Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I would follow Senator Inhofe's 9\1/2\ minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the consent I made was that we would go to Senator Murray for 12 minutes, followed by Senator Coons for 5 minutes, Senator Inhofe would be next for 9\1/2\ minutes, and then I would get to go for about 10 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. No, two.

Mrs. BOXER. The Republicans had quite a few on their side speak. The Republicans had three speakers--one right after the other--so now we are going to have three speakers, and then it goes back to Senator Inhofe.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, that is what I said. I said Senator Murray, Senator Coons, Senator Inhofe, and then Senator Boxer. That is what I said. Is that all right?

Mrs. BOXER. No. I say to my friend, I was promised to be able to speak at 3:30 so I am already giving up so much time, so if the Senator from Oklahoma could just take 9\1/2\ minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. All right. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first I want to add my voice of condolence to that of Senator Murray's and say to the Navy family how heavy our hearts are and that I stand ready, any minute, any hour, any second, to work with my colleagues to make sure mentally ill people do not get their hands on weapons. As soon as we can get a breakthrough on that-- and maybe on background checks--maybe we can finally do something for 90 percent of the American people who want us to. I also want to note that Senator Inhofe and I have an ongoing dispute, though it is quite friendly, on climate change. We went through this this morning. He sees evidence that climate change is probably still a hoax, and he talks about the great news that we do not have climate change. I think you should tell that to the people in Colorado. But notwithstanding that--forget that--I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record four articles that appeared in the recent days about how the consensus on climate change is growing, and there is 95-percent certainty that the cause is human activity.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to ask Senator Durbin how much time he needs, and I will make a request that he be recognized.

Mrs. BOXER. I am not the gentle lady anymore.

Mrs. BOXER. I remember 10 years of being a gentle lady.

Mrs. BOXER. Well, that is so nice of the Senator to say.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to talk about what is happening in this Congress or, better yet, what is not happening. We have to pass a continuing resolution so we can fund this government. That means all the functions--whether it is air traffic controllers, whether it is building our highways, whether it is FBI agents, whether it is paying Social Security. All the things we do--Medicare--we have to pass a continuing resolution to keep this government going--sending meat inspectors out to make sure we do not get poisoned, and the rest; you name it. And where is the House? All spending bills have to start over there. The Republicans control it. They have not sent us a continuing resolution. We also have to make sure we pay our debts--just like all Americans--debts we voted for. Whether it is military spending, domestic spending, spending to help our farmers, spending to help recover from Hurricane Sandy, we have to pay our debts. To do that, we have to increase the debt ceiling. October 15; it is coming. If we do not do it, if the Republicans play games, we will see a crash in the stock market. I am sure every American looks forward to that. They are not doing their work because they are obsessed--they are obsessed--with repealing a law they have tried to repeal 41 times. They are obsessed. They tried to get it overturned in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said it is constitutional. They are trying to take away a law that is helping every American, and I am going to talk about it. They are obsessed. They refuse to understand that raising the debt ceiling is not about future spending, it is about past spending. So their reason is, they are very upset about the Affordable Care Act--or ObamaCare, however you want to call it--and they are very upset about the deficit, which has come down by half from its height with this President's leadership. Here is the thing: I do a lot of speaking to youngsters in school. When I explain to them what the role of a Senator is, I say, in essence, it is to make life better for the people--that is what I think it is--and to do it in a smart way, and to work with your colleagues to make sure you can compromise and get things done. Whether it is building highways or making sure our ports are dredged or funding the military, we must work together. No one gets everything he or she wants. That is life. You have to compromise. You cannot be an ideologue and say: My way or the highway. To go after a law that was passed years ago--that you tried to repeal 41 times and failed, that you tried to overturn in the Court and failed--and then not to do your most fundamental responsibility of keeping the government open? There is something really wrong about this. Let's take a look at this economy. Why are they so upset at what the President has been able to achieve? President