Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the University of California, Los Angeles baseball team for winning the 2013 National Collegiate Athletics Association, NCAA, Division I College World Series. On June 25, the UCLA Bruins capped off a magical season and earned their first baseball national championship by sweeping the Mississippi State Bulldogs. This victory wouldn't have been possible without the determination and teamwork of the skilled and dedicated players and the devoted coaching and training staff, led by head coach John Savage. The 2013 Bruins showed these extraordinary qualities all season, finishing with a 49-17 record and matching a school record with 21 wins in the Pac-12 conference play. During the NCAA Regionals and Super Regionals, the Bruins began their undefeated march through the postseason by defeating worthy and spirited opponents from San Diego State, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, the University of San Diego, and Cal State Fullerton en route to earning their third trip in 4 years to the prestigious College World Series in Omaha, NE. In the College World Series, the Bruins unleashed a historic display of overpowering pitching, steady defense, and timely hitting to defeat competition from Louisiana State, North Carolina State, the University of North Carolina, and Mississippi State to capture the first national championship in UCLA baseball history. The Bruins became the first championship team to allow one run or fewer in every College World Series game. In total, the Bruins allowed just 14 runs during their dominant 10-0 run through the NCAA tournament. True to their reputation as a team of great resolve and determination, the Bruins were bolstered by contributions from every player on their roster. They worked together to ensure that the College World Series trophy will finally make its way to UCLA, a school with a rich baseball tradition that includes Jackie Robinson, who honed his prodigious skills before becoming a National Baseball Hall of Famer and national hero. With the addition of the College World Series trophy, the UCLA Hall of Champions will now boast an unmatched 109 NCAA team championships. It is my pleasure to congratulate UCLA students, families, alumni, faculty, and Bruin fans, as they celebrate their 2013 National Collegiate Athletics Association Division I College World Series victory and their remarkable and memorable season.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Luke Sheehy, a loving son, devoted friend, and courageous firefighter. Luke Sheehy passed away on June 10, 2013, succumbing to injuries he sustained while heroically combating a wildfire in the Modoc National Forest. He was 28 years old. Luke Sheehy was born in Susanville, CA, graduated from Susanville High School, and attended the Shasta College Fire Academy. After serving as a firefighter with the California Department of Forestry and the Bureau of Land Management's Diamond Mountain Hotshots, Luke became a U.S. Forest Service Smokejumper, parachuting from airplanes to fight fires in remote and hard-to-access areas, helping to train new smokejumpers and earning respect for his strong work ethic and leadership abilities. Those who knew him best will remember Luke as a genuine friend who loved his family and enjoyed hunting, fishing, snowboarding and the piano, guitar and fiddle. My heart goes out to Luke's family, loved ones, and colleagues, and my thoughts and prayers are with them. Luke Sheehy, like all those who fight fires across California, put his life on the line to protect our families and communities. We are forever indebted to him for his courage, service and sacrifice, and he will be dearly missed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the so-called bipartisan deal. I have very strong reasons for opposing it and supporting the alternative, which is the Reed-Warren alternative. The Senator from Tennessee said he likes the sound of bipartisan deals. So do I. It feels good to get things done around here in a bipartisan way. But that doesn't mean, because it is called bipartisan, it is the right thing to do. Sometimes Democrats will have the right idea, sometimes Republicans will have the right idea, and we debate it. I think it was interesting to hear Senator Alexander's comments. It was a very interesting speech because it was part of--you know, saying that it is wonderful and we are going to help students on the one hand; on the other hand, he talks about changing the way we are doing our accounting to crack down on students; and then he says that in his State a student can get a $5,500 loan even though it only costs $3,000. What about the books they have to buy? What about transportation? What about all the other out-of-pocket expenses? So I listened to my friend from Tennessee, and I know he is a leader on education, but I think he had kind of a dual message: On the one hand, it is wonderful to help our students. Well, maybe it is just too much of a risk. I have to say that according to the information I have from my experts, it is pretty tough when you take out a student loan. The Federal Government, if you don't pay it back, can garnish your wages and it can do lots of other things. I am opposed to this bipartisan deal and strongly support the Reed- Warren measure. I am pleased that a lot of people are listening to this debate because it is very important. I am going to read some of the criticisms of this bipartisan deal that come from outside groups. The first is the National Association of Graduate-Professional Students. This is what they said: This bill falls short in preventing higher student loan interest rates, especially for graduate and professional students. A cap of 9.5 percent for graduate and professional students offers no guarantees that our rates won't significantly increase in the future. We should be encouraging students to enter higher education to help keep our economy growing, not deterring them with higher interest rates. The Young Invincibles also oppose this bill, writing: Even as the Federal Government makes $184 billion off the Federal loan program, students and families will be forced to pay more under this bill than current law. If you let the current law exist, at the end of the day, because of the difference in caps, students will be better off in the outyears and into the future. For anyone who says this is temporary, make no mistake about it--Republicans have said this is permanent. We may revisit other things, and I hope we do because there is a lot we should look at, such as the ability of students to refinance their loans. There are many other things I hope we can work on. But this particular deal, if you look at the Republicans' own words, is a permanent deal. U.S. Public Interest Group says: We oppose S. 1334, the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, because it is worse than current student loan policy. Current law includes an unjustifiable 10-year revenue stream of $184 