Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield.

Mrs. BOXER. I wish to say through the Chair, I spoke for quite a while on why I feel it is not good governance to come to the floor and ask unanimous consent to move to a bill and to short circuit a process that is in place and has been in place since 1968. The process was renewed by President George W. Bush to make sure when we build an American infrastructure project that it is safe, that it is in our national security interests, that public health is considered, and all the rest. I have said all along on an amendment of controversy--I am ready to vote on the Keystone Pipeline, and I support Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman's bill. What a great bill. What a win-win. Senator Shaheen is willing to take a 60-vote threshold for that, and those of us who worry about the pipeline are willing to vote with a 60-vote threshold. That is the way to go. The minority leader, the Republican leader Senator McConnell, said it over the years over and over. Whenever there is controversy, if people feel it is controversial, have a 60-vote threshold. He said that I don't know how many times, but I have the quotes. All of a sudden, when it comes to repealing President Obama's Climate Action Plan or Keystone, somehow that doesn't qualify as controversial from his point of view, but the thing about ``controversial'' is it is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think it is controversial to raise the minimum wage. It hasn't been raised in years, but my friends on the other side don't like it. They demand 60 votes. So we had a 60-vote threshold. That is where we are, and that is why we are in this mess.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to say to my friend from Tennessee that the majority leader has offered a way forward, and he has taken a page out of the book of the Republican leader, and he quoted him, and I have those quotes here: ``Matters of controversy always require 60 votes.'' And my friend knows. He knows. I stand here as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am so grateful I have moved some bills through here-- highway bills, water bills--but my friend knows that the two big amendments that his side wants to offer don't deal with ordinary matters. They deal with matters that have jurisdiction in the environment committee, and they deal with a repeal of parts of the Clean Air Act and a repeal of parts of the Clean Water Act. So my friend wants to move forward. I am sure he would agree that to repeal parts of landmark laws on an appropriations bill is legislating on appropriations and ought to require 60 votes. It is wrong. Now, I would say to my friend, why is the other side so determined to repeal two laws--one dealing with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, and then the other one is this Clean Air Act--why are my friends on the other side continuing to go against these landmark laws--which, by the way, were signed into law by a Republican President? He has to explain, because I don't understand why people want to put children at risk and families at risk, pollute our rivers and streams, and suspend a plan that the President has announced is going to save thousands of lives, going after carbon pollution, making sure we don't go back to the days of smog and ozone. And we know these are the riders that my Republican friends want to offer. There is no secret. The Republican leader defined the 60-vote threshold for controversial amendments. I can assure my friend that if there was a tweak or two that was going to be made and Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby agreed with it, I would not demand 60 votes. We are talking about repealing basic, important landmark provisions of environmental laws, and that is exactly what this is about.

Mrs. BOXER. I would be happy to yield, yes.

Mrs. BOXER. To a 60-vote threshold, no.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I would say----

Mrs. BOXER. I would go with the Mitch McConnell rule, which he has stated seven times, which is that on controversial amendments we have to have 60 votes. I am not going to stand here----

Mrs. BOXER. I just want to answer my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. My friend said we are trying to spare people tough votes. That is ridiculous. Members on your side, Members on our side--we are grownup Senators. We know how to win elections, cast tough votes. I want to protect the American people, and so do a lot of folks on our side of the aisle. And we don't want to see majority rule to repeal landmark environmental laws. We are not going to stand for it, and neither would the minority leader in the way he describes it. He said over and over that on amendments of controversy we have to have a 60- vote threshold. So my friend, if he is sincere about this--he is sincere about this. But if the two chairmen can come up with a plan where amendments like this, controversial amendments, require 60 but amendments that both sides feel are not controversial can go to a voice vote, I will be a happy person. I have gotten bills through here before. I wasn't born yesterday, as you can probably tell, and we know a controversial amendment from a noncontroversial amendment. So I will close with this: I know my friend Senator Mikulski is an incredible chairman, and with Richard Shelby working with her, they are quite the duo. And I have seen their work--because every single Member cares about the work they do--and it is stellar. But I am not going to sit here and see amendments come to the floor that would repeal clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, and just nod approval and say: Oh yeah, just take it away. No big deal. That is it. And that is why I feel the majority leader was right when he said let's move forward with a 60-vote threshold. That makes a lot of sense. I am sorry the Republicans objected. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was unable to attend the rollcall votes on the following nominations: Crystal Nix-Hines to be Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; Lael Brainard to be a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Jerome H. Powell to be a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and Stanley Fischer to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted aye.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. As a Senator from a Western State, as is my friend from Texas, I hope the American people understand the only thing the Republicans can do for whatever happens is blame President Obama: Oh, it rained today--it is President Obama. How about the most obvious point--that the Republican House has failed to take up an immigration bill. The Senate did it in a bipartisan way. I applaud that bipartisanship. We did it a long time ago. The fact that the Republican House refuses to do it never passes the lips of my Republican friends in the Senate. If we want to correct our immigration system, we have to sit down and do the hard work, as we did in the Senate. There is no question that we are facing a crisis with children from Central America running away from gangs, violence, rape, and deprivation. There is no doubt about it. The fact is we can deal with that, but we have to look at the laws, and that is why we want to set the rules in a bill. There is lawlessness because we haven't updated our laws. For example, we have to make sure these short-term holding facilities have humane conditions. We can do that by law. I want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, because it is cloudy one day, don't blame the President. Because it rains the next day, don't blame the President. If you wake up with a sore throat, don't blame the President. When you have trouble at the border, look at your own party, which has held up immigration reform. If we can do it over here, they can do it over there. The whole world is watching. It is the same way with the veterans. I am hoping and praying that this new effort by Senator Sanders and Senator McCain will bear fruit in the Senate on a VA bill. But remember that the Republicans filibustered the last Bernie Sanders bill, which would have added clinics, which would have addressed the problems. They filibustered it. Keep your ear open here. We have a chance to address so many issues.