Clinton left office with a surplus--over $200 billion. Remember that. Eight years later, President Bush left office with a $1.3 trillion deficit. I will not go into why because I do not have the time, but that is the fact, and no one can erase it from the books. Since President Obama took office, the projected annual deficit has been cut in half. It is less than $650 billion. Yet they are willing to shut the government down by making believe no progress has been made, when we have cut the deficit in half and we are trying to get out of a disastrous recession. Under the Clinton administration, the economy created more than 20 million private sector jobs. Under George W. Bush, we lost 665,000 jobs. Remember, Clinton, millions of jobs created; George Bush, the Republican, hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs lost. Under President Obama, we have added 3.9 million private sector jobs--coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. You can say what you want, but President Obama and the Democrats here--even though it has been a bear to do it--we have managed to wrap our arms around this recession and get us on a course. How about housing? Home prices are up more than 12 percent over the last year. Home sales have increased 47 percent since their crisis low. Recent housing starts are up 75 percent from April 2009. Housing was the cause of this recession. People sliced and diced mortgages and sold them on Wall Street and brought everything down. Deregulation; that was the Republican mantra. It went too far, and we lost our way, and people suffered through the worst recession since the Great Depression. The Republicans, instead of working with us to keep the progress up, want to shut the government down, want to say we are not going to pay our bills, even though they voted to rack up those bills. Look at the auto industry. In 2009, the auto industry lost more than 100,000 jobs. Rescuing the auto industry saved more than 1 million jobs, and the news is great coming out of Detroit. People are buying cars. The Republicans put it all at risk by shutting down the government and not paying the bills. There are going to be no more bailouts. I was so proud. I offered the first amendment. I think my friend remembers: No more government bailouts to the big banks. So we are on our way to saying, once and for all, we are not going to let this crisis happen again. The stock market. Do you know the Dow fell to 6,500, Mr. President? Since then, it has rebounded to 15,000--almost 2,000 points above its precrisis record. But yet they will put it all at risk because they are saying they are going to play games, shut down the government, not pay the debt. The last time they played these games--the Republicans--GAO found that threatening to breach the debt limit cost the Treasury $1.3 billion just in 2011, and $18 billion over the next 10 years. The next time a Republican tells you how fiscally conservative they are, ask them why it is they added $18 billion to the debt by playing games with the debt ceiling. I want to quote Republican President Ronald Reagan, one of the heroes of my friends' party. He said: The full consequences of a default--or even the serious prospect of default--by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar. That is Ronald Reagan. In 1983 he said that even talking about a default had terrible consequences. They are not even talking about a default, they are planning for a default. My friend, who is such a great leader in the Senate, Senator Durbin, informed us and Senator Reid informed us that the Republicans in the House have a bill they love. We call it Pay China First. If there is a default, they will keep paying China the interest we owe them, but they will default on all of the Americans here and all of the contractors, the highway contractors, the people who dredge our ports. They will default on what they owe the American people, but they will pay China. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the CBO Director under George W. Bush, said: It's a bad idea. Little defaults, big defaults; default's a bad idea period and there should be no one who believes otherwise. He said that in 2011. There is no such thing as a good default. I have shown how far we have come with this economy. If we do not have the far right of the Republican Party taking America's country hostage, we will continue to grow this economy. But if they play games and try to shut down this government, it could all turn around. If they play games and they try to default on the debt, they could turn it all around in a bad way, and we will see the results as Social Security recipients start to worry, as Medicare receipts start to worry, as contractors start to worry, as Federal FBI agents can no longer get paid--it goes on and on and on. One of the reasons they are so crazed is they are obsessed over the Affordable Care Act, which they call ObamaCare. In my time, I want to tell you what the Affordable Care Act does and see whether you think it is worth shutting down the government over this bill. They tried it 41 times, but they hope 42 will be their winner. Over 1 million Californians--this is just in my State--are already newly insured. Three million young adults are now insured on their parents' plans--3 million are now insured, 400,000 in my State. Now 71 