billion flowing directly from student borrowers to the Federal Government. [This bill] does not address this problem. Instead, it exacerbates it, generating an additional $715 million in new revenue off the backs of student loan borrowers to pay down the deficit. They close their comments by saying, ``Enough is enough.'' I am sure people listening to this debate could be a bit confused about exactly what we are talking about. I am going to try to go through some of the facts surrounding this debate. I think it is important that we understand what students are feeling out there. I am going to read a few. In California, Amy and Christian Diede owe over $82,000 in student loans. Amy, who has a master's degree in psychology, and Christian, a cardiovascular nurse, say: It's like carrying a big backpack filled with bricks all over the place, and I can't ever let it go. It's always there. I may get rid of a few bricks, but there's always going to be more. I don't see the student loans going away. I have met people who are still paying off their student loans and they are on Social Security. Last year, Tammy Brown of Redding, CA, said the government has been taking $179 out of her Social Security disability check each month for the past 5 years. Brown, 52, became disabled in 1986 after being involved in a car accident. Unable to work, she fell behind on her student loan payments. She said the Social Security check is too small to cover her food and medical bills, so she quit taking prescription pain pills. She said, ``It's kind of hard to live on this amount of money.'' This is a woman on Social Security disability, and what are we doing in the bipartisan deal? We are laying on top of what we already make from student loans an additional $715 million. Joseph Luka of Portland, ME, started college as a pre-med student, but he switched to mechanical engineering because the thought of graduating with more than $100,000 in student loans after medical school was too daunting. I will return to some of the comments at the close of my time. We have to ask a few questions. Why are we piling another $715 million of debt on the backs of our students--so we could stand here and say we did a bipartisan deal? And I know how hard it was. Yes, there are great improvements from where it started. I appreciate that, but we have a better deal. It is called Reed-Warren. It matches those low rates you see in the bipartisan deal for the first 3 years. It matches them, and then it keeps the rates down. I am going to show just how much money we save students in the Reed-Warren legislation because it keeps the rates down. Did students put two wars on a credit card? Is that why they have to be punished? Were students running the banks that placed huge bets on Wall Street, leading up to the crash? Did students create a drug benefit in the Medicare Program without paying for it? Did students create and sell toxic mortgages, swaps, and securities? Oh, no, they didn't do any of that, but apparently we are forcing students to pay for that by tacking another $715 million on their backs. I have to say, when it comes to the banks, oh, hundreds of billions of dollars, no problem; too big to fail. It is very hard to explain to people and to students. We say we love our children and we want them to succeed. And yes, we do, but we don't follow our words with actions because if we followed our words with actions, we would embrace the Reed-Warren solution. But the handwriting is clearly on the wall, and we are not going to have the votes to do that, so we are going to ask our students to continue to pay more and more. We ought to look at what past Presidents have said about the importance of education. I feel I must point out that Americans have always said that our values include valuing our students. So let's go back. George H.W. Bush: Think about every problem, every challenge, we face. The solution to each starts with education. How right he was when he said that. Bill Clinton: When we make college more affordable, we make the American Dream more achievable. How right he was to say that. George W. Bush: Our country must focus our education system on helping workers learn the new skills of the 21st century so we can increase the job base of this country. And Barack Obama: The jobs of the future are increasingly going to be those with more than a high school degree. We all want Americans getting those jobs in the future. So we are going to have to make sure that they're getting the education they need. OK. So how about charging our students $715 million more? That really helps us do what these Presidents have called us to do, which is to value our children, to value education. Two Democrats, two Republicans. A clear message. And, believe me, that is hard to find on a lot of issues. Education is key. Our students are important. They need the education to get the jobs. I am going to show exactly what this bipartisan bill is going to cost. I already said it is $715 million over the course of time to the government. Let's look at how much more each family will have to pay under this so-called ``deal'' compared with the Reed-Warren substitute. First, let's take a look at the 10-year loan. Now, what we do on all these charts is we go out to the cap because we know the caps will all be reached. All one has to do is look to the experts. They have told us the caps will be reached. Take the 30-year average rate of the 10-year note, add on the surcharge, and, bingo, the caps will be reached in a few years. Let's look at the Reed amendment versus the deal. If you have a $15,000 loan for 10 years, under the deal you pay $1,363 more than you would under the Reed amendment. If you have a $25,000 loan, over 10 years you pay $2,271 more under the bipartisan deal. If you have a $50,000 loan--and you can get those, by the way--for 10 years, you pay $4,500 more. So let's say you decided you wanted to take 25 years to pay back that undergraduate loan. Let's say you have decided you want to take 25 years. You will pay, for a $30,000 loan amount, $8,400 more under this so-called bipartisan deal than you would under the Reed-Warren amendment. You will pay $14,000 more over the course of a 25-year loan if you have a $50,000 loan amount. So I am saying to the American people who might be watching this, the bad deal is the bipartisan deal and the good deal is the Reed deal. Look at how much more money an individual has to pay for a $50,000 loan over 25 years--$14,000 more. Some people don't even make $14,000 in half a year. Let's look at what happens to graduate students, and this is why the graduate students are speaking out against this. Look at this: If you pay back your graduate loan in 10 years--and we all know the caps are going to be reached--you pay $2,500 more for a $15,000 loan, $4,200 more for a $25,000 loan, $8,500 more with a $50,000 loan, and for a $100,000 loan you pay $17,000 more under the so-called bipartisan deal compared to the Reed amendment. So what we are