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I talked about immigration. I talked about veterans. We have a chance now to deal with the student loan crisis, and it is a crisis. The student loan debt is $1.2 trillion. That is more than credit card debt. In my home State, the average amount owed by a borrower in 2012 was more than $25,000--a 65-percent increase from 2004. In the same time period, the number of Californians with outstanding student loan debt increased by 60 percent. In addition, in 2012 there were 641,000 Californians over the age of 50 who were still paying down their student loans and more than 6.8 million people over 50 nationwide still paying off their student loans. This is a crisis that must be addressed. It is important to our Nation's economy. It is important to the future of our families, to our children, and our grandchildren. It is time to act. I have to say, Senator Warren has been a tremendous leader. We can take an important step toward addressing this dire situation by passing Senator Warren's Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. It would help millions of Americans refinance their loans at lower interest rates, put more money in their pockets. I have to say, it is kind of a no-brainer. When you have more money in your pocket than you had before, you are going to spend it in your communities. I am so proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. Sadly, even though the Federal Government is the biggest student loan lender, and it is making billions of dollars in profits each year, it doesn't allow its borrowers to refinance their existing student loans when rates are low. That is wrong. Our middle class is hurting. The New York Federal Reserve Bank and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have been warning us that student loans are acting like an anchor on our economy. When our President took office, there was a crisis. We were losing 700,000 jobs a month. He has turned it around, and now month after month we are creating over 200,000 jobs, and we have restored all those jobs we lost. But why would we keep this anchor of student loan debt on our economy? For example, students can't buy cars because they have so much in student loan debt. They can't buy houses. Andrea from San Francisco writes: My boyfriend and I both have student debt. He started with $90,000 and has finally gotten it down to $50,000 after 10 years of paying. I recently finished my MFA and now have $56,000 in debt. This has kept us from saving for a house, purchasing a car, and doing things day to day that would boost the economy, like shopping and going out to eat. Patrick from Thousand Oaks wrote to me and said: I pay half of my monthly wages to cover the interest alone on my loan. Worse still, many young Americans wrestling with student debt cannot save enough to start a family. Stefanie from Pacific Grove wrote: We are finally starting a family in our late 30s. My husband has been paying off his student loans for ten years. This loan will cost him twice as much as he borrowed-- doubling the cost of his college education. That is simply not fair. If the Fed sets interest rates low for everyone else, why not for students? As Stefanie's story illustrates, student debt is not only a drag on the American economy, it is tearing at the fabric of our American dream. I read last week that for the first time a majority of people don't really believe the dream will be there for them as it was for us. When 40 million people in America are struggling with a combined $1.2 trillion in student debt, it is no wonder the American dream is elusive. I have 3.7 million Californians dealing with $97 billion in student loans, and many of these loans are stuck at outrageously high interest rates--7, 8, 9 percent. With interest rates this high, it is hard for anyone to pay off their debt, and it is really hard for recent graduates who are just launching their careers. In order to help the nearly 40 million Americans with student debt, Senate Democrats have introduced this plan, with the leadership of Senator Warren. It is a simple plan. The idea is to let borrowers refinance their outstanding student loan debt. We are at a time of record-low interest. I am asking rhetorically whether it is fair to charge 7, 8, 9 percent interest when the Federal Government lends money to banks at less than 1 percent. The people who have borrowed money to pay for college or send their children to college are trapped with these exorbitant interest rates. And the private student loans can be even worse. I have seen 10 percent and 11 percent. The Senate Democratic proposal would allow borrowers of both Federal and private student loans to refinance from their high rates into much lower rates. The rates would be 3.86 percent for undergraduates, 5.41 percent for graduates, and 6.41 for the parents who have helped their kids. Those are the rates Democrats and Republicans agreed on last year, and those are the rates new borrowers received this past school year. But the older borrowers are stuck with these exorbitant rates, and they can't refinance. If those lower rates are good for new borrowers, why wouldn't we allow them for those who have been stuck in this vicious cycle of these high rates? These young people are not saddled with this debt because they went to the mall and bought a lot of clothes. They worked hard to learn new skills that will benefit our Nation and help keep us strong. They deserve a fair shot at saving and building a career and having a family. Matthew from Antelope, CA, wrote to me and said: I have never worked harder on one single goal than to be the first in my family to gain a degree in higher education. I've been on the Dean's List every semester in college. [But] the ever-present fear of paying off the thousands of dollars of interest I have gained is overwhelming and I am struggling to see past it. If big banks, which collapsed our financial system, are able to borrow at a rate of nearly zero percent, I don't see why students who will ultimately grow our economy and grow our nation cannot borrow at the same rates. Matt from Newport Beach, CA, said: I am grateful for my college education. As a son of middle- class parents, I knew [college] was an investment in my future, despite the need to take out loans. I even graduated in three years and served as a Resident Adviser to keep costs down. However, my student loan debt is now a major expense that hangs over me as a working adult. It affects my ability to achieve certain life milestones--buy a house, finance a wedding, and save for retirement. I support efforts to refinance loans at low interest rates--rates comparable to those in the real estate market. Please take action! With more affordable student loans, my generation can grow this economy. Matt, Matthew, and their classmates who worked so hard to achieve their dreams deserve a fair shot. Tomorrow morning we will have a chance to make achieving the American dream a little easier for Matt, Matthew, and all our struggling college students. So I stand with Matt, Matthew, Patrick, Stefanie, Andrea, and the 40 other million Americans with student loans. What we are saying is very simple: We want to give students who are trapped in those high interest rates a chance to refinance. We pay for it by saying that those billionaires who aren't paying at least as much as their secretaries pay at least as much as that. It is called the Buffett rule. I can't imagine a better way to pay for this than that. I urge my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--to stand with my constituents and their own constituents by voting to let us move forward to consider the bank on students act. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I also want to thank my friend Senator Whitehouse, such a great leader on this issue. I am really glad that Senator Inhofe, my good friend, came down to the floor. He deserves a thank you because he has laid out why he denies the obvious, and that is that this planet is warming and it is due to human activity. Frankly, it is his right to turn his back on 97 percent of the scientists just like the deniers did when we learned that it was, in fact, smoking that was causing an epidemic of lung cancer. I respect Senator Inhofe. I am glad he came. But I have to say, I am sad that we haven't seen any Republicans come here except for Senator Inhofe who has written a whole book on this--and we know his views--but we don't see anybody else. Let me tell you what we know from our other colleagues. Let's just take the Speaker--the Republican Speaker of the House, who said when asked about climate change--he kind of has a different view than Senator Inhofe, as does Senator Rubio. This is what they said when asked what they think about climate change. Their answer is: Well, I am not a scientist. What do I know? Well, right. They are not. Why don't you listen, then, to 97 percent of the scientists, if you admit that you are not a scientist? What are Speaker Boehner or Senator Rubio or the others who are these deniers saying? They are now saying they are not a scientist. Let's say they went to the doctor and the doctor said: Look, you have a serious liver condition, and I have a new drug that has been created to cure your disease. I don't think we should wait, and let's go. And you didn't say: Well, I want a second opinion; I want to go to another doctor. You said: You know what. I am not a doctor. I don't think so. Does that make sense? What if you went to a dentist and the dentist said: Senator, you have an abscess. It is pretty straightforward. I can fix it. If you let it go, you are going to get an infection. I don't know what can happen. Now, if I said to the dentist that I am going to check with a couple other people, then that is fine. But no, if I said: Oh, I am not a dentist, but I don't think so. As my friend told me before, you take your car in for repair, and they say: You know, there is something wrong with the brakes here, and we have to tighten those brakes. Can you leave the car here? Well, I am not a repairman. Ninety-seven percent of the scientists--they are all peer reviewed and are telling us what is happening to our planet. Here is the thing about these deniers. If they want to jump off the climate change cliff and just go by themselves, that is their choice, but they are going to take everybody with them; OK? My grandkids, your grandkids, and their kids--and we are not going to let it happen. Senator Whitehouse isn't going to let it happen. I am not going to let it happen. The President isn't going to let it happen. Climate change is all around us. We must take action to reduce harmful carbon pollution, which 97 percent of scientists agree is leading to dangerous climate change that threatens our families. We cannot be bullied by those who have their heads in the sand, and whose obstruction is leading us off the climate change cliff. One week ago the President released his new proposal to control dangerous carbon pollution from existing power plants, and it is a win- win-win for the American people. Power plants are the largest source of the Nation's harmful carbon pollution accounting for nearly 40 percent of all carbon released into the air. Unlike other pollutants, right now there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that can be released into the air for power plants. The President's carbon pollution reduction plan will protect public health and save thousands of lives. It will avoid up to 6,600 premature deaths, 150,000 asthma attacks, 3,300 heart attacks, 2,800 hospital admissions, and 490,000 missed days at school and work. The President's plan to reduce harmful carbon pollution will also create thousands of jobs. By reducing carbon pollution we can avert the most calamitous impacts of climate change--such as rising sea levels, dangerous heat waves, and economic disruption. As the recent Congressionally-required National Climate Assessment report tells us, we could see a 10 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature if we do not act to limit dangerous carbon pollution now. The President's proposal is respectful of the States' roles and allows major flexibility, while ensuring that big polluters reduce their significant contributions to climate change. The plan will allow the States to work with the EPA to analyze costs, and ensure carbon pollution standards continue to promote innovation and continue America's leadership in pollution control technology. By cutting carbon emissions from power plants by 30 percent nationwide from 2005 levels, the President's plan will also help American families and businesses. The President's plan is projected to shrink electricity bills roughly 8 percent by increasing energy efficiency and reducing demand in the electricity system. The American public wants action. According to a Washington Post-ABC poll released today, a bipartisan majority of the American people want Federal limits on carbon pollution. Approximately 70 percent say the Federal Government should require limits to carbon pollution from existing power plans, and 70 percent--57 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Independents, and 79 percent of Democrats--support requiring States to limit the amount of carbon pollution within their borders. The President's proposed carbon pollution standards for existing power plants is supported by the Clean Air Act. Congress gave the President the ability to control air pollution in the Clean Air Act. In 1990, revisions to the Act overwhelming passed by a vote of 89-11 in the Senate and 401-21 in the House. In 2007, the Supreme Court confirmed in Massachusetts v. EPA that as passed by Congress, the Clean Air Act in no uncertain terms gave the Environmental Protection Agency authority to control carbon pollution. Four years later, the Supreme Court in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, specifically found that the Clean Air Act has provisions in place to limit carbon pollution from power plants--the very provisions the President is using in his proposed power plant carbon standards. We have long known that air pollution contributes to climate change. During the debate on the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments, Senator Boggs introduced into the record a White House Report stating that: ``Air pollution alters climate and may produce global changes in temperature. . . . [T]he addition of particulates and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could have dramatic and long-term effects on world climate.'' And the Clean Air Act has a proven track record. The U.S. has shown we can continue to protect the environment and grow the economy. Over the last 40 years since the passage of the Clean Air Act, air pollution has dropped 68 percent and America's GDP has grown 212 percent. Total private sector jobs increased by 88 percent. Between 1980 and 2012, gross domestic product increased 133 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 92 percent, energy consumption increased 27 percent, and U.S. population grew by 38 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 67 percent. It is in America's DNA to turn a problem into an opportunity, and that is what we have done by being a pioneer in the green technology industry. These new carbon pollution standards are no different. Landmark environmental laws have bolstered an environmental technology and services sector that employs an estimated 3.4 million people, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And many of these jobs, like installing solar roofs and wind turbines cannot be outsourced. We must take action to protect families and communities from the mounting impacts of climate change. Just look at China, which has hazardous levels of air pollution and toxic emissions. According to a scientific study from the Health Effect Institute on leading causes of death worldwide, outdoor air pollution contributed to 1.2 million premature deaths in China in 2010, which is nearly 40 percent of the global total. Officials in China have recently suggested that they plan to take steps to address their carbon pollution, but the U.S. cannot wait for China to act. The President's new power plant standards are a major step forward. They show that America will finally lead on a path to averting the most dangerous impacts of climate change. On Friday the White House released a report on the harmful health impacts of climate change, especially on our most vulnerable populations like children, the elderly and low-income Americans. The report cited impacts like increased ground level ozone which could worsen respiratory illnesses like asthma, increased air pollutants from wildfires, and more heat-related and flood-related deaths. The first line in this new report sums up why we must take action to reduce carbon pollution: We have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that's not irrevocably polluted or damaged. The American people want us to protect their children and families from dangerous climate change. We must safeguard our children, our grandchildren, and