough vote again. This is the greatest Nation on Earth, but we have to reflect the greatness in our work here, and we are not. The one thing I disagree with my friend on--he said we are only doing one thing in this amendment. We are actually doing two things in this amendment. One is we are getting rid of that gimmick called pension smoothing. I have kind of studied it over the last few weeks to really understand what we are doing, which is when you use this pension smoothing, you are saying to companies: Don't put any money into your pension obligations. And through some smoke and mirrors--because then it means they get to pay a little more income taxes--by the way, some don't pay more income taxes--it comes out a plus. The fact is, it is in essence telling companies they don't have to set aside money for their workers' pensions. That is not something that is good, especially since the pension guaranty corporation is short $34 billion. I don't know if my friend knows this. The last time we used pension smoothing for a short-term fix, at least we had in the committee a comparable measure that ensured that companies gave more to the pension guaranty corp. So although they had a chance not to put the money into the pensions, they did have to pay more to the pension guaranty corp. If the pension guaranty corp. isn't there--the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. is broke--the taxpayers have to pick up the tab. I am looking at my friend in the Presiding Officer's chair, the Senator from Massachusetts, Ms. Warren, who knows what happens when everybody is broke and the Federal Government says: Oh my God. That is too big to fail. So this attack that you make on smoothing as a gimmick--it is worse than a gimmick because it has real-life impacts, and those real-life impacts are that the companies aren't putting aside enough money. So let's think about what we are saying. We are saying the highway trust fund is going broke, so to fix it we are going to endanger another fund, the pension funds of our workers. That is terrible. That is why I love the Carper-Corker-Boxer amendment, and I thank my friends for their leadership on the pay-for. It does two things, this good amendment. It says we are not going to use the smoothing; we are going to protect our pensions. Secondly, we are going to attack the long-term issues of the highway trust fund in December, in the lameduck, after the elections, and everybody knows that is the best time to do it. So I stand proudly with my friends. I hope we pass this. I don't know what happens or what the House will do, but my dad used to say you can only control what you can control. We can't control them, but we can control us. So I hope anyone listening to this debate--I am going to support the Wyden amendment because it does strip some of the pension smoothing. I am going to oppose the Toomey amendment and the Lee amendment because I think they are dangerous, and I am going to strongly support the Carper-Corker-Boxer amendment. I thank my colleagues. I know there is some very important business about to come to the floor, so I will yield the floor at this time.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Klobuchar from the bottom of my heart for writing such a sensible resolution. People who do not know Amy Klobuchar, as I know her, may not know that she is terrific at bringing both sides together. She does it every day of the week. I could list all of the issues, but I will not take the time to do that. The record speaks for itself. But on this one, on this simple statement of fact, our Republican friends will not even let that go. This is amazing. This is not a document that says this is how we should fix climate change or this is how we should address it. She does not get into that. She stays away from that because there are legitimate differences. Some people say: Let's keep on making more electric cars. Some people say: Let's focus on energy efficiency in our homes. Some people say: Shut down the old coal powerplants. It is dangerous to breathe that air. They are adding to the problem. She does not get into that. All she does in this beautifully elegant and simple resolution is state the facts. First, the resolution acknowledges that the National Climate Assessment report, which is congressionally required--the Congress set it up--states that serious impacts are happening all around us. That report was drafted by more than 300 experts. Guess what it shows? This is what she points out. There are more frequent heat waves, wildfires, and droughts. Coming from California, I can tell you, we are in a terrible fire season. We go to bed at night not knowing what we are going to hear in the morning when we wake up about the raging wildfires in our great State. We see them in all of our neighboring States as well, whether it is Washington, or Oregon or Arizona. The least we can do is acknowledge we have more frequent fires, that we have a terrible drought in the West, and that this is a fact in evidence. It is not a fact not in evidence. Second, the resolution acknowledges that our top military leaders at the Pentagon have concluded the impacts of climate change are a growing concern. Sometimes when the military makes a statement it is hard to understand it. This one is really clear. Do you know what they say? They say that climate change is moving from a threat multiplier to a catalyst for conflict. Let me say that again. They used to think it was a threat multiplier. So if there was a problem, say, in Syria, where there is a horrific drought--and some people think that whole conflict has a lot of roots in that drought--where it used to be a multiplier, now they are saying it could actually be the reason why there are conflicts. Now, I cannot believe my Republican friends would cast away the words of our military leaders and stand up here and object to this resolution. All it says is: Climate change is happening. These are the people who say it is happening. It is a risk to the American people if we do not address it. Now, I will close with this. In our committee Senator Whitehouse had an incredible hearing he organized. It was amazing. I sat through the entire hearing. He invited four former Republican EPA Administrators who served under the last four Republican Presidents: Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George W. Bush. Now, listen to this. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George W. Bush--all of these former administrators said: Climate change requires action now, and it should not be a partisan issue. I ask rhetorically: When did the environment become a partisan issue? When I first got into politics--it was a while ago--but it was completely bipartisan. We addressed this issue together because the health of the American people, the ability to go to work and breathe clean air and not have an asthma attack or a heart attack, the desire to make sure our kids are swimming in safe, clean water and drinking clean water. This wasn't partisan. The latest thing we know--and this is critical to put in the Record at this time--is that when we clean up dirty, filthy carbon pollution, we also make sure the air is cleaner to breathe. This is critical. That is why the administration's plan is going to lead to healthier communities. We can't afford to sit around here debating whether climate change is real. We can't afford that. All we wanted to say in this resolution and all Senator Klobuchar says is that climate change is happening. The experts are telling us. The peer review scientists are telling us. The military is telling us. Everybody is telling us. Yes, as Senator Whitehouse said, there is a small group of people-- there always has been and there always will be--but we didn't wait before we protected our people from tobacco smoke because 10 percent of the scientists said: No, no, no, it doesn't cause cancer. I would love to be able to bring back the lives of those lost when the tobacco companies put their dirty money all around the Capitol and stopped us from acting. I am proud to stand with my friends. When history is written--trust me on this one--they are going to look at us and say: What did they do? What did they do to step to the plate? President Obama did, and we are protecting his rules here. But we have a job to do. It all starts with acknowledging that there is a problem. If you don't acknowledge that there is a problem, you will never fix it. I thank my friend Senator Klobuchar for her leadership, and I hope she will not be deterred because I want to be back on this floor with her, Senator Whitehouse, and others as many times as she is willing to put this forward because it is that important. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I agree and also commit to providing Senator Paul an opportunity to offer and get a vote on his repatriation amendment when the Senate considers a long-term highway bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very proud to be on the floor this evening with colleagues for whom I have a great deal of respect. We have been working so hard across party lines to call the Nation's attention to the problems we are facing funding our transportation system. We all know there are many things in the world we cannot control and many things that are causing tremendous frustration. I went home this weekend and my constituents came up to me and said: Senator, we cannot even look at our television sets with the tragedies that are unfolding. They feel, as I do and I know our President does, that the tragedies we are witnessing have been born out of historic animosities, and it is very difficult. If we could wave our wand and make things better in all of these areas, we would do so. We will try, and we will push. We are having a meeting with the Foreign Relations Committee, and we are going to move to speak sanity to the world. There is a crisis we can avert and there is a problem we can solve, and that is fixing the highway trust fund shortfall. For those who don't know, the highway trust fund was created by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. He created the trust fund, and it was a brilliant move because he realized and said that we are developing an Interstate Highway System. He said, this is one country, and we have to be united, a physically united country, so we can move goods and people and make this country work. Since then, we have always had bipartisan support for the trust fund. Why is it in trouble? The trust fund is in trouble because the Federal tax gas receipts have not kept pace with inflation and the rising cost of keeping highways and bridges safe. Some of our bridges are well over 50 years old. I have lived a while, and I can tell you that when you get a little older, you need a little attention, and the fact is our infrastructure is aging and we have to pay attention to it. This is not the time to walk away from this crisis. Some may wonder why Senator Boxer is showing a photo of a football stadium. This is actually a picture of one of the Super Bowls. There are 100,000 people in this photograph. Do you know there are 700,000 unemployed construction workers? They would fill seven of these stadiums. The good news is there used to be 2 million unemployed construction workers at the height of the recession. We have gotten it down to 700,000, but we still cannot afford this. What is the economic impact of the failure to act? It is pretty simple--millions of jobs. Because you have the construction jobs, and then you have all the benefits to communities when we have the workers around there--whether it is our cities, being able to have restaurants that are filled, and all the kinds of things which happen when you put people to work in a community. Millions of jobs and thousands of businesses depend on the highway trust fund and those businesses and those workers are counting on us. You may say: Is there really a problem? Well, 70,000 of our bridges are structurally deficient. Keep these numbers in mind in case you are asked about it at a party--70,000 bridges are deficient and 700,000 construction workers are unemployed and 50 percent of our highways are in less than good condition. Is this a frivolous issue we are talking about here? The 2012 Urban Mobility Report from Texas A&M said the financial cost of traffic congestion in 2011 was $121 billion, or about $818 per commuter. Of that total, about $27 billion was wasted time and diesel fuel from trucks moving goods on the system. A 2013 survey by the National Association of Manufacturers says 65 percent answered that our infrastructure is insufficient. I will tell you some of the ideas to fix it. I am not just out here saying words. I have ideas on how to fix it. One of the ideas was put forth by Senators Murphy and Corker. We will hear from Senator Corker in a moment. One of their suggestions was to modify the gas tax to meet current needs, and that is pretty straightforward. We have been doing this forever. It is very simple and supported by the Chamber of Commerce and supported by just about everybody. There is another way to do it that was thought of by the Republican Governor of Virginia. I support this. Let me be clear, I will support all of these measures. The second suggestion is to replace the existing cents-per-gallon gas tax with a fee on the wholesale price of gasoline from the refinery. I like that because it is a broader way to pay for it. I drive an electric hybrid, and as a result, I don't fill my car very often. In 2 years we filled it up 4 times. I am not paying my fair share. This would be a more broad-based fee. The third suggestion is repatriation, which is a very interesting concept, and I know Senator Paul supports it. It is complicated in terms of the way it scores, but the fact is it would bring in $23 billion over the first couple of years, and it would give a break to some of our businesses. So many of my colleagues spent so much time on this. I will not go on except to read the names of the supporters of this legislation. The supporters of the proposal that Senators Murphy and Corker have proposed are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AAA, the American Trucking Association. This is huge. Also, we have received letters from so many people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter I received today from Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and 11 of his predecessors who served 7 Republican and Democratic Presidents-- Johnson, Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama--printed in the Record. They all wrote an open letter saying that we need to pass a long-term transportation bill.