seeing now is a breakdown of why we say it is going to mean $715 million more in debt on the backs of our students. I am showing how it breaks down for a family. This is worth looking at. If you are a graduate student--and I know the Presiding Officer probably has a doctorate--and you had to go borrow money under this bipartisan deal, if your loan amount was $30,000, you would pay $16,000 more than you would under the Reed- Warren amendment. If you had a $50,000 loan, you would pay $26,000. Look at this: If you have a $100,000 loan, which many people have-- you hear about what the cost is, and many people who go to graduate school have this--you will pay $53,000 more under the so-called bipartisan deal. Let's take a look at the parents--the parents who will have the misfortune of having to live under this. Look at the cap. Under the Reed-Warren cap it is a 7.9-percent cap for the parent loan. Under the so-called bipartisan deal it is a 10.5-percent cap. So what does this mean? The additional money for a 10-year loan would be $2,500 for a $15,000 loan, $4,200 for a $25,000 loan, $8,400 for a $50,000 loan, and $16,000 for a $100,000 loan. That is how much more the parents of the students would pay. The last chart, to bring it home to everyone, is the parents who are going to live with this bipartisan deal unless we pass Reed-Warren are going to have to pay, over 25 years--because their cap is 10.5 percent under this great bipartisan deal--$16,000 more on a $30,000 loan, $26,000 more on a $50,000 loan, and--hold on to your pocketbook-- $53,000 more on a $100,000 loan. Why would we not support the Reed-Warren bill? Did it cost us a few bucks? Yes. So we paid for the few bucks it cost us by putting in a millionaire's surtax of \1/2\ percent. OK? But because the bipartisan deal expects students to pay, and is putting the deficit burden on the students, their cap ranges up to over 10 percent for the parent loans. So you might hear: Oh, Senator Boxer, it will never reach the cap. We will not get to the cap. Well, I will use a--well, I will not go there. That is simply not true. We will get to the cap. Why? I said before, the average for the 10-year Treasury bond over the past 30 years is 6.22 percent. That is what it is. The bipartisan deal plugs us into the 10-year Treasury bond and adds a few dollars, a few percentage points for handling fees, and we will get all the way up to the cap in every case. It is just going to happen. If you don't learn from past interest rates, you can't predict the future. CBO predicts the future. They are using the past. We have to use the past. The cap will be hit. The cap will be hit. So where does this leave us? We have a stark choice to make. We can go with a bipartisan deal that people worked very hard on--and I compliment them for all the work they put into it, believe me. We can go with that deal that puts debt on the backs of our students--an additional $715 million worth of debt--or we can go with the Reed- Warren alternative that says to students: You are already paying enough. We are not going to lay this on you. We figured out a way to do it so that you are capped at a much lower rate. This is what we are talking about. This is what we are talking about. The deal will take $715 million out of our students' pockets over the next 10 years, and anyone who thinks that is fair should vote for the deal. Anyone who can look into the eyes of a student who is already struggling, who is already working, who is already asking their parents for help and trying to put it all together in a package, anyone who thinks that is fair, then vote for the deal. But don't kid yourself. This $715 million is going right onto the backs of our families. I have shown the charts. This is a permanent deal. Senator Coburn: I am pleased Senators agreed on a permanent principled solution. On Friday, the Republican leader called this bill a permanent reform that ties interest rates to market rates. From the Republican HELP Committee, Senator Alexander called this a long-term market-based solution. They are not going to revisit this issue. I have to compliment Senators Reed and Warren. They deserve praise because they have come up with a plan that works, that is fair, and that will give solace to our students. For the undergraduate and graduate loans, we will see them capped out at 6.8, and for the parent loans the cap is 7.9 compared to over 10 percent in the so-called bipartisan deal. Now, I promised I was going to revisit some of the stories, and I am going to close with those stories. Sandy Barnett, 58 years old, of Illinois took out a $21,000 loan to pay for graduate school in the late 1980s. But even after earning her master's degree, Barnett struggled to find a job that paid more than $25,000 a year. She fell behind on her payments. She suffered through a layoff, a stretch of unemployment, and the death of her husband while her student loan ballooned to $54,000. So what are we saying to Sandy Barnett? Oh, great news, we had a bipartisan breakthrough and now we are going to add $715 million to student debt. When Michelle Bisutti, a 41-year-old family practitioner in Columbus, OH, finished medical school in 2003, her student loan debt amounted to $250,000. By 2010 it had ballooned to $555,000. The entire balance of her Federal loans--over $200,000--will be paid off over 351 months, when she will be 70 years old. What are we doing? Who are we fighting for? How can we make one more speech on the floor of the Senate saying our students are our future? We have an immigration bill that is letting in high-tech workers because we don't have enough trained American workers to fill the jobs. Yet we are going to make it easier on students by piling on another $715 million of debt on their backs and on the backs of their families? Emmanuel Tellez's mother is a laid-off factory worker, and $120 from her $300 unemployment check is garnished to pay the Federal PLUS student loan she took out for her son. Aren't we proud, Federal Government? This is great. We are garnishing Emanuel Tellez's mother, her unemployment check, because she took out a Federal PLUS student loan for her son. Why don't we talk about refinancing these loans? Why don't we talk about making it easier for people to pay back these loans instead of having a so-called bipartisan deal that adds $715 million to students; that puts it on their backs? Deanne Loonin, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center in Boston, said she has been working with an 83-year-old veteran--Mr. President, an 83-year-old veteran--whose Social Security benefits have been reduced for the past 5 years. The client fell behind on a Federal loan that he signed up for in the 1990s to help his son with tuition costs. Loonin said the government's cuts have left the client without enough cash to pay for medicine for his heart problems. This is a national problem, and part of it is a national disgrace. So what is the solution? A so-called deal that makes it worse. Last year, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that Americans 60 and older still owe $36 billion in student loans. Social Security checks are being garnished and debt collectors are harassing borrowers in their eighties over decades-old student loans. We can't do this. There was a recession, the worst one since the Great Depression. Yes, people lost their jobs. Yes, people had problems. So why aren't we dealing with the underlying issues and making it easier for our families, instead of having a deal that is cut--I wasn't part of it, that is for sure--that hurts our students and their families. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask that the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 98, the nomination of Regina McCarthy to be Administrator of the EPA.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, as chairman of the EPW Committee, this is a day I have longed for for a long time. This has been the longest time the EPA has been without an Administrator in all of history. We could not have a more qualified nominee. We could not have a more bipartisan nominee. The bottom line is Gina McCarthy has worked for five Republican Governors. She is a beloved individual. I wish to thank so many outside of this body who have weighed in on her behalf, including Christine Todd Whitman, the former Republican Administrator of the EPA, and Gov. Jodi Rell. It has meant a lot to Gina McCarthy. It has meant a lot to us who know that the EPA deserves a leader, and this woman Gina McCarthy deserves a promotion. I will be back on the floor in about an hour or so just to make some more brief comments. But I wish to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. We did avert a tough challenge for both parties. We averted that. I am very happy we did. One of the benefits of that agreement is we are having votes on people as qualified as Gina McCarthy. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, this is a very important day for the American people. We are beginning to give President Obama the team he wants to work with. I am not suggesting everyone here likes his choices, but he won the Presidency. Every President, whether I agree with him or disagree with him, or whether I agree with her or disagree with her, or whether it is a Republican or Democrat, every President deserves a team in place. If I were to ask people how important clean air is to them or how important it is that when children breathe the air they don't wind up with asthma, I will tell my colleagues that 80 percent of them will say it is very important. If I were to ask them how important clean water is, the quality of our lakes and streams and oceans, I would say they would think it over and they would say it is pretty important. That is where we get our fish. That is where we go to recreate. That is a legacy we want preserved. If I were to say: How about safe drinking water, do you think you ought to be nervous when you or your child drinks your water out of the tap--and, sadly, fewer and fewer people are drinking water out of the tap--I would suggest to my colleagues, knowing what the American people know and seeing how smart they are about what bacteria could be in the water, I would say they would think it very important--at least 80 percent. If I asked them: How important is it that Superfund sites that had dangerous toxins on them be cleaned up? How important is it to clean up Superfund sites that are dangerous to the health of our children and dangerous to the health of our families? Brownfield sites that are dangerous to our families, how important is it that those responsible for making that mess clean up their mess so those sites can be restored and they can be, in fact, built upon again? I would say vast majorities would say it is very important. If the Presiding Officer ever goes to visit a school and talks to the kids and asks them to raise their hands if they have asthma or someone they know has asthma, I guarantee too many kids will raise their hands. We know asthma is the greatest cause of school absences. So why am I starting off discussing the EPA by raising these issues of clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, Superfund sites, brownfield sites? Because the Administrator of the EPA will be carrying out the laws that make sure our air is safe, our water is safe, our drinking water is safe, and the Superfund sites are cleaned up. That is what the Administrator of the EPA does. For the longest time, we have had a holdup of Gina McCarthy, who was nominated by our President, not because people don't respect her and not because people don't like her. The woman served five Republican Governors, one Democratic President. She got a unanimous vote in her current position as Deputy Administrator. They did it because, frankly, I don't think they like the Clean Air Act. I don't think they like the Safe Drinking Water Act. I don't think they like the Clean Water Act. I don't think they like the Superfund Act. So instead of going at it head on, because they know they don't have a chance to repeal those laws because the American people revere those laws, they go about it in a roundabout way: Oh, I didn't get the papers I wanted. I didn't get the questions answered. Well, how about 1,000 questions being submitted to Gina McCarthy and she answered every one. So all of this holdup--stopping this woman from getting the promotion she deserves--isn't about her--it isn't about her. It is about the fact that they don't like the Environmental Protection Agency, even though it was created by a Republican President named Richard Nixon and supported by every President, Democratic and Republican. Then, of course, there is the issue of climate change. There is the issue of too much carbon pollution in the air, which we are seeing the results of almost every day. The Administrator of the EPA will be carrying out the President's vision for how to get that carbon pollution out of the air, and she will be good at it. When 98 percent of scientists tell us climate change is real, it is real. I guess 2 percent of scientists are still saying tobacco doesn't cause cancer. Well, bless their hearts, that is their right, but I am not following them, nor are the American people following the 2 percent of scientists who say tobacco isn't linked to lung cancer. And, thank God, we are seeing more and more Americans walk away from smoking. But I have to tell my colleagues, for years we had doctors paid by the tobacco industry and scientists paid by the tobacco industry to say, under oath: We don't see the connection. The tobacco officials themselves actually said that. I will never forget the sight of one after the other: We swear to tell the truth. There is no connection. Today we had a hearing in the environment committee. It was a terrific hearing about the science of climate change. The Republicans brought forward two witnesses. They were not scientists; they were economists. They said doing anything about