generations to come. The people of my home State of California and the American people deserve these new protections, and the President should be lauded for moving forward and tackling one of our Nation's greatest challenges. I am going to spend the rest of my time summing it up by refuting some of the things Senator Inhofe said. I have to say the President deserves a lot of credit for his plan. What is really interesting is it is supported by 70 percent of the American people, who ``think the Federal Government should limit the release of greenhouse gasses from existing power plants in an effort to reduce global warming.'' That includes amazingly 57 percent of Republicans, 79 percent of Democrats, and 76 percent of Independents who support the President's plan. They are not stupid. They are smart. Look what happens when you throw the environment under the bus. People walk around in air that you can see. You don't want to see the air. You don't want to wear a mask when you go outside. The American people get it. Then my colleague says: They are going to scare you. They are going to scare you. There is no problem with carbon in the air. There is no problem at all. Well, let me tell you who disagrees with Senator Inhofe, who disagrees with the Republicans: the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Thoracic Society, the American Public Health Association, the American Lung Association, the National Nurses Union. They all have statements that say climate change is a threat to public health. Who are the people going to listen to? Us politicians or people who spend every day of their life waking up in the morning and thinking of ways to protect our health? Yes, if the deniers want to jump off the cliff and they only hurt themselves, I suppose that is their option. But they are taking my kids, and they are taking all the kids of our American families, and we are not going to let that happen. I will close with this. The Senator from Oklahoma started to say: This is going to kill you. It is going to raise your prices of electricity. Jobs are going to be lost. He cited a U.S. Chamber of Commerce study that has been so rebuffed that the Washington Post gave it their most Pinocchios--in other words, four Pinocchios for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because they were responding to something that never came about. This plan of the President's makes a whole lot of sense. He has courage to do it. We are going to stand behind it. And, yes, the Republicans are going to try to repeal it. Let me give them the bad news from their perspective. They have sent over dozens and dozens of environmental riders. I want to say over 90--over 90--and we have beaten back every single one of them. For colleagues to stand there and say Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and I are doing this because it is an election year is a joke. We have been doing this for years. I daresay Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has made more speeches on the floor than anyone on this subject. When I had the gavel for the first time in 2007, I had to fight to keep it in my hand because, guess what. We had Al Gore before the committee. Remember? Senator Inhofe was so stressed he tried to grab the gavel. We have kind of a funny picture in our office in which I said: ``Elections have consequences.'' And they do. But to say that we are doing this because there is some donor is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. I will put in the record a statement by Lyndon Johnson. This shows how far back Democrats have warned about this. This is amazing. My staff discovered this. He said this in 1965. In his ``Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and Restoration of Natural Beauty'' President Lyndon B. Johnson stated that, ``The Clean Air Act should be improved to permit [EPA] to investigate potential air pollution problems before pollution happens, rather than having to wait until the damage occurs, as is now the case, and to make recommendations leading to the prevention of such pollution.'' ``Air pollution is no longer confined to isolated places. This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.'' So don't come on this floor and say suddenly the Democrats care about this because it is an election year. It is ridiculous. We have known about this for years. We have been trying to get the attention of our colleagues. I thank Senator Whitehouse. He and I signed a letter with several others inviting our colleagues to the floor. All we got was Senator Inhofe--not that we don't love him, and we appreciate he came over here, but we have to now assume he speaks for everybody on that side, which is scary, because they have turned their backs on the doctors. They have turned their backs on the scientists, and they have turned their backs on the American people. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, and I would yield back to the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight heartbroken at the loss of 6 young people and the injuries to 13 more after a devastating gun violence tragedy that occurred on May 23 in the Isla Vista community near Santa Barbara. As a mother, grandmother, and Senator representing the most unbelievable State in the Union, this latest mass shooting shook me to the core. I was struck by this simple fact: No one is safe in America anymore. No one is safe in America anymore--not in their schools, not in a movie theater, not in their workplace, not in their home, and not on a beautiful college campus overlooking the Pacific Ocean where the victims of this latest horrific attack were busy pursuing their dreams. I am going to show the faces of the students we lost. Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, 20 years old, from Los Osos/Oceano, CA. He was an English major who served as a resident adviser in a campus dorm while maintaining a 4.0 GPA. He was planning to study abroad in London next year, and he dreamed of going to law school like both of his parents. His cousin Jaime described Chris as ``smart, gentle, and kind,'' but with a competitive spirit he showed on the basketball court. His high school basketball coach said, ``he was a coach's dream. He was a team player, he had a great attitude and he was a hard worker who would stay after practice and work on his shots.'' His father Richard said: Chris was a really good kid. Ask anyone who knew him. His death has left our family lost and broken. Veronika Elizabeth Weiss, 19, from Thousand Oaks. She loved sports and high school. She played on four teams. She started playing softball at the age of 6, and later turned to baseball and was the only girl out of 500 players in the Westlake Baseball League. She was a good student who earned straight A's in high school and graduated with a 4.3 GPA. She was majoring in pre-financial mathematics and statistics. Her father said: ``She wanted to be a financial wizard, and use her high aptitude with complicated math.'' She was a member of the Tri-Delta Sorority, just like her mom and grandmother, and now she is gone. One of her friends said: ``Veronika was one of the people you knew you wanted to be friends with. She is willing to become friends with anyone and everyone. She is the one person who can make you smile instantly.'' Then there is Katherine ``Katie'' Breann Cooper, 22, of Chino Hills, CA. She was close to her two brothers, and she was weeks away from graduating with a degree in art history. Her friends remember her as fun and outgoing, someone who had ``a very bright smile that lit up a whole room.'' And we can see the smile. In the words of one family friend, Katie was the ``kind of girl that brought sunshine on an overcast day.'' She loved soccer and running track and helped her family deliver Christmas gifts to her neighbors in Chino Hills every year. She was also a member of Tri Delta, a ballroom dance teaching assistant, and raised money for St. Jude's Children's Hospital in Memphis. Her friends said she was ``involved in everything'' and ``never slowed down.'' ``She was a self-proclaimed princess and I love her for that,'' her friend Courtney said. ``And I know she has a crown on her head today.'' Cheng Yuan ``James'' Hong, 20, San Jose, CA. He was a fourth-year computer engineering major who spent his time volunteering as a teacher assistant at Rainbow Chinese School in Cupertino. He friends described him as a hard-working and bright student who was always willing to help others. His high school