Mrs. BOXER. We did it in the Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator Carper and I led the charge with Senators Vitter and Barrasso. We did our job. We were able to come together with Senator Sessions, Senator Vitter, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Sanders--left to right--in our committee. They came together to agree on a 6-year bill. So what is the problem? It is ridiculous. Unfortunately, the House-- and this is not good--decided to kick the can down the road--I know it is a cliche, but it is true--until the end of May. Do you know what it means? It means we will not do anything until then, and it will be right up against the new construction season. Nobody will enter into a long-term contract between now and then. And so we are hoping we can change the way the House and the Finance Committee thought about it, and my colleagues have been leading on this issue. I am on the Carper-Corker-Boxer amendment that would say: Instead of funding this highway bill through next year, get our work done this year. Who is supporting getting it done this year? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, National Association of Manufacturers, Associated General Contractors, American Trucking Associations, International Union of Operating Engineers, and LiUNA. If anybody knows politics, they know these groups hardly ever agree on a darn thing, and they agree we should act this year. I am proud of my friend here, for whom I will yield shortly. I support their efforts wholeheartedly and will do everything I can to ensure we don't just do smoke-and-mirrors. Explain to me when you do the smoke-and-mirrors--taking the pension and controlling how people get coverage through their pensions--how that has anything to do with transportation. The gas tax? Yes. A tax on oil? Yes. Let's think about this. Let's step to the plate and do what is right. I am very proud to be in concert with my friend, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the division of Cyprus, which began on July 20, 1974. On July 20, 1974, Turkey began its brutal invasion of the island of Cyprus. By August 25, 1974, Turkish forces controlled more than one- third of the island. To this day, Cyprus remains divided. Forty years later, it is long past time for a permanent solution that results in a free and unified Cyprus. For decades, numerous rounds of negotiations have attempted to achieve a settlement. For too long, these efforts have failed to yield meaningful progress. However, a new round of talks began in February of this year. I am deeply hopeful that these negotiations will result in a fair and durable solution for all Cypriots. A secure and stable Republic of Cyprus will strengthen the friendship and alliance between the United States and Cyprus. This relationship is based on our long history and our mutual goals and values, including a commitment to democracy, opportunity for all, and human rights. Lasting peace in Cyprus will also reinforce Cyprus's role as a force for peace, prosperity, and stability in the region. That is why we must continue to do everything possible to help Cyprus resolve the decades-long illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus by Turkey. As Vice President Biden said in May during his historic visit to Cyprus, ``For the sake of the boys and girls born on this island who deserve the possibility that only peace can bring, let's finally make hope and history rhyme together.''

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I am proud to follow my colleague from New Jersey, and I am proud to say I am a cosponsor of Senator Murray's bill and Senator Udall's bill, the Udall-Murray bill, that is going to make sure we protect the health of our families. I am going to put up a beautiful photograph of the Supreme Court where above the portico these words are inscribed: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' We have reprinted them here. I am going to keep this for the remainder of my remarks, because I think that is the essential issue before us. Those four words are the promise of our country that every American should be treated equally, should be respected, should be honored. I wish to note that these words don't say: Equal justice under law except for women. They don't say: Equal justice under law except for birth control. And they don't say: Equal justice under law as long as it is OK with your boss. The beauty of this Nation is we respect each other's rights and freedoms, and we have shed blood to make sure those freedoms are protected. Yet with this Hobby Lobby ruling, five men, who happen to be appointed by Republicans, decided that a corporation has the power to deny me or to deny you coverage of critical health care for us and for our families. What is very upsetting to me is that they have seized on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to justify giving for-profit companies the sweeping power to deny their employees access to affordable birth control, and we believe it will prove to be other health care benefits required under Federal law. I speak as someone who voted for the Kennedy bill, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that if anybody thinks Ted Kennedy wanted to deny access for birth control, then they didn't know Ted Kennedy and they didn't read at all the Record as we debated that bill. I voted for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it was written to protect an individual's freedom of religion so that if I, as a religious individual working for a corporation, don't want to use the birth control coverage, I don't have to. But if I want to, I make that choice. If I, as an independent individual, want to vaccinate my child, it is covered under law, under the insurance. I can if I want to. No one can force me to do that. The idea behind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was to protect the individual, and I quote: ``Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion.'' Let me repeat: ``a person's exercise of religion.'' It doesn't say a corporation's exercise of religion, your boss's exercise of his religion. It was about protecting the individual. What the conservative majority of the Court did 2 weeks ago turned the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on its head. As someone who supported that act, it made me angry, sad--put in the adjective. It is wrong to reinterpret what a law meant. It stood the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on its head when they ruled a corporation can put its own ideology ahead of the religious freedom and health care needs of its employees. A female employee should be able to decide whether to use birth control. And that is not all that is at stake after the Hobby Lobby decision, because we know if you follow their logic that if a corporation can deny birth control because of a religious objection, what if they object to a blood transfusion? There are certain religions that do. Then the employee can't get a blood transfusion. And what if they object to a vaccine or HIV treatment? Then, in order for employees to have access to those treatments, they wouldn't have the insurance. We all know, from looking at the real world, if you don't have insurance, these treatments become very expensive and you may not be able to avail yourselves of them. Chief Justice John Roberts, during oral arguments in the Hobby Lobby case, made