climate is terrible for the economy. I have to tell my colleagues, I looked at the organizations they represented: funded by the Koch Brothers, funded by ExxonMobil. That is a fact. So this isn't about Gina McCarthy, this whole holdup where we had an agency with an acting head--a very good guy, but we need someone in this position who is going to have the gravitas of this confirmation to head the agency. If we look at the lives that have been saved because of the Clean Air Act, and if we look at the economic prosperity that came about because of the Clean Air Act, it would shake people up. Over a 200-percent increase in the GDP as the Clean Air Act was being carried out; jobs and jobs and jobs created after the special interests told us it would be calamitous. Do my colleagues know what we found? And we will find it out, as President Clinton just said yesterday at a ceremony where I was proud to be present. When we clean up the environment and we do it in a good way, a wise way, a way that Gina McCarthy will lead us toward, we will create hundreds of thousands of good jobs. We will bring alternative clean energies to the table that will wind up saving money for the American people. I drive an electric hybrid car, and I hardly ever go to the gas station. It cost a little bit more in the beginning, but after a few years I had it paid for, and after that our family is saving money. I was able to put a solar rooftop on my home. Granted, it is in California where the Sun shines a lot. The fact is, in a few years, I will be reaping the benefits of it because I do not pay for electricity. So we can reap the benefits. Instead of telling people it is going to hurt them, the truth is it is going to help them. I will never forget when the wall came down in Eastern Europe. I visited that wall in Germany. When that wall came down, the first thing Eastern European countries did was clean up the air. People could not see. The truth is, if a person can't breathe, they can't work, period. In China, they can barely see, and they are going to undertake a huge cleanup of their environment. So this battle about Gina McCarthy is not about Gina McCarthy; it is about the fact that a lot of our colleagues simply believe we would be better off without an EPA. If my colleagues look back at the lives saved because of the EPA, if they look at the jobs created because of the EPA, my colleagues would think, I believe--if they really looked at it without a prejudice--they would agree with the American people who support the Environmental Protection Agency in numbers that are 70 percent, 80 percent. So to say that I am relieved we are having this vote is an understatement. I am so happy to see this moment come, when we will put in place an Administrator for the EPA who will do us all proud, who will be fair to all sides, and who will move our Nation forward in both cleaning up the environment and creating good jobs in the process. I thank the Chair very much. I don't see anyone else here, so I note 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 yield back all remaining time. I understand the Republican side has yielded all time, and I would like to see us get to a vote.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, last week I introduced The Combating Prescription Drug Abuse Act, a bill to create a commission to recommend best practices for preventing and reducing prescription drug abuse. I believe this bill is a necessary step in addressing our Nation's fastest-growing drug problem, which has been classified as an epidemic by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. An estimated 52 million people--20 percent of those aged 12 and older--have used prescription drugs for nonmedical reasons at least once in their lifetimes. Nearly one-third of people aged 12 and over who used illicit drugs for the first time in 2009 began by abusing a prescription drug. In 2008, the number of opioid pain reliever deaths throughout our population was four times higher than cocaine and heroin deaths combined. This epidemic ruins the lives of all segments of our population, and the problem is only getting worse, especially for women. Men are still more likely to die of prescription painkiller overdoses--over 10,000 deaths in 2010--but women are tragically catching up. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey earlier this month found a 400 percent increase in women dying from prescription painkiller overdoses between 1999 and 2010, compared to 265 percent among men. During that time, nearly 48,000 women died of prescription painkiller overdoses. In 2010, prescription drugs were involved in 85 percent of the drug- specified deaths among women. And for every woman who dies of a prescription painkiller overdose, 30 go to the emergency room with related complications. I applaud the unyielding work of the law enforcement and health provider communities in working to address this epidemic, but it is clear that we need to do more. My bill would create a 2-year, 30-member commission led by the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency and Food and Drug Administration tasked with issuing recommendations on how best to reduce prescription drug abuse. Other members of the commission include representatives from law enforcement, patient groups, pharmacies, dispensers, and community- based organizations, just to name a few. Importantly, both local and Federal stakeholders must be included, from both law enforcement and health care. The commission would be required to hold at least two public hearings to receive input on best practices. The end product would be a report requiring specific recommendations, and again, local input is mandatory. The time has come to revive the conversation on this critical issue within and among our law enforcement and health care communities and across the Federal/local divide. I am proud that support for this bill is broad, ranging from the National Association of Drug Diversion Investigators and the Peace Officers Research Association of California, to the American Academy of Pain Management and the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. I urge my colleagues to support the Combating Prescription Drug Abuse Act.