drama teacher in San Jose remembered him as a quiet student who was happy to work backstage to ensure that his classmates could shine. One of his former classmates said that he was ``one of the kindest, most genuine people I have ever met . . . He was never afraid that his unrelenting kindness might have led to him being taken advantage of. He helped out everybody he knew, myself included, and never asked for anything in return. He was good for the sake of being good, and it is incredibly rare to find people that genuine.'' Then there is George Chen, 19, from San Jose. He graduated from high school in San Jose and had just finished his second year at UC-Santa Barbara where he studied computer science. His father is a software engineer, and George wanted to follow in his dad's footsteps. He liked swimming and hiking and was close to his younger brother, who is 10 years old, despite their age difference. They would play video games together and laugh. Friends described George as a ``gentle soul'' who had a fondness for working with children. When he went home to visit his parents during breaks from school, his mother said he would always go out of his way to pick up his elderly neighbor's mail and take out their trash. He volunteered for the Buddhist charity group Tzu Chi and as a camp counselor at the YMCA. And he is gone. Then there is Weihan ``David'' Wang from Fremont, CA, 20 years old. His mother described her son as ``a very, very nice boy,'' the kind who aced his SATs but never bragged about it. He was an avid basketball fan. He played on his high school team in Fremont, and was a big fan of the Los Angeles Lakers. At UC-Santa Barbara, he studied computer engineering and wanted to start a business with his friends. One friend described David as ``warm-hearted and helpful.'' His parents said that David was ``gentle, kind, loving, joyful, peaceful, faithful, and self-controlled.'' He was supposed to return home for the summer break soon to go on a trip with his family to Yellowstone National Park. I say to all families who can hear me: Imagine what that does to a mother and father--to a family. David was their only child. His mother said, ``He was always the joy of the family,'' and now he is gone. These were all bright and talented people who were full of promise and passion. Their dreams and futures were extinguished in an instant of chaos. Today I join their families, friends, and classmates in mourning their unfathomable loss. Not only that, I stand with them in staunch determination to do everything in my power to stop this senseless violence. Richard Martinez, the dad of Christopher, said it best. He said he does not want or care about sympathy from politicians. He said to us: ``Get to work and do something.'' The parents of James Hong said the same thing in a letter: ``I know there has been a great injustice, and policy can be improved.'' They added that their son ``can't be here to help anymore, but you can.'' The mother of George Chen said: ``This is not the first time it happens, a killing spree, but I hope it's the last one. No parent should have to go through this.'' And the parents of David Wang wrote: ``It's time to stop gun violence, and be free from fear.'' They are absolutely right. We must act. We cannot sit back and simply accept that nearly 90 Americans are killed every day--and 30,000 are killed every year--from gun violence. I well remember the Vietnam War because I got involved in politics to try and stop it. It was horrible. We lost more than 50,000 people over 10 years, and we ended that war. Mr. President, 30,000 are killed every year from gun violence. When are we going to end the war here at home? We cannot accept that every day an average of 8 children and teens under the age of 20 are killed by guns. We cannot accept the fact that children in the United States die by guns 11 times as often as children in other high-income nations. It is an outrage, and it has to end. We often see the same reaction after mass shootings like this. Some will insist it was just ``the act of a mad man'' and there is nothing you can do to stop a deranged person from going on a rampage. You know what? History says that defeatist attitude is wrong. Take Australia. In April 1996, a young man killed 35 people and wounded 23 others with a semiautomatic rifle in the so-called Port Arthur massacre, the worst mass shooting in Australian history. Less than 2 weeks later, the conservative-led national government pushed through fundamental changes to the country's gun laws. Australia's conservative government passed laws that all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, stiffened licensing and ownership rules, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons out of public circulation. The law then required licensees to demonstrate a ``genuine need'' for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety course. Those actions by Australia's leaders made a difference. In the decade before Port Arthur, Australia saw 11 mass shootings. Since then, there has not been a single mass shooting, and the gun murder rate has continued to steadily decline. In 2011, Australia had 0.86 gun deaths for each 100,000 people--or 25 people. That year the United States had 10.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people, or 11,101 Americans. Accounting for the population differences, this is insanity. Australia said enough is enough. When are we going to do that? Canadians said enough is enough. In December 1989, a disgruntled student walked into a Montreal engineering school with a semiautomatic and killed 14 students and injured over a dozen others. That tragedy prompted the leaders in Canada to ban more than half of all registered guns, require all gun owners to be at least 18, and obtain a license. You need a license for a car. Why don't you need a license, public safety course, and a background check for a gun? That is what they did. Canadians said enough is enough, and it paid off. Canada's gun murder rate has declined since passage of these laws, with occasional spikes in gun violence. In 2009, Canada had 0.5 deaths per 100,000 from gun murders--173 people. The United States had 3 gun murders for every 100,000 that year--that is 11,493 Americans. Come on--173 out of 100,000 compared to 11,493 people out of 100,000? What is wrong with the people here in this country and in this body? The United Kingdom experienced tragedies that led their leaders to act. In August of 1987, a lone gunman armed with two legally-owned semi-automatic rifles and a handgun went on a 6-hour shooting spree roughly 70 miles west of London, killing 16 people and then himself. Britain expanded the list of banned weapons, including certain semi-automatic rifles. They increased registration requirements for other weapons. Since then, they have banned all handguns, with a few exceptions. The government instituted a buyback program which many credit for taking tens of thousands of illegal or unwanted guns out of supply. Their actions paid off. The UK's gun murder rate since passage of these laws is now less than half of what it used to be. In 2011 the UK had 0.23 gun deaths per 100,000 people, a fraction of the 10.3 gun deaths per 100,000 in the United States that year. They had 38 gun murders; we had 11,101. What is going on? We have to do some of this here. What are we so scared of? I said when I started this speech that no one is safe in America because we don't take commonsense steps. I am not saying we ban guns or we ban people from having guns--no--but that we have a system where they have to show they need it. We can do the same things here in America. We can start. How about this: Pass measures that have nearly unanimous support among the American people, wherever they live in our great Nation. Take background checks. Ninety percent of Americans say they support background checks. Because one gun lobby doesn't like it, we turn our backs on 90 percent of the people. What is wrong with us? We have legislation to expand background checks. It has bipartisan support. We should take it up and pass it and do the work of the people, 90 percent of whom want us to pass background checks. Assault weapons. Most Americans support banning military-style assault weapons: 81 percent of voters, 71 percent of gun owners, and 60 percent of NRA members. We should pass Senator Feinstein's legislation now and do the work the American people want us to do. How about high-capacity magazine clips? Seventy-two