million Americans are getting free preventive care, such as checkups and birth control and immunizations. They do not like that, I guess. They are willing to shut the government down over it. Now 17 million kids with preexisting conditions, such as asthma, can no longer be denied coverage. Insurance companies cannot cancel your health insurance because you get sick. There are no more lifetime limits on coverage. Anyone who has had a catastrophic disease knows it is pretty easy to hit that cap. No more caps in a year. No more lifetime caps. This is what they are so obsessed about. So they are willing to shut down the government to take away these benefits. They said: Oh, health care costs are going to go up because of the Affordable Care Act. Well, guess what, health care costs are growing at the slowest rate in over 50 years. Insurance companies now have to justify their premium hikes. Before, they just hiked your rates and they could do it with impunity. Now, insurers have to spend at least 80 percent of your premiums on your medical care, not on overhead. They cannot pocket the money; they have to spend it on health care. Also, 8.5 million Americans have received rebate checks from their insurance company because they were overcharged. Is that what the Republicans are so upset about? They are willing to shut down the government to take away these benefits from the people. Insurance companies cannot deny coverage or charge more for preexisting conditions. They cannot charge women more than men. There is no more discrimination. Again, in a single year, they cannot impose dollar limits on you. The Republicans are upset about the deficit. The deficit has been cut in half. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. The House has voted 41 times to defund the Affordable Care Act. They took it all the way to the Supreme Court, the Republican attorneys general. They lost. They made it a centerpiece of the 2012 election. They lost the Presidential election. Now they are willing to shut down the government unless they get their way. So I would conclude by asking some rhetorical questions. Why are the Republicans obsessed with kicking young people off their parents' insurance? Why are the Republicans so obsessed with stopping preventive care, such as checkups and birth control and immunizations? Why are Republicans so obsessed with repealing benefits that guarantee insurance coverage for children and adults with preexisting conditions? Why are they so obsessed with stopping 13 million people from getting insurance who never had the chance before? Why are they so obsessed with stopping 24 million people from getting insurance under the new State health exchanges? Why are they so obsessed with repealing a law that prevents insurance companies from canceling an insurance policy when someone gets sick? Why are they obsessed that we are stopping that practice? Why are they so obsessed when we say you can no longer have an annual dollar limit on benefits? Why are they so obsessed with repealing a law that says to an insurance company: You cannot have a lifetime limit on benefits. Why are they so obsessed with repealing a law that finally stops discrimination against women? You know, being a woman was considered a preexisting condition. Honestly. You would have to pay twice as much as a man for your health care. If you were a victim of some kind of spousal abuse, that was considered a preexisting condition and your payments went up or maybe you never even got insurance. I have to that say finally, why are they so obsessed with doing away with the Affordable Care Act when CBO--the Congressional Budget Office--says it will save $109 billion over 10 years and over $1 trillion the following decade? I cannot answer these questions. All I can think is that it is politics. It is politics. I have been here a long time. I am proud of it. I thank my people in California for allowing me to have this honor. There were many laws I did not like, believe me. I have served with five Presidents. I did not agree with quite a few of them--two or three--but when I lost a battle, I did not try to shut down the government. When I lost a battle, I did not say: We cannot pay our debts. Oh, maybe I voted once or twice as a symbolic vote, but I knew the votes were there. So I would say to my friends, get over your obsession and proceed with your responsibilities to keep this government open. Forget about repealing a health care law that is about to kick in that is good for the people and pay your debts. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today there are hopeful signs that the international community will act to secure Syria's chemical weapons which have caused so much pain and so much suffering, including the suffering of little infants and children. A peaceful resolution to the Assad regime's use of these lethal, outlawed weapons would certainly be the best outcome. I commend the resolve of President Obama, without which we wouldn't be looking at a potential diplomatic solution. I wish to lay out for the record why we must act in response to the use of chemical weapons. Of course, I prefer it to be done through the international community. But I wish to be clear: There are certain norms, there are certain rules, there are certain laws that must be respected and obeyed; otherwise, we lose