it clear that Congress can fix this and override the Court's decision, and I agree. That is why I am so thankful to Senator Murray and Senator Udall for working so hard and so fast so we can have the remedy right now. It is important that we act fast. People are very confused out there as to what they can count on in their insurance coverage. We are going to have a vote on this tomorrow. It is a cloture vote to end debate so we can actually get to a vote on the substance. Sadly, it means we need 60 votes, a supermajority. But I hope and frankly pray that we get those 60 votes because we need to protect women's health. The Murray-Udall bill is called the Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act, but they have nicknamed it Not My Boss's Business Act, which I like. It is not my boss's business what I decide to do. It would require employers to follow the Federal law when offering health insurance to their employees, notwithstanding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which, as I said, I believe the Court stood on its head. It was meant to protect individuals, not corporations, not your boss. The bill says corporations cannot hide behind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to deny their workers coverage to the benefits we have in law. More than 180 House and Senate lawmakers have cosponsored this bill so far, and I hope our colleagues will vote for it. I was saying we need to act fast because there is confusion out there. Virtually so many women rely on birth control at some point in their lives, it is amazing. Sixty percent of women who take birth control, 6.5 million American women, do so in whole or in part to treat painful and difficult medical conditions. Let me say that again. One may take a birth control pill for birth control, but there are many other uses for that pill; 1.5 million women out of the 6.5 million who use it, at least in part for other conditions, use it solely as a medication to treat those painful and difficult conditions. By allowing employers to deny coverage for contraception, the Court is depriving many women and families of health care. Surveys have shown that 55 percent of young women, aged 18 to 34, struggle to afford birth control, which can cost as much as $600 per year. Maybe the Supreme Court Justices in their ivory tower think that is not a lot of money, but let me state, for women working the minimum wage, even for women earning more than the minimum wage, it is quite a hit to their pocketbooks. Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent that a woman earning the minimum wage would spend nearly an entire month's wage to get an IUD, $1,000. Imagine. This case has unjustly singled out women's health services. I have to make a note here. I do not know of any employer that is dropping coverage for Viagra. I don't. I have asked around. I have been on TV, I have invited folks to let me know. Oh, no, Viagra is fine; birth control is not fine. Just put the pieces together yourself. I think this decision discriminates against women, and in the slippery slope argument you are going to see it affect everyone. And we need to listen to the women who rely on birth control to improve their health and the health of their families. Let me tell you a few stories. Raquel from Sacramento was diagnosed with non- Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2010. After her treatment her doctors told her she needed to use birth control to ensure she did not become pregnant for the next 3 years because she was really sick. Luckily, her employer covers birth control and now, happily, 4 years later she is pregnant with her first child. What could have happened to her if she had gone through an unintended pregnancy? It could have been pretty devastating. What if she had worked for a different employer who refused to offer her that birth control? Her health and the health of her child would have been at risk and that would have been tragic. So let's listen to her. Let's listen to Katherine from Pleasant Hill, CA, who relies on birth control after having her first child. Both my husband and I want to be the best possible parents for our son, and having another child so soon would hurt our ability to do that. A variety of affordable birth control options are crucial for me and for all first-time moms like me! Many years ago I was on the board of Planned Parenthood, and what we said all the time was that our dream was that every child be a wanted child--a wanted child. As a parent myself and as a grandparent I tell you right now it takes a lot to raise a child. Hillary Clinton said it takes a village. It certainly takes loving parents, and it takes a loving family. It certainly costs money, and it certainly takes energy. We want our families to be healthy. We want our families to be productive, and birth control is a success story. It breaks my heart that women just like Katherine who work at Hobby Lobby and other for- profit corporations now could be denied access to affordable health care unless we fix this. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was not about giving your boss the power over you like this. It was about giving you the right to make your own choices and decisions. We need to listen to women like Ariana in Redding, CA, who wrote: I am a recent college graduate trying to make ends meet and pay off my student loans. It is a great relief to know I can get the birth control I need without a copay. These are real stories. If the boss doesn't like that you choose birth control, that is his right. If he wants to sit down with his daughter and tell her his religious objection, and if she agrees with him, that is fine. I mean, that is what America is about. But don't take your religious beliefs, your ideology, your biases, your prejudices, and your opinions and foist them on your employees. That is not this country. That is not what we are about. Shouldn't we care more about the rights of women and their families than the rights of a few employers who can exercise that in their families? This bill we are going to vote on is critical, and I hope it won't die as a result of partisanship. We have to rise above partisanship around here. ``Equal justice under law''--that is what it says over the portico. And frankly, there is another issue. If you look at what has happened to the rates of abortion since we have seen more use of birth control, they are going down. There has been a study in one of our Nation's big cities that proved that because there was broad use of birth control, abortions went down by 50 percent. Imagine. So if that is our concern regardless of whether we are pro-choice or not, we shouldn't be embracing decisions that make it more difficult for women to get access to birth control. So equal justice under the law doesn't say: ``except for women.'' It doesn't say: ``except if my boss disagrees with me.'' It is pretty beautiful. It is pretty clear. It is something that we have to respect. It is for the ages, and tomorrow we are going to see if our colleagues agree. Every Senator must take a stand tomorrow for individual liberty. When we vote tomorrow, let's be reminded: Women are watching. The American people will hold each of us accountable if we fail to protect their rights and their ability to decide what is best for their families. I have been around a while. I was around when one of the Bushes was actually on the board of Planned Parenthood--George Herbert Walker Bush. Suddenly this issue is back--birth control--and suddenly we are arguing over it again. So I say this. I may be wearing a white jacket, but it is not a white doctor's coat. I am not a doctor, and I don't want to put myself, as a politician, in between a woman and her doctor or in between a family and their doctor. Let's leave important health care choices where they belong: with women, with families, with doctors, and not with politicians, in the Senate or Justices sitting in a courtroom. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a number of topics to go over, and I will do this as briefly as I can because I know colleagues want to put forward a unanimous consent request. In our work every day something happens, and I feel compelled to talk about a few of these things. But before I begin my remarks, I wish to send a message of condolence to all those parents who have lost their children to violence in our country, in the Middle East, and all over the world. Children and all innocents must be protected in a truly civilized world. We need to work toward that day, we have to pray for that day, and it is going to take people who care in order to make that happen. When somebody said you have to walk and chew gum at the same time when you are a Senator, they were more than right. There are so many issues coming at us, and I am going to speak about a few of them. I will start off with the crisis we face in the highway trust fund. I wish to call attention to a transportation government shutdown which will happen in 25 days unless we save the highway trust fund. In August we have a slowdown in payments to the States, and it is very serious. Unless Congress takes action, billions of dollars in transportation funding to the States will be delayed or stopped. I see Senator Corker is here and I know he is here on another topic, but I thank him for his courage in working across the aisle and saying: We need to pay for our roads and our bridges. I see Senator Klobuchar is on the floor. She knows what it means when a bridge collapses, for goodness sake. You have to be able to pay for certain things in this country. We could argue about frills around the edges, but I don't think anyone would disagree with you if you went out on the street and asked whether the United States of America should have a grade A transportation system. DOT, the Department of Transportation, sent out letters to all of our States warning that the fund is in a dire situation and we have to act. In 74 days the trust fund goes completely bankrupt if we don't come up with the additional revenue. Here is where we are. In 85 days, we actually have to reauthorize the whole program, and in 25 days, the payments slow down. Why is this happening? It is because Federal gas tax receipts that are paid into the trust fund have not kept pace with inflation or the rising cost of building our bridges and highways. There are thousands of businesses and millions of jobs at risk if we do not act, and that is why we have so many people supporting the reauthorization of the trust fund and figuring out a way to pay for that. We have the Chamber of Commerce, and they are aligned with the AFL- CIO. This is a rarity. Usually those groups are fighting each other, but we have unanimity here: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Associated General Contractors. As I said, the AFL-CIO. The Associated Equipment Distributors, the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the International Unions of Operating Engineers. We have 70,000 bridges in disrepair, which are called structurally deficient. We have 50 percent of our highways which are not up to par. What are we doing? I can tell my colleagues what we are not doing. We are not doing our job. Now, I can brag just for a minute. Senator Vitter and I were able to get a bill unanimously through the Environment and Public Works Committee--not one dissenting vote. I have to say to my colleagues who are listening, that committee is an object in the diversity we bring here. We have Bernie Sanders. We have Jim Inhofe. We have Barbara Boxer. We have David Vitter. We have John Barrasso. We have Sheldon Whitehouse. We have Ben Cardin and we have Senator Fischer. So we have a broad diversity. I have to mention Senator Sessions and Senator Gillibrand and Senator Booker. This is a committee that represents the ideological spectrum of the Senate. I will tell my colleagues we passed a bill out for 6 years. We know it has to be paid for, but I think we were very reasonable in what we said. We said, look, this isn't the time for a giant new increase. We kept it at current levels of spending, plus inflation. God bless Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch. They are working on a plan to pay for this bill. We have colleagues, as I mentioned, including Senator Murphy and Senator Corker, who came together and said: Look, the Chamber of Commerce makes a good point. We haven't raised the gas tax in a very long time. If we do a few cents a year, we will be able to patch up this trust fund--and more than patch it up--get it going for 6 years. Today, leading groups representing bipartisan State and local officials sent a letter urging Congressional leaders to find a fix for the Highway Trust Fund and to pass a long-term surface transportation bill. The organizations include the National Governors Association, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The Nation's surface transportation system is in a critical condition and significant funding is needed to simply maintain the current system. Nationwide there are 70,000 bridges that are structurally deficient, and 50 percent of our Nation's roads are in less than good condition. Delaying a long-term bill just prolongs uncertainty. An extension into 2015 would create another crisis, just before the next construction season. To allow the Trust Fund to become insolvent would be unprecedented and further delay simply extends the uncertainty. We need a long-term bill no later than December and a short-term patch for the Trust Fund now. Failure is not an option. I will say this: The clock is ticking, however we look at it. One more time: The clock is ticking. There are 25 days until a slowdown of payments to the States. In 25 days our States are going to be howling because they won't be able to pay for work that has already been done. The way it works is they do the work and then we repay them for, in many cases, 75 percent of the work; in some cases, 50 percent of the work. So I call on all of my colleagues: Let's set politics aside. Supreme Court Decision on Birth Control I wish to speak briefly about two other issues. One of them has to do with the Supreme Court decision on birth control. I hope every woman in America is paying attention to what this Court did. Five men, all Republican appointees, basically said a corporation can put its religion above all of its employees. It is just astounding. I voted for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and I know why I voted for it. It was a very important piece of legislation which said that individuals can't have their freedom of religion stepped upon. It didn't say corporations. So here we have a situation where one family doesn't believe in birth control, and now they are telling every woman who works there: Sorry, you are out of luck. It is really