percent of voters say we should ban the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines. Mental health. Lawmakers on both sides support taking action. Let's do it now. School safety. I authored a bill with Senator Collins to provide the resources needed to make schools safer. Take it up and pass it, and don't load it up with controversy. Pass the things we need to pass. Do it for these families and for God knows all the others who are suffering and crying themselves to sleep every single night, bearing a loss that will never go away. Here is the situation. In this particular case, we had the family of the gunman who committed the massacre call the police and say: We are very worried about our son. It is haunting to me that they had a feeling about it and they called the police. The police went to interview this troubled young man, and they couldn't see through his problems. They didn't check the gun database we have in California. If they had, they would have seen that he had purchased guns. If they knew that, we would have been in a different circumstance. So we are introducing legislation called the Pause for Safety Act. This is what it does. No. 1, families and others who are very close to the suspected unstable individual can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily stop someone who poses a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm. They can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order. Let's say it is a group of coworkers who see that this person is threatening or he has written something. They can actually make the case before a judge and get an order, so the person cannot buy guns. No. 2, it would help ensure that families and others close to the individual can also seek a gun violence prevention warrant which would allow law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that already have been purchased. If those police officers had known this individual had bought those weapons--because we do have that database-- they could have gone and gotten the warrant. But under our bill, a family member could do this. They could go to court and seek that gun violence prevention warrant. No. 3, if law enforcement gets a tip or a warning or a request from a family member, they can then make full use of a gun registry if it exists in their state. It is very important for law enforcement to make use of the gun registry if it exists. I am very pleased that similar legislation has been introduced in California by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, Assemblyman Das Williams, as well as State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson. We all remember the shock and outrage we felt after the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, CT, where a gunman shot 20--babies, I call them-- children--schoolchildren and 6 adult staff members. All of those lives lost, and we said we would take action. We wore ribbons and we came to the floor and we cried. Well, since that shooting, more than 28,000 Americans have died from gun violence--90 people every day. Imagine, if it was anything else that caused the death of 28,000 Americans, we would be on the Senate floor. The shooting at Sandy Hook and the shooting at UC Santa Barbara are a reminder that we have failed our children. Call it what you want. We are failing our children. We have a basic task to keep our children safe. They look to us, and they believe we will protect them. We have a function here, which is to not allow someone who is unstable and violent to get a weapon. So we need to pull together, and we need to show our children we love them, not by making fancy speeches but by doing the right thing, such as this father said we have to do, Chris's dad. Don't tell me how you love children; don't talk to me about how bad you feel. Do something. Children need to know they are safe in school. People need to know they are safe at work. People need to feel safe in a restaurant-- anyplace. Let us honor these victims of gun violence by working to end this epidemic. We look at these faces, we look at their eyes, and we know they were just at the start of their adventures, at the height of their productivity, in their twenties. We have to do something so this doesn't happen again and again and again.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in this work we do so many issues need to be discussed. One of them I have tried to discuss, along with several colleagues, is this incredible threat to our planet caused by climate change. I have participated with my colleagues, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Markey, Senator Cardin, and many others, in all-night speeches and in hearings. I am so proud to be the chairman of the environment committee. It was many years ago when I took the gavel to become the chairman that I started to really get involved in the details and in the science and in the predictions of scientists as to what could happen. We came very close to doing something important here in the Senate, but we faced a filibuster, and although the House passed a very important bill years ago, we couldn't get it done. We fell six votes short. At the time, the press said to me: What are you going to do? Are you going to do nothing about this? No, I said. Actually, the most popular law that has ever been passed--I believe it; I haven't taken a poll on it, but I can tell my colleagues from looking at studies that the Clean Air Act covers all kinds of pollution, including carbon pollution. I said that even though we weren't able to have a cap-and-trade system which would put a price on carbon and let people get permits and trade them, I felt that was a good way to work in a capitalistic society, and we didn't go there. I said we have the Clean Air Act. Once an endangerment finding is made--it was started during the Bush administration and completed during the Obama administration--we know the President has full authority to act, with or without the deniers here in the Senate and in the House. Now, 40 percent of all the carbon is emitted by powerplants, so powerplants are a very important part of the problem we have to address. We already know the President and the Congress worked together to reduce the pollution coming out of our cars by passing very important fuel economy measures. But this is really the largest problem--those powerplants and the dangerous carbon. The President understands and looks at his kids and he knows if they are going to have a world in which they can thrive, we have to do something about this problem, and we can't just put our heads in the sand and say the scientists are wrong. Let's not be like the deniers who said smoking didn't cause cancer. Ninety-seven percent of scientists said it did; 3 percent said it didn't. The tobacco lobby went on the side of the bad guys and, for years, we had to fight and prod and push. Guess what happened? People got sick and a lot of them died because there was basically a coverup by the tobacco industry. We are facing a similar situation. The big special interests are trying to tell the American people: Don't worry about this climate change. It is no big deal. Well, here is the great news: The President has stepped forward. He has taken on carbon pollution from powerplants. Under current law there is no limit to the amount of carbon pollution that can be released into the air from powerplants. The President's carbon pollution reduction plan is going to change all that. It will protect public health. It will save thousands of lives. It will avoid up to 6,600 premature deaths, 150,000 asthma attacks, 3,300 heart attacks, 2,800 hospital admissions, and 490,000 missed days at school and work will be prevented. Those benefits will kick in. Here is what is important about that. When we clean up the carbon, we protect the air quality. That is why the President went to a hospital when he announced this. That is why 70 percent of the people-- including, as I recall, a huge majority of Americans--support regulating carbon from powerplants and they are even willing to pay for it. A lopsided and bipartisan majority of Americans support Federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions according to this new poll. Fully 70 percent say the Federal Government should require limits to greenhouse gases from existing plants. What is so interesting: 57 percent of Republicans support it, 76 percent of Independents, and 79 percent of Democrats. So this is a plan whose time has come. This plan