our humanity, and this is an example. Famous leaders throughout history have called war various things. They have called war a contagion. They have called war hell. They have called war a scourge, murder, a crime, despicable. But even in the chaos and in the darkness of war, there are rules. There are red lines. There are boundaries. There are limits. There are norms and there are laws. That is why in our Nation, as difficult and as painful as it has been, we have held our servicemembers accountable when they acted outside those norms. We did it just last month with the conviction of a soldier for war crimes committed in Afghanistan. The use of chemical weapons is way outside international laws, rules, boundaries, limits, and norms, and has been so since the end of World War I, when the world uniformly condemned them. We know--we know without a shadow of a doubt--that they have been used by Syria in a big way, and it is time for all Members of Congress and, frankly, all members of civilized society to look into our hearts, to look into our souls, and to look into our consciences. The painful way to do it is to look at the shocking acts committed against innocent, men, women, and children in Syria. Look at those videos, as difficult as it might be, of children and their families dying horrible, ghastly deaths, writhing in pain, gasping for air, foaming at the mouth as the gas attacks their nervous systems. Do we have a conscience? I pray we do. Albert Einstein once said: ``The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.'' Let me repeat it. ``The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.'' Doing nothing can sometimes be an attractive alternative. I understand it. But each of us who looks at these videos, who reads about what happened, each of us must ask ourselves, as human beings, as citizens of our great Nation: Can we respond to these atrocities by doing nothing? Can we sit back and do nothing in the face of Syria's use of chemical weapons on its own people, its own children? When the President said he had a red line on this, he wasn't speaking for himself alone; he was speaking for the world that disavowed these weapons. I have to say that, to me, the Senate has a red line on this. Anyone who voted for the Syria Accountability Act in 2003, be it in the House or Senate, drew a red line, because in it, we condemned and we decried the development of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, and we tied that program to our own national security. There is no way our national security is unaffected when these weapons are used and no one is held accountable. Did we mean it when we voted for the Syria Accountability Act? Did we mean it when we passed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, which I was proud to vote for. Did we mean it? Words are good, but tyrants do not heed words. History is replete with tyrants who stood in the face of the worst condemnation and annihilated people. If we stand by and do nothing, what message do we send to those who have these weapons? I mentioned the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, and I will tell my colleagues, as we look at the world--and there is a lot to complain about and be ashamed of and worry about--one of the good things is that since we passed the Chemical Weapons Convention and ratified it, 80 percent of the chemical weapons of the world have been destroyed. I think we should listen again to colleagues who spoke during the Senate debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention. Here is what Joe Biden, our Vice President, said: Norms are created so that we have standards for civilized conduct by which to judge others. Without them, we leave the rogue countries to behave as free actors. Our own Pat Leahy said: We will advise and consent so the President can ratify this treaty. I truly believe we will. It will show the moral leadership that the Senate should show and the United States should show. We will act as the conscience of this Nation, and we will advise and consent to this treaty. We will show the moral leadership because we began this by saying we would act unilaterally, if need be, renouncing our own use of chemical weapons with or without a treaty. That was true leadership. So we hear the words ``morality'' and ``conscience'' and ``leadership.'' These shouldn't be just words. We should show that courage. Here are words from John Warner, our former colleague. He said: I first learned of chemical weapons at the knee of my father who was a surgeon in the trenches in World War I. He described to me in vivid detail how he cared for the helpless victims of that weapon . . . we cannot turn back now from that leadership role. Sixteen years later, in this very Chamber where I stood and proudly cast my vote for the Chemical Weapons Convention, we are facing a clear violation of law and humanity. How do we react? If we do nothing, what is the signal to Assad? What is the signal to Kim Jong Un in North Korea, who has what has been described as a massive array of chemical weapons in an area where we have 28,000 American troops keeping the peace. The message we send if we do nothing is not a good one. It will send a message that says we don't mean what we say; We don't stand behind the laws we pass or the conventions we ratify. These chemical weapons