unbelievable. To me, the Court siding with the corporation over the thousands of people who work there is just shocking. What happened to individual freedom here? We are going to try our best to fix it. Let's remember this: 99 percent of women have used birth control at some point in their lifetime. Let me say that again: 99 percent of women have used birth control at some point in their lifetime, and 1.5 million women take birth control solely for a painful condition. Sixty percent of the women on birth control take it in part for painful and difficult conditions. So the Supreme Court, in an ideological, political decision, in my view, said to the women of America: Corporations are more important than you. We are going to try to fix this. We are going to do everything we can. I hope we can reach across the aisle. I have hopes that we can, to fix this. Political Blame Game Now I will conclude my remarks on another topic. The week we were away I was working in the State. I went to some highway projects. I went to a national park. But all through the time I was working in the State, I was hearing a continuum of the blame game going toward our President. Republicans blame President Obama for every single thing that happens. Not enough jobs? They blame the President, even though since his policies have been in place, we have had 52 straight months of job growth. Last month alone, 288,000 jobs were created. Remember, at the end of George Bush's time in office, we were bleeding 700,000 jobs a month. The unemployment rate has dropped from 10 percent to 6.1 percent, and we could be doing even better if Republicans hadn't blocked the President's jobs bills. The Obama recovery even includes a record-breaking stock market which helps everybody. Everybody has a 401(k), a retirement account. When the President took office, the Dow Jones average was under $8,000. Now it has more than doubled, and the Dow hit 17,000 for the first time last week. Yet and still the President is to blame for not enough jobs. Deficits. Republicans blame the President, even though since he took office, the deficit has been cut by more than half, and deficits would be lower still if our friends on the other side stopped fighting with us when we try to close tax loopholes such as ending the tax policy that rewards companies for shipping jobs overseas or passing more equitable income tax rules which would allow people such as Warren Buffett to pay the same effective tax rate as his secretary--not a bad idea--and would really help us. We would get rid of that deficit. Remember when Bill Clinton was President. We wound up not only not having a deficit, we had a surplus. When George Bush came in, he started a couple of wars, put them on the credit card; tax cuts to the rich, put that on the credit card, and we have been battling it ever since. Now we have an influx of immigrants from Central America. Republicans blame the President, even though it is House Republicans who are blocking immigration reform the Senate already passed in a bipartisan way which will greatly enhance border protections, spends tens of billions of dollars on that, and sets out clear and fair rules for immigrants. And they blame President Obama even though the guidelines for how we treat unaccompanied immigrant children from countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, those guidelines were sent to and signed by George W. Bush. Then we have the civil war in Iraq. Republicans blame President Obama even though he opposed the disastrous Iraq war. I have to say that Senator Paul is not in that category, and I appreciate that. For the most part, Republicans blame President Obama, even though he opposed the disastrous Iraq war which sowed the seeds for the sectarian warfare we are seeing today. How proud I was to vote with then Senator Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and along with 74 of my colleagues, we voted to say there ought to be a federation in Iraq-- semi-autonomous regions--the Kurds, the Shias, the Sunnis. Seventy-four of us voted for that, and the Bush administration laughed it off, including Condi Rice and Dick Cheney. We have them all on record. Now this thing happens and who gets the blame? The President gets the blame from the Republicans. How about Benghazi. We have heard about Benghazi. Republicans blame the President and they continue to politicize this tragedy, even though under President Obama's leadership the United States has captured the suspected terrorist who is believed to be one of the masterminds behind the killing of these four extremely brave Americans. Benghazi is a tragedy. It is not about a scandal. Now, how about the release of Sergeant Bergdahl. Republicans cried foul when the President got him released, even though many of them right in this Chamber--and they are on videotape--were calling for Sergeant Bergdahl's release. And they also have insisted that no soldier ever be left behind. I have to say, it is just getting old. Republicans blame the President for everything, including issuing Executive orders. The Speaker of the House is suing the President for abusing his Executive power. President Obama has issued the fewest Executive orders per year of any President since Grover Cleveland. It is just getting to be too much. I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans blame President Obama for America's recent loss in the World Cup or even for their own six consecutive losses in the annual congressional baseball game. Enough. We all need to work together. Stop the finger pointing. The people need us to work together, not to play the blame game. I am very hopeful that we will have a little introspection around here. It might be a little too much to ask for. But I think if we did it--there are so many good people here on both sides of the aisle, and if we just decided once and for all to put politics aside--the President won election twice. It wasn't even contested. So deal with it. Work with him. I have served with five Presidents--a couple of Republicans, several. I battled with them, didn't agree with them. I remember Ronald Reagan, if we beat him in the conversation, would say, OK, let's move on. So, yes, sometimes Democrats win; sometimes Republicans win. We have to work together and move forward and solve the problems of this great Nation because the people expect it of us. I thank my colleagues very much, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.

Mrs. BOXER. What time do we have the vote?

Mrs. BOXER. That is the reason we were very careful with the time. And we gave my good friends--and they are my good friends--a lot of extra time. I will allow the Senator to proceed for 1 minute. But after that, we need equal time on this. So I give 1 minute.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 1 minute.

Mrs. BOXER. Let me think it over. OK.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I wish to explain how I come to my conclusion at the end by saying a couple of things. I see that my dear friend--and these are all my friends whom I particularly enjoy working with--I say to my friend from Oklahoma, he said Tom Steyer is from California. This is correct. So is Justice Kennedy, and so is Richard Nixon, who signed the Clean Air Act. Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, and I was a cosponsor of that act. And Republican Herbert Walker Bush signed the Clear Air Act Amendments.