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to 21 servicemembers from California or based in California who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since I last entered names into the Record on September 11, 2012. This brings to 402 the number of servicemembers either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Afghanistan. This represents 18 percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan: CS2 Milton W. Brown, 28, of Dallas, TX, died August 4, 2012, from a noncombat related incident in Rota, Spain. Culinary Specialist Second Class Brown was assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 137, Lemoore, CA; Sgt Camella M. Steedley, 31, of San Diego, CA, died October 3, 2012, while supporting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Sergeant Steedley was assigned to Combat Logistics Regiment 17, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA; SGT Thomas R. Macpherson, 26, of Long Beach, CA, died October 12, 2012, in Andar District, Afghanistan, from small arms fire while on patrol during combat operations. Sergeant Macpherson was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA; SGT Clinton K. Ruiz, 22, of Murrieta, CA, died October 25, 2012, of wounds suffered when his unit was attacked by small arms fire in Khas Uruzgan, Oruzgan Province, Afghanistan. Sergeant Ruiz was assigned to the 9th Military Information Support Battalion (Airborne), 8th Military Information Support Group (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC; SPC Daniel L. Carlson, 21, of Running Springs, CA, died November 9, 2012, in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan. Specialist Carlson was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 25th Aviation Regiment, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, Wheeler Army Airfield, HI; SSG Kenneth W. Bennett, 26, of Glendora, CA, died November 10, 2012, in Sperwan Gar, Afghanistan, from injuries sustained when he encountered an improvised explosive device during combat operations. Staff Sergeant Bennett was assigned to the 53rd Ordnance Company (EOD), 3rd Ordnance Battalion (EOD), Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA; PO1 Class Kevin R. Ebbert, 32, of Arcata, CA, died November 24, 2012, while supporting stability operations in Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan. Petty Officer First Class Ebbert was assigned to an east coast-based Naval Special Warfare unit in Virginia Beach, VA; Sgt Michael J. Guillory, 28, of Pearl River, LA, died December 14, 2012, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Sergeant Guillory was assigned to 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion, Camp Pendleton, CA; SSgt Jonathan D. Davis, 34, of Kayenta, AZ, died February 22 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Davis was assigned to Headquarters Battalion, 32nd Georgian Liaison Team, Regimental Combat Team 7, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA; CPO Christian Michael Pike, 31, of Peoria, AZ, died March 13 in Landstuhl, Germany, as a result of combat-related injuries sustained on March 10 while conducting stability operations in Maiwand District, Afghanistan. Chief Petty Officer Pike was assigned to a west coast- based Naval Special Warfare unit; SFC James F. Grissom, 31, of Hayward, CA, died March 21 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, of wounds suffered from small arms fire March 18 in Paktika Province, Afghanistan. Sergeant First Class Grissom was assigned to the 4th Battalion, 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne), Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA; SGT Deflin M. Santos Jr., 24, of San Jose, CA, died April 6 in Kandahar, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit in Zabul, Afghanistan with a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. Sergeant Santos was assigned to the 5th Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Armor Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA; Capt Reid K. Nishizuka, 30, of Kailua, HI, died April 27 near Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, in the crash of an MC-12 aircraft. Captain Nishizuka was assigned to the 427th Reconnaissance Squadron, Beale Air Force Base, CA; SSgt Richard A. Dickson, 24, of Rancho Cordova, CA, died April 27 near Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, in the crash of an MC-12 aircraft. Staff Sergeant Dickson was assigned to the 306th Intelligence Squadron, Beale Air Force Base, CA; SPC Trinidad Santiago Jr., 25, of San Diego, CA, died May 2 in Camp Buehring, Kuwait, of injuries sustained in a vehicle accident. Specialist Santiago was assigned to 4th Battalion, 42nd Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO; Capt Victoria A. Pinckney, 27, of Palmdale, CA, died May 3 near Chon- Aryk, Kyrgyzstan, in the crash of a KC-135 aircraft. Captain Pinckney was assigned to the 93rd Air Refueling Squadron, Fairchild Air Force Base, WA; TSgt Herman Mackey III, 30, of Bakersfield, CA, died May 3 near Chon- Aryk, Kyrgyzstan, in the crash of a KC-135 aircraft. Technical Sergeant Mackey was assigned to the 93rd Air Refueling Squadron, Fairchild Air Force Base, WA; SFC Jeffrey C. Baker, 29, of Hesperia, CA, died May 14 in Sanjaray, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Sergeant First Class Baker was assigned to 766th Ordnance Company, 63rd Ordnance Battalion, 52nd Ordnance Group, Fort Stewart, GA; SPC William J. Gilbert, 24, of Hacienda Heights, CA, died May 14 in Sanjaray, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Specialist Gilbert was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, TX; SPC Ray A. Ramirez, 20, of Sacramento, CA, died June 1 in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, from injuries sustained when his unit was attacked by an improvised explosive device. Specialist Ramirez was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA; SGT Javier Sanchez Jr., 28, of Greenfield, CA, died June 23 in Sar Rowzah, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when his unit was attacked with an improvised explosive device while on mounted patrol. Sergeant Sanchez was assigned to the Special Troops Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as I understand it, the majority leader has just filed cloture on a bill that would keep us at a 3.4-percent student loan rate for Stafford loans, which impact about 7 million Americans, for a year. Am I correct on that?

Mrs. BOXER. That is a very important cloture motion. I hope we will move forward on this bill in a bipartisan way. As of now, student loan rates have doubled on Stafford loans. In my State of California, 550,000 Californians are facing a doubling of their student loans, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. I have asked my students to contact me and talk to me about their real-world stories and what it means to them to see a doubling of their student loan interest rate. I will tell you they are more eloquent than I could ever be. They talk about how they look at their dreams and maybe they will become fantasy dreams. They talk about what it would be to believe you are in a ball and chain of student loan debt that is so large it overwhelms you. In the name of those students and all the students across the country, I hope the majority leader's move to resolve this for at least a year and keep those loans at 3.4 percent--I hope that motion to proceed will go forward and that the bill itself will pass. What are the alternatives? Every alternative I have heard from the Republicans leads to higher interest rates with no cap. I don't know if you remember the years that interest rates rose after a period of low rates, and they went up to 7, 8, 9, 10, double digits--12 percent. I remember