kill people like cockroaches. When we read history, we know these weapons were used on the Iranians by Saddam Hussein and one Iraqi military official called these weapons an ``annihilation insecticide.'' That is what they have been called. These weapons cause excruciating death. That is why a monster such as Hitler chose them to wipe out millions of those he considered subhuman. We all know the history. He didn't use them on troops; he used them on those groups that he considered subhuman. Yet, while the rest of the world was eliminating chemical weapons, Syria was stockpiling precursor chemicals and building one of the largest chemical weapons arsenals in the world. A Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman said in 2012 that Syria reserved the right to use these weapons against external forces. His statement already is a violation of international law. He said: We reserve the right to use these weapons against external forces. But he went on to say--and we have his name: ``Any stock of WMD or unconventional weapons that the Syrian Army possesses will never, never be used against the Syrian people or civilians during this crisis, under any circumstances.'' Remarkably, Syria violated its own red line. Chris Miller is a U.S. Army veteran and he is an expert in the area of chemical and biological weapons. Here is what he wrote in ``The Guardian.'' He said we must: ``jealously guard what progress has been made in working toward a more peaceful world.'' He added: The steady worldwide reduction of chemical weapons is a prime example of that progress--one that we cannot allow to be eroded so easily. I can't underscore this enough. In a world full of challenges and disappointments and for people such as the Presiding Officer and me who believe so much that we can have a peaceful world, this is one of the few areas we can point to--where 80 percent of the world's arsenal of chemical weapons has been destroyed. If we turn our back on this tyrant and on this use, clearly, the chemical weapons will go right back into production. They will be marketing chemical weapons, and we know what will happen when they get into certain hands. We should not ignore history or we are doomed to repeat it. The British soldier and poet Wilfred Owen wrote this in an effort to depict the horrors of chemical warfare in World War I. This is what he said: ``If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood / Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs.'' He saw it firsthand in World War I, where 90,000 troops were killed by these heinous weapons, including 6,000 French, British, Canadian, and Belgian troops killed by German forces in one battle alone. Nations flocked to sign the Geneva Protocol after World War I. Syria joined them, and now more than 1,000 Syrian civilians lay dead due to Assad's decision to bring back these horrors. How will we react? Our former colleague and respected national security leader Dick Lugar says chemical weapons ``may be the greatest threat to our country of any security risk that we have, much more than any other government, for example, or another Nation because they can be used by terrorists, by very small groups''--Dick Lugar, who played such a great role in securing nuclear weapons after the Cold War; Dick Lugar, who understands what could happen if we turn our back now. I respectfully say to my colleagues: Don't look away. Don't rationalize inaction. We cannot stay silent. If we fail to act in the face of such a brazen violation of international norms, in the face of an assault on conscience, then outlawing these weapons becomes meaningless and we put the security of all of us at risk. If we fail to act, we make it more likely that these weapons will be used again in Syria and elsewhere. If we fail to act, we send a terrible message to brutal regimes such as North Korea and Iran, which are seeking to develop nuclear weapons. In the case of North Korea, they have what has been described by Secretary Hagel as a massive amount of chemical weapons. If we fail to act, we make it more likely that these horrific weapons could be used against our allies such as Israel and our troops. That is for sure. If we fail to act, we make it more likely that chemical weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists and others who would do us harm. If we fail to act, we send a message that the civilized world will permit the use of these ghastly and inhumane weapons, not just on the battlefield but against children and families sleeping in their beds. I ask my colleagues and the American people, do not look away. It is easier to look away. We had a chance to see some of the videos, Madam President, as you know, during our luncheon meeting. We cannot sit by and do nothing in the face of such horror. We cannot. So here is the thing: We have a chance now--because of President Obama's resolve, because of the resolve of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, because of the resolve of many people inside government and outside government, we have the resolve to do something. And the best something would be an international response. I am proud of our President for making sure this alternative was in Vladimir Putin's mind when they met. And I am glad Secretary Kerry said: Look, there is an alternative. Let them hand over their weapons. Let's