will also create tens of thousands of jobs as we move to a clean energy economy. By reducing carbon pollution, we can avert the most calamitous impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, dangerous heat waves, and economic disruption. If we do not act, we could see a 10-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature, and that is disastrous, really, for all of our States. I have been so privileged to work on the Senate Climate Action Task Force. What is interesting is that I have listened to people from all over the country talk about what this climate change means in their States. Coastal States have a certain set of problems, inland States, agricultural States, and there are the forest fires that are burning out of control. I hope people will watch the documentary ``Years of Living Dangerously.'' It is really a wake-up call if you have not already awakened to this problem. It is happening all over the world-- fires that do not stop, droughts that the Defense Department is telling us are a real problem. Do you know how the House of Representatives deals with climate change? They pass a bill that says the Defense Department cannot act on what they have already said, which is that climate change is a real, serious threat multiplier. They actually said now it could be a cause of conflict. Before they said it was a threat multiplier. Now they say it is actually a--they use the word ``catalyst'' for conflict. But the House does not like that, so they just said: It shall be so. We will not talk about this anymore. Stamp my foot--no. Disregard 97 percent of the scientists. Here is the thing I like about the President's proposal: It is respectful of States' roles. It allows major flexibility. Every State is going to have its own plan. Some States may say: Coal-fired plants, you can clean up a little bit. We will get a little savings there. But we will also do some energy efficiency so you do not have to burn as much coal. This is what is envisioned. Eventually, we are going to see lower prices for our folks. They say in about 15 years we are going to see an 8-percent decrease. Let me say that again. It is going to shrink electricity bills roughly 8 percent, and that is going to happen because we are going to have increased energy efficiency and reduced demand. So this poll is very clear. People want action. And the Clean Air Act is very clear. I think it is important to note that under George Bush we wasted 8 years because they kept saying carbon pollution was not covered in the Clean Air Act. But we had some very smart attorneys who went up there-- and one of them is sitting here--who said: No, no, no. Just read it. If you read it, you will see. Thank goodness the Supreme Court ruled and said that absolutely greenhouse gas emissions can be regulated if there is an endangerment finding. And there certainly was that. So the Clean Air Act has a proven track record. I will close with this. To those people who are in denial, I say: Wake up because it is not about you; it is about your kids and your grandkids and their kids. So get out of that phase because you are hurting people--innocent people. This is your time to do something--not to walk away. For those people who say: Oh, the environment, that is not an important issue to the people--no. It is a big deal. Every time my friends here try to repeal parts of the Clean Air Act, I come to the floor with colleagues. We have stopped them. The House voted 90 times with these terrible riders. We have stopped them every time. Eighty percent of the people support the Clean Air Act. We have to protect our families. We have seen a country that has thrown the environment under the bus. Now they say they are changing, but let's see what a country looks like--instead of listening to my words, let's look at a photo. As shown in this picture, this is what life is like in some Chinese provinces. They do not care about the environment. They do what some of my friends say: Oh, repeal this--they do not even have these laws to repeal. They do not care. Just develop, just develop, just develop. Do not pay attention. Do not worry about best technologies. Just throw the environment under the bus. Well, guess what. These people are being thrown under the bus. They cannot breathe. And if you cannot breathe, you cannot work. So even China--they are learning they have to do something to clean up their environment. But we cannot look like this in the future. I am just telling you. People think, oh, an exaggeration. I had one of my Republican colleagues walk out on me in a hearing because I showed this picture. They said: We do not want this. I am not saying they want it. I am saying that if you repeal all the provisions of the Clean Air Act that they are trying to repeal--and they want, by the way, to stop us from this rule--that is what is going to happen, not that they want it to happen. Of course they do not want it to happen. They do not think it is going to happen. But this has happened because in China, like us, they have a very big economy, and they are expanding. We want to expand, but we have to do it in a clean way. So the people of my home State of California get this. They get this. The oil companies came in and they put millions of dollars to try to get us to repeal our cap-and-trade system and our rules and our laws. People said: No, no, no, we are not going there with you, Big Oil. Clean up your act. My mother used to say: Clean up your room. The room they are polluting belongs to everybody. It is the atmosphere. We all have to clean it up. This is not something we take a pass on. This is the planet Earth itself. Somebody said the other day--some scientist--that the Earth will survive. It will look a lot different. The water will be different. This will be different. There will not be the same things growing and forests will be elsewhere. But what about the people? Well, that was not a good story. It is up to us. We have a lot on our shoulders. We really do. I am not saying it is easy. Nothing is easy. My dad used to say: Nothing good comes easy. It is true. We have to try to figure it out. But I want to say to this President tonight how proud I am that he has stepped up to the plate. All the screaming and the denials and the yelling and the rest and the special interests, which my colleague Senator Whitehouse says has a barricade of lies around the Capitol--and he is just looking at his daughters and he is looking at all the young people he meets, and he is saying: You know what, I have to do something. And he is looking at the military. He is looking at them and he is thinking: I am being told--he is saying--by the Department of Defense that climate change is making this an unstable world. Actually, there is a very strong case to be made that was made in a documentary that a lot of the cause of the Syrian war started out with the farmers rebelling and revolting because they cannot deal with what is happening to their lives--the farmers. So whether it is climate change or taking care of our veterans or all the other things facing us--the violence--we have a lot on our plate. I just hope we can step up to the plate, with the best of intentions, work across party lines, do our best, stop playing politics. President Obama says one thing. It does not matter what he says, the other side is all over it. How could that be? How could every single thing a person says be controversial? Sometimes I think if the President said ``Good morning,'' one of the Republicans would say ``It is not; how dare you say it is a good morning?'' That is what it is getting to. We have to put that aside. We are only here for a short amount of time, and we have to do our best to solve the problems the American people face. So I took a long time tonight because I feel there are so many things out there that I am so privileged to be able to talk about and, more important, I can do something about. So I hope our colleagues will come together on these topics and we can make some progress for the good of the American people. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Whitehouse. As chair of the conference committee for WRRDA, a committee on which the Senator from Rhode Island and Senator Vitter also served, I agree with the Senator's understanding of section 4014. Like Rhode Island, California also has strong leadership on coastal and oceans issues and will benefit from increased collaboration with the Corps of Engineers on coastal and ocean resiliency issues.