those days. It is hard for our people to remember that, but those were crushing interest rates. If we do not have a cap on student loan interest rates, we are facing a real problem in the future, a problem that is going to impact the quality of life of our families. We are already seeing the Fed put out statements saying the crush of the burden of student loans without these high interest rates is having an impact on our economic recovery. I have read stories of young people who were putting off marriage and having families because of the crush of student loan debt. I am very pleased we are moving forward on this commonsense proposal to keep these rates at 3.4 percent. We offset the costs by closing tax loopholes that hardly affect anybody at all. It has to do with inheritance on a 401(k), and it will pay for this proposal. I am very supportive of the immigration bill, but at the last minute my Republican friends came forward with an enormous proposal to build an even bigger fence and wider fence and stronger fence. I guess the song ``Don't Fence Me In''--it is an old song--doesn't apply anymore. We are going to be fenced in. The cost of that is $20 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion. Surely we can find $4 billion for a year to make sure our students do not have to face a doubling of these rates. McCarthy Nomination I also come to the floor to speak about Gina McCarthy. For those people who have not followed this debate, Gina McCarthy has been nominated by President Obama to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. To me she is the poster child of bipartisanship and one of the best qualified candidates I have ever seen for this position. She is experienced; she is smart; she understands the law; she understands energy; she understands everything she has to understand to undertake this job; she understands court decisions; she understands the health impacts of dirty air; she also understands that without a clean environment and a healthy environment we cannot have economic growth. I often retell the story that when the walls came down in Eastern Europe, the air was so thick you could not even see the people. One of the first things they did is ask us how to clean up their air. We have made great strides, and we will continue to do that. Yes, we have to face carbon pollution and the President is taking a stand to say he wants to preserve this planet and he is going to follow the signs. Some people have said: We do not like that. Therefore, maybe we should not vote for Gina McCarthy. Can I just say this? The President has his policies, and you do not have to agree with them--or you can. I do. If you do not, that is fair. That is fine. But somebody has to run the Environmental Protection Agency. If you have a problem with those policies, you are going to have to go to someone who is intelligent and wise and bipartisan in nature to talk to, and Gina McCarthy is one of those people. This is the second time Gina McCarthy has been nominated for a top position at the EPA. She was confirmed by the Senate for her current position, which is the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, without one ``no'' vote. Let me reiterate that. No one stood up and said no. Everyone supported her. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out her nomination on May 16. It is July. This is the longest period that EPA has ever gone without an Administrator, and the full Senate should confirm this nominee as soon as possible. When I say Gina McCarthy is the poster child for bipartisanship, I mean what I say. She has over three decades of public service at the local, State, and Federal levels. She has demonstrated a record of working with Republicans and Democrats. Let me just run through the Republicans: The Republican Governor of Connecticut Jodi Rell, four Republican Governors of Massachusetts, William Weld, Paul Cellucci, Jane Swift, and Mitt Romney; and then a Democratic President, Barack Obama. Let's look at what former Republican Governor Jane Swift said about Gina McCarthy in an opinion piece that ran in the Boston Globe. Remember, this is a former Republican Governor. She said: Gina McCarthy . . . would bring competence, fairness and bipartisanship to Washington. . . . And: McCarthy's track record of accomplishment and her collaborative, pragmatic approach to policymaking are the reason she enjoys such [strong] support. This former Republican Governor goes on to say: [T]he Senate has an immediate opportunity to strike a blow for good government and bureaucratic competence by swiftly approving McCarthy's nomination. The title of Governor Swift's article in support of Gina reads, ``A qualified nominee for the EPA.'' This was written on May 23, 2013. Christine Todd Whitman--we all know her, she was the former EPA Administrator, a Republican--called for a fair confirmation process. You can look at 59 businesses, health officials, environmental organizations, scientists--they all support Gina McCarthy. For example, Dr. Georges Benjamin, Executive Director of the American Public Health Association, said: Ms. McCarthy has been a true champion for public health and has consistently demonstrated her leadership in developing sensible safeguards to protect the public's health from pollution. . . . [She] is well respected by both the public health community and industry and has a solid record of working across the aisle with Democrats and Republicans. . . . That is a very strong statement. Then there is Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Here is an EPA Administrator nominee getting the support of the vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. That is a rarity. This is what she said: She's a pragmatic policymaker. She has aspirational environmental goals, but she accepts real-world economics. That is why this nominee should be embraced by everyone. Yes, she has aspirational environmental goals for her grandchildren--someday when she has them--she wants them to breathe clean air and so on, drink clean water, but she understands the pragmatics that go into making policy. I believe Gina will lead the EPA to transparency, she will follow the science and the law, and, yes, she will be straight from the shoulder and she will tell Republicans and Democrats alike how she sees the issue; when we do not agree, how we can reach agreement. By the way, Gina has answered more than 1,000 questions from Republicans on the EPW employment. The EPA has provided extensive information to Members of the Senate in connection with this nomination. This is the longest the EPA has gone without an Administrator. How is this the right thing to do? This is the United States of America. This President deserves to have his people in place the same as a Republican President. Gina McCarthy has a deep understanding that the health and safety of the American people and a growing economy go hand in hand. She will lead the EPA in a manner consistent with her past track record of