dismantle them and do it right and verify it and hold them accountable, and we get past this. That is the route I believe we all want to see happen. We want to see the world stand up against this inhumanity, but let's not be naive about it. When you are dealing with tyrants, you have to enforce that kind of a plan. I am hopeful today but not sanguine. I am hopeful that the United Nations will take this as an opportunity to stand firm, to say that the outlawing of chemical weapons meant something in reality, not just on paper. And when we said people should not die like cockroaches, we meant it. So I am hopeful we will have a small pause here and we will give diplomacy a chance to work between the nations, and I praise our leadership in the Obama administration and France's leadership and British leadership. I hope the Russians meant it when they said: Let's try to resolve this in a way that will result in the absolute destruction of the chemical weapons Syria has. I hope they mean it. We cannot walk away from an inhumane act that caused innocent children to die in unspeakable ways because, I will tell you, if we walk away, then I think the message is that there are no limits on gross violations of international norms, there are no limits on gross violations of international laws, and there are no limits on violations of human decency. I am very pleased the President took this to the Congress. I think it was right. But I want to be clear: The President, as our Commander in Chief, has the authority--if he believes there is an imminent threat or danger to us, he has the authority to act. And I think Richard Lugar is sending us a very powerful message when he says one of our greatest national security threats--he said even greater than a threat posed by any nation--is the possibility that a small terrorist group could get their hands on these weapons. I will tell you, Madam President, that is an unacceptable situation, and I know the President worries about this every day, and every night when he goes to sleep, it is on his mind. One way to make sure the chance of that happening is lessened greatly is to make sure one of the largest caches of these weapons is controlled internationally and then destroyed. That will, in fact, mean we will have a more peaceful world. There is a civil war going on in Syria. No one wants to get in the middle of it--least of all those of us who voted against the Iraq war because we saw what would happen. And years and years and years later, unfortunately, we were proven right. I was proud to vote no on that war. I think I have a little credibility here for not wanting to go to war, for making sure the intelligence is right, for making sure there is a limited mission, for making sure this is well thought out. I would say in closing that the best ending to this crisis is for the international community to take hold of this--together, all of us--and work to see that these weapons of mass destruction are first accounted for, then controlled, and then destroyed. If we can do that, then the horrifying deaths we have witnessed and we have seen on tape today and the American people have been witnessing--at least there will be something good that could come out of this because otherwise, if there is no action, their deaths will not mean anything, they will be forgotten. So we need to keep a credible plan before us, which means we want to see international rules apply, we want to see the international community take hold of this and have a good outcome. But I will tell you this--and I believe this with every fiber of my being--such a gross violation of humanity cannot go unanswered. Thank you very much. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that time during all the quorum calls be charged equally to both sides.

Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would like to recognize Ariel Rios, a man who made the ultimate sacrifice while protecting our country and who is being honored today at a special dedication ceremony here in Washington, DC. On September 10, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives--ATF--is honoring Special Agent Ariel Rios, who gave his life in the line of duty, by dedicating the Ariel Rios Reflecting Pool at the ATF Headquarters in Washington, DC. On December 2, 1982, while conducting an undercover operation in support of an investigation into illegal drug and firearms violations, Agent Rios was shot and killed. At the time of his death, Agent Rios was 28 years old and had worked for ATF for 4 years. His killers were sentenced to life in prison, plus 50 years. Agent Rios was survived by his wife Elsie and their young children Eileen and Francisco. Naming the reflecting pool at the ATF Headquarters, which is located at 99 New York Avenue NE, in honor of Agent Rios brings him home to his ATF family. This memorial will forever provide ATF employees with a place to honor and reflect on the life of an agent who made the ultimate sacrifice. This dedication also provides an opportunity for us to honor all the brave men and women who wear the badge and put their lives on the line every day to protect this great Nation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Chairman Murray and Chairman Mikulski, for explaining that this legislation will allow California high-speed rail to move forward.