Mrs. BOXER. I will not yield. The fact is that Republican objections to controlling carbon pollution took that all the way to the Supreme Court. Another thing on which I need to correct the record is my friend Senator Barrasso talked about our President as if our President doesn't care about our being energy self-sufficient. The United States is producing more oil at home than it is buying from the rest of the world for the first time in nearly two decades. Let me repeat that. The United States is producing more oil at home than it is buying from the rest of the world for the first time in nearly two decades. And PolitiFact marked that as true and accurate. I want to say to my friend who has left the floor, Senator Murkowski--another good friend of mine--we offered a vote on Keystone as part of Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman's bill on energy efficiency, and we said we would treat it the way Mitch McConnell recommends treating controversial amendments. We offered a 60-vote threshold. Now they come to the floor decrying the fact that we didn't offer a vote, but we did. Here is the point: Whenever America considers building a major infrastructure project, we make sure there is a process in place, and we have done that since 1968. It is a well-established process, and that process was updated by George W. Bush in 2004. So this unanimous consent request that would approve the pipeline would bypass the entire process we have set up in this country for these kinds of major infrastructure projects that has been in place since 1968. We need to know whether the building of this pipeline is in the national interest, and it is critical that the process not be circumvented because there are major issues on behalf of America's families. Frankly, the request that is before us would cut short the process that protects our families. So rhetorically I ask, why would anyone want to do that? They talk about a lot of jobs. That is in great dispute. The permanent jobs are like 35. So let's be clear. It is about other things. It is about special interests. That is what it is about. There is a lot of money that follows this pipeline. Now I want to talk about the human health impacts. Tar sands is one of the filthiest kinds of oil on the planet--filthy dirty oil. That is why Senator Whitehouse and I called on the State Department to conduct a comprehensive health impact study--because the pipeline itself is one thing; it is the type of oil that is going through the pipeline, this dirty, filthy tar sands oil. If you don't believe me, ask our health professionals. A Gallup Poll found 12 years in a row that the most trusted profession is America's nurses. National Nurses United--the Nation's largest professional association of registered nurses, with 185,000 nurses--also called for a health impact study of Keystone because we know if this pipeline is built, immediately we will see a 45-percent increase in the tar sands coming in. Eventually we will see a 300-percent increase in the filthiest, dirtiest of oils coming into our country. We also know this oil has higher levels of dangerous oil pollutants and carcinogens because we documented that in our own country where they burn tar sands oil.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I complete my remarks before I make a decision on the pending request.

Mrs. BOXER. I didn't understand what the Chair said.

Mrs. BOXER. All right. Then I would ask unanimous consent that I complete my remarks--the other side had many minutes--and then object. And I would also ask the Chair, do we not have time on our side at this point in the debate?

Mrs. BOXER. OK. Well, just to allay my friend's concern and his excitement about whether or not I will object, I will absolutely object. I do object because we know that misery----

Mrs. BOXER. Misery follows the tar stands from extraction, to transportation, to refining, to waste storage. We are going to show you some pictures, folks, in case you don't know what it looks like when you refine this oil. We are going to show you photos from Port Arthur, TX. This is what it looks like. There is a playground where this filthy, dirty stuff is burned. This is not a good place to be. We had people at a press conference with the nurses from Port Arthur, TX, and they brought us these pictures and said this is what it is like when they burn the tar sands. Now let's talk about the types of cancers that are linked to these toxic chemicals, including leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Why would anyone want to short-circuit a process? Just because the oil companies want it? We have to think about our people. Tar sands oil from the Keystone Pipeline will flow to our gulf refineries, increasing this toxic air pollution that already plagues communities such as Port Arthur, TX. I ask you to meet with some of those kids, meet with some of their parents, meet with some of those health professionals, and they will tell you the asthma rates that are happening, the respiratory illnesses, the skin irritations, the cancer. All they talk about is the pipeline. What about what flows through it? What about the toxins that get burned into our air? We know a pipeline does burst. We know a pipeline does burst. We have seen many of those incidents, and we know one did burst with tar sands oil in Kalamazoo, MI. They still haven't cleaned up the river--3 years, they still haven't cleaned it up. And we know that the pipeline goes through communities and environmentally sensitive areas in six States. Why would my friends want to bypass a process that is going to look at the potential damage to the health of our citizens, to the safety of our drinking water, and the effect on kids and asthma and cancer? And let's not forget the tar sands waste, by the way. Here is a picture of that, in case my friends don't know what it looks like. This is called petcoke, petroleum coke. Already, because we have increased tar sands importation, it is lining up around our cities--in Chicago, in Detroit--massive open piles of tar sands, waste products known as petcoke, billowing black clouds containing heavy metals. There was a story that was told to our committee. Children playing baseball have been forced off the field to seek cover from the clouds of black dust that pelt homes and cars. So you have problems when you extract, you have problems when you transport, you have problems when you refine, and you have problems when you store the waste. Why do my colleagues want to bypass a process that has been put in place since 1968 so we can look at the impact on our people? Petcoke dust is particulate matter. It is among the most harmful of all air pollutants. When inhaled, these particles can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body's ability to fight infections. Do you know the Federal Government has said that asthma is a national epidemic? I am quoting. It affects 1 of every 12 people or 26 million Americans. I know if I asked people in this Chamber--which I cannot do because it is against the rules of the Senate--to raise their hands if they