Mrs. BOXER. The Army Corps was clear that when a project is identified in the study associated with Section 4014, it may be carried out in accordance with the criteria for one of the four existing CAPs referenced in the section, but it will be not funded through or authorized by those CAP authorities. Section 4014 provides its own funding authorization, and accordingly any project authorized by Section 4014 would be funded by appropriations for that authority.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am joined by the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to discuss a provision of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act conference report, which we will vote on shortly in the Senate. Title II, subtitle B includes a number of important provisions related to port and harbor maintenance. In addition to setting annual spending goals for funds from the harbor maintenance trust fund, HMTF, and providing a set-aside for spending on emerging ports, the section now authorizes new expanded uses of the HMTF. The expanded use authority, which includes dredging of berths and disposal of contaminated dredge material, is limited to those ports that collect more HMTF taxes than they receive in HMTF spending. I also want to note that these new uses are prioritized for the ports that collect much larger amounts of the HMTF fees than they receive in return because the many industries that pay these fees to access American ports deserve to have some of those funds used to improve the facilities they depend on for movement of goods. These ports have unmet needs that shippers into these ports expect to be addressed. In my home State, we have two large ports--Los Angeles and Long Beach. These two ports collect over a quarter of all revenue for the HMTF, but because of the natural conditions at these ports, they require little to almost no traditional dredging to maintain the federally authorized channels. They do have needs related to berth dredging and disposal of some contaminated sediments. These expanded use authorities are new and separate from the traditional uses of the HMTF. These new, expanded uses are not limited to the traditional HMTF focus--dredging of the Federal navigation channel. Instead, these are designed to meet additional maintenance needs beyond traditional cost-shared dredging projects. Specifically, the conference agreement authorizes dredging of berths that are accessible to a Federal navigation channel and that benefit commercial navigation at the harbor. This permits expenditure of HMTF revenues for maintenance of non-Federal berthing areas to a depth required to access the federally authorized channel. The conference agreement does not place any other restriction on the use of these funds; therefore, these funds are eligible for maintenance dredging of berths to any depths necessary to access the federally authorized navigation channel as long as the berth is in a harbor that is accessible to a Federal navigation channel and the dredging benefits commercial navigation. The conference report also authorizes dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments if such activities provide a benefit to commercial navigation and affect navigation of a Federal navigation project or are located in a berth that is accessible to a Federal navigation project. This provision will enable the HMTF to fund the disposal of legacy-contaminated sediment and sediment unsuitable for open water disposal that affect navigation at a Federal navigation project. This could include a range of cost-effective contaminated sediment removal and disposal activities as long as they provide a benefit to commercial navigation. No limitation beyond the benefit to commercial navigation and the linkage to a Federal navigation project is included. Mr. Vitter. I thank Senator Boxer for the discussion of expanded uses of the HMTF. I agree with her understanding of the berth dredging and contaminated sediment disposal eligibilities, which are important to many of our Nation's major commercial ports. Expanding the uses of the HMTF is critical to those ports that are major contributors to the HMTF, yet receive minimal expenditures; therefore, the conference agreement establishes specific criteria for use of this authority. I look forward to working with the Senator more in the future on the implementation of the HMTF provisions in this conference report, including the expanded use provision we are discussing as well as increased expenditures of harbor maintenance trust fund revenues and prioritization of dredging at other key ports, such as the Port of New Orleans.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Vitter for that response. It is important that we are clear on how these new authorities should be implemented. I also want to highlight how these authorities will benefit my home State of California. In the case of the Port of Los Angeles, the main channels and turning basins are authorized to at least 53-foot depth and have been recently dredged to such depths. Most adjacent container berths were also federally authorized at 53 feet and have been dredged to that depth. As shoaling/siltation occurs, maintenance dredging must be performed in order to keep adequate depth for the large container ships. The new expanded use for berth dredging will permit the maintenance dredging of these berth areas, down to the federally authorized depth. This new use for disposal of contaminated sediment is also important for the Port of Los Angeles because legacy sediment contamination from the Consolidated Slip at the port will migrate during storm events down the Dominguez Channel and into the newly deepened Federal turning basin and main channel. This new expanded use will now allow the HMTF to fund the removal of this sediment. I am glad that the conference agreement could address this important need for California ports as well as many other ports around the country. I am also very pleased with all of the other important reforms to the harbor maintenance trust fund included in the conference report. The proper and full maintenance of our nation's ports is of vital importance as we seek to compete in the global economy. The HMTF provisions and other important elements in the WRRDA 2014 help support American jobs, while maintaining America's ability to compete in the global economy. Dam Optimization

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank Ranking Member Vitter and Senator Cornyn for the discussion of section 1046(a) in the WRRDA conference report. I agree with their understanding and interpretation of this section and wish to address the importance of this provision. In my home State, which is currently facing a historic drought, it is critical that the Corps examine its reservoir operations to increase flexibility so that it can better meet all of the State's water needs, including agriculture, municipal uses, and the environment. Unfortunately, in California, the Corps does not look often enough at how it can better operate its reservoirs to meet multiple needs. This provision does not change the authorized purpose of any reservoir and paragraph (6), ``Effects of subsection,'' makes this clear. The provision simply creates a more transparent process under existing law so that Congress and local communities can work with the Corps to improve management of Federal reservoirs that provide important benefits to local communities. ACF and ACT River Systems

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Colleagues, I am going to take 25 seconds. This is a great day for the Senate, for every single Member in this body, and our States, for jobs, for business, for ecosystem restoration, for our oceans. It is a great bill. I hope we will have a great vote on this bill. Senator Vitter and I agree. I will yield my remaining time to him.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to commend the extraordinary work of Cooks from the Valley, a volunteer organization dedicated to supporting our Nation's servicemembers, veterans and their families. Cooks from the Valley was established in Bakersfield, CA, by local resident Tom Anton, to bring the taste of home cooking to military members stationed all over the world. What first began with one person in Bakersfield has grown to a diverse group of service-minded volunteers from coast to coast bound by one common goal: to say thank you to the men and women who serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. Our military members and their families have made tremendous sacrifices and they deserve nothing less than the full and enduring support of a grateful nation. As co-chair of the Senate Military Family Caucus, I want to express my deepest gratitude to everyone at Cooks from the Valley--Mr. Anton, the volunteers, and many community supporters for their steadfast support of our servicemembers, veterans, and their families. These dedicated Americans generously volunteer their time and resources to travel to all corners of the globe, providing our servicemembers with a taste of home that has boosted the spirits and filled the stomachs of those who put their lives on the line each and every day in service to our Nation. Cooks from the Valley's unique way of giving back to our military men and women should be an inspiration to us all. As Americans, we have an obligation to give back to those who give so much for us. For many years, Cooks from the Valley has worked to fulfill this responsibility and I know they will continue to make a difference in the lives of our military families for many years to come.