Mrs. BOXER. I also share the concerns expressed by Senator Feinstein, and I would also like to reiterate that the people of California voted to fund this project. The California State Legislature voted to fund this project, and the Department of Transportation, after weighing a number of applications for high-speed rail across the Nation, decided to fund this project. I find it troubling that opponents have attempted to hinder the advancement of this project by curtailing an independent agency's mission and responsibilities, as well as trying to prohibit the transmission of appropriated funds to its rightful destination. I am pleased that this legislation will allow the Surface Transportation Board to act within its statutory authority. I also see that the legislation will allow the Federal Railroad Administration to administer its previously awarded grants to California, and I thank Chairman Murray for advancing this legislation. I would also like to note that this project is incredibly important to the future of California. California's 170,000 miles of roadway are the busiest in the Nation, with automobile congestion draining $18.7 billion in lost time and wasted fuel from the State's economy every year. Additionally, flights between Los Angeles and the Bay area, which is the busiest short-haul market in the United States with 5 million passengers annually, are the most delayed in the country, with approximately one in every four flights late by an hour or more. California's high-speed rail system will not only increase mobility and save lost time and money over the coming decades, it will also create near-and long-term employment opportunities, enhance environmental and energy goals, and spur economic development.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to an incredible woman--former Congresswoman and Ambassador Lindy Boggs--who was a trailblazer for women and a passionate advocate for the people of Louisiana and people across the country who too often don't have a voice in Washington. When I first became a Member of Congress in 1983, Lindy was one of only 21 women serving in the House of Representatives. I will always be grateful for the kindness and generosity she showed in taking me under her wing--and it was the same for so many other women who followed her in Congress and found in her a role model of such dignity and strength. No one will ever forget her courage in the face of unspeakable tragedy--the loss of her husband, Congressman Hale Boggs, whose plane disappeared during a campaign trip to Alaska in 1972. Louisianans, including her husband's closest friends, urged her to run for the seat in a special election the next year, and she became the first woman elected to Congress from the State where she was beloved. I remember visiting Lindy's home State of Louisiana years later and being overwhelmed at the outpouring of love and respect the people she represented had for her--and with good reason. Throughout her time in Congress, she was a champion for civil rights, women's equality, and social justice. During her first term in Congress, Lindy was assigned to the House Banking Committee. At one point, the committee was considering an amendment to a lending bill banning discrimination on the basis of race, age or veteran status. Seizing the opportunity, Lindy quickly added the words ``sex or marital status'' to the amendment and ran to a copy machine to make copies for each Member. She told her colleagues: Knowing the Members composing this committee as well as I do, I'm sure it was just an oversight that we didn't have `sex' or `marital status' included. I've taken care of that, and I trust it meets with the committee's approval. That is how sex discrimination was made illegal in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974. She was a skilled lawmaker who used her immense personal charm, political savvy and intellect to win over colleagues on issues that were critical to her State and the country. One of her Republican House colleagues remarked: It was impossible not to like Lindy. She liked everybody. She was nice to everybody. She achieved more with less huff and puff and bluster than any of the rest of us did. Lindy stood up for equality and racial justice, even when her views were not popular with some voters in her own district. When she left Congress in 1991 after serving nine terms, she was the only White Member to represent a Black-majority district. She led the fight for equal pay for women in government jobs and for greater access to government contracts for women business owners. She worked to protect women from domestic violence, and inspired so many young people--women and men--to follow her into public service. Lindy was a pioneer in so many ways--the first woman to chair a major political party's nominating convention, the first woman to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, and the first woman to have a room in the Capitol named in her honor. But because of her leadership and mentorship, Lindy made sure that she would not be the last and that generations of other women would be able to follow in her extraordinary footsteps. My heart goes out to her family, her friends and all of those whose lives she touched. She will be dearly missed.