have asthma or they know someone who has asthma, I guarantee half of the people in the room would raise their hands. We don't need more asthma. We have a very important system in place to look at the effects of tar sands oil, and I don't think we should be pushing this project forward. Exposing Americans to pollutants linked to cancer and respiratory illness is not in the national interest. Lastly I want to talk about the climate change impacts. For those people who are listening to the news, they must be surprised to see how many former Republican Environmental Protection Agency officials have come out and said to their colleagues who are here now: Wake up. Climate change is here, it is real, and human activity is adding to it. The planet is in trouble. Tar sands oil has at least 17 percent more carbon pollution than domestic oil. The State Department concluded even in their flawed study that the annual carbon pollution from just the daily operation of the pipeline, should it be built, will be the equivalent of adding 300,000 new cars on our roads. So why do we want to short-circuit a process which has been in place since 1968 and which was then renewed by George W. Bush in 2004 to protect our people from just this kind of a project? If you walk up to an average American and say ``Should we build the Keystone Pipeline?'' they will say ``Pipeline? A pipeline is a pipeline.'' But when you explain the kind of oil you are putting through the pipeline, that is a different situation because this is the filthiest, dirtiest oil--more carbon intensive. The oil is linked to all kinds of illness. I stood next to people from Canada, doctors who were so glad I was raising these issues. Even the newspapers in Alberta have called for a much better study on health impact. So outside of this Chamber more and more Republicans are coming out in support of doing something serious about climate change. My friend showed a picture of Tom Steyer. Let me thank him from the bottom of my heart. This is someone who is a very successful businessperson who realized he has to step up to the plate and preserve the planet for his kids and his grandkids. Thank you, Tom Steyer. Just last week four former Republican EPA Administrators who served under Presidents Nixon, Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George W. Bush spoke out on the need to address climate change. I thank Senator Whitehouse, my subcommittee chair on the committee, who called these four incredible--it was an iconic moment, frankly. Let's see if I remember them all. There was Ruckelshaus, who started off with Nixon. There was Christie Todd Whitman, who worked for George W. Bush. There was William Reilly, who worked for George Herbert Walker Bush. Then there was Mr. Thomas, who worked for Ronald Reagan--Ronald Reagan. There they sat, and there they spoke, and there they said very clearly: Wake up, Republicans. This is a serious matter. Now today a bipartisan group of former Treasury Secretaries released a report showing that the U.S. economy is already feeling the negative financial impacts of climate change. These respected leaders say climate change is real and we must act. So why would we want to short-circuit a critical review process when approval of the Keystone Pipeline would be a major step in the wrong direction? It is the equivalent of 300,000 cars added back on our roads after we struggled so hard to clean up carbon pollution. Another concern that remains to be addressed is the Keystone Pipeline's impact on national security. I met with a former SEAL Team 6 leader, and he was involved in the assessment of the Keystone tar sands pipeline and the risk of that pipeline becoming a high-profile target vulnerable to attack. They concluded it absolutely was a high-profile target, and it would be vulnerable to an attack that could trigger a catastrophic tar sand spill. As I said, the last tar sand spill 3 years ago in Michigan has still not been cleaned up. This stuff is filthy, dirty oil--the dirtiest. Why on Earth would we want to see an eventual 300-percent increase in the importation? The nurses don't want it and the public health doctors don't want it. They came to the press conference with us. We cannot afford to take a shortcut in the Keystone tar sands pipeline review project when so much is at stake--the health of our communities and the impact on climate change. Finally, I have a picture that I show a lot these days, and it is a picture of what it looks like when you throw the environment under the bus. This is a picture of a province in China where the people walk out with masks over their faces because everybody says: Who cares? We can just do anything we want. Who cares? I recently went to China. Over the course of 2 weeks, I never saw the Sun. I did not see the Sun. On one day when we had a little bit of Sun peeking through--I mean barely at all--the people there got so excited. The people who work in our embassy there get hazardous duty pay because it is so dangerous for their families. They can't go out and breathe the air because they can get sick. We can have economic growth and a clean environment. You know why? We did it in the 1970s when everybody objected to the Clean Air Act. You should have seen the folks come to the Senate floor. You should have heard the Chamber of Commerce railing against the Clean Air Act. You know what happened since then? Tens of millions of jobs have been created. The air is clean. Thousands and millions of lives over time have been saved. Heart attacks, asthma attacks, and cancer have reduced. We can quantify it. When colleagues come here and try to do something to bypass a procedure to protect human health and the environment, you can count on me standing right here. I am proud to do it. I can report that California--under the great leadership of our Governor Jerry Brown--is moving to clean energy. We are moving to thousands and millions of new jobs. We have added more jobs over the last couple of reporting periods than any other State. We are balancing our budget. We have a surplus because we are moving to energy efficiency, and that means people are going to work. I understand that my friend from New Hampshire is interested in making a few remarks, so at this time I wish to say to my Republican friends that it is with great respect and friendship, truly, that we see the world differently, and that is OK. That is what makes this the greatest country on Earth. We can come here and speak out. I wish to say to the American people today that this rush to build the pipeline before the process is completed is dangerous to the health of people and to the health of the planet and to the importance of our national security. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry, please.

Mrs. BOXER. My understanding is the Senator is using the time of the Senators on this side of the aisle to make a speech before he objects. Am I correct? Is it our time?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask that the Senator object, and then Senator Shaheen have the rest of the time because we are running out of time.