success. From my perspective, approving Gina McCarthy to head the EPA is a very important step toward helping the health of our children as well as future generations, and that is our most sacred obligation. We need her strong bipartisan approach to lead the EPA. It is no great secret that in this last election both parties were fighting for the votes of women. It was a knockdown, drag-out battle. The Democrats won the women's vote, which helped to elect President Obama--by a lot. The Republicans said: You know what, we have to change, we have to reach out. This is their chance. This woman deserves a promotion. There is nothing in her record that should make anyone fear her. She is a good woman and a hard-working person. She has won unanimous support from this body before, and there is no reason why we should not confirm her. I am going to continue to speak out for Gina. I really do believe my colleagues are hearing the truth about Gina. I think they are getting the message that she is quite bipartisan. She has strong support in the business community as well as among scientists and others in the health community. I am very hopeful, first of all, that there will not be a filibuster. This woman deserves an up-or-down vote. Secondly, my colleagues will think long and hard, and they will agree with so many Republican lawmakers and former Governors who served with Gina and will stand up and say: She is a good woman and deserves this promotion. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, a couple of us are going to come down to the floor and talk about an action that was taken in the House yesterday. With all the issues we have to confront--whether it is continuing this economic recovery and job creation; dealing with immigration, as we are trying to do in the Senate; dealing with going to conference on the budget, which Chairman Murray has been pushing for day after day after day--one would think the House would take up one of those matters. But instead what do they do? They take up an extreme anti-choice bill. Clearly, House Republicans have learned no lessons from last year, when voters resoundingly rejected their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, restrict women's access to birth control, and slash preventive care for women and families. So the debate they had in the House yesterday echoes of last year, when Republicans talked about ``legitimate rape'' or a pregnancy from rape as a ``gift from God.'' In fact, the Republican sponsor of this bill said the incidence of pregnancy from rape was ``very low''--an assertion that is flatly contradicted by the facts. I see my colleague Senator Murray is here, and I would just pause and ask her through the Chair if she needs to speak first.

Mrs. BOXER. Then I will complete and turn to her. I so thank her for organizing us this morning. In November, voters sent the message that they want us to focus on real concerns--jobs, education, immigration reform. But now they are back. They are back in full force with an even more extreme antiwomen, anti-choice agenda. They should know this: The women of America are watching and so are the men who support them. This House Republican bill that was passed by them yesterday is a frontal assault on women's health. It puts women in danger of becoming infertile, in danger of suffering serious complications arising from cancer, blood clots, kidney disease or diabetes, just to name a few of these conditions. It is an attack on 40 years of settled law, and it criminalizes doctors. Furthermore, there is no real rape or incest exception. It just bans abortion by a date certain with no real rape or incest exception. Let me explain this. The Republican sponsors of the bill claim there is an exception for rape and incest. As a matter of fact, it was not in there, and they quickly added it. But, seriously, they do not fix the problem because what they do is say: Yes, a woman can end a pregnancy if she is raped, but she has to report that rape, and it is true that many women choose not to report the rape for their own private and personal reasons. So when you tell a woman who has been raped and who is too scared to report it that she has to carry the rapist's child to term, that is not a rape exception. That is an outrage. When you tell a victim of incest, who is too scared to report it, that she has to carry that child to term, that is not an incest exception. It is revictimizing someone who has suffered a horrific crime. Sixty-five percent of rape victims do not report these crimes. There is no protection at all for those women in this bill. There is also no health exception. The House Republican bill has no health exception at all. It is a reckless disregard for the health of women. For example, if a woman will face serious complications, even life-threatening complications, if they continue a pregnancy--where they could suffer kidney failure, a worsening of breast cancer and ovarian cancer--there is no help for those women. I would say listen to the women who have suffered these problems. Judy Shackelford of Wisconsin. Four months into her pregnancy she developed a pregnancy-induced blood clot in her arm. The only guarantee that she would not die and leave behind her 5-year-old son was for Judy to end the pregnancy. She and her husband made the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy, and those Congressmen playing doctor over there are telling her what she should do for her family. They are not doctors. Listen to Christie Brooks of Virginia. Christie was pregnant with her second child. After a 20-week ultrasound, she found out her daughter would be born with a severe structural birth defect and would suffocate at birth. She made the difficult decision of ending that pregnancy at 22 weeks. Then there is Vikki Stella. Vikki I have met. She discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from major anomalies and had no chance of survival--zero. Because of Vikki's diabetes, the doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion. That procedure not only protected Vikki from immediate medical risks, but it ensured that she could have more children in the future. And those Congressmen over there want to get into her life and tell her what to do and tell her family what to do. This bill is so extreme it would throw doctors in jail for 5 years for providing women with the care they need. And they talk about this brutal doctor who is now serving two consecutive life terms for what he did. Well, that is the way the system should work. If you break the law, as that doctor did, you go to jail. But do not change the law so if a good doctor is trying to help a good patient, he or she risks going to prison. This bill is so extreme a broad array of groups oppose it. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--they represent thousands of OB/GYNs nationwide--said this bill is ``dangerous to patients' safety and health.'' A coalition of 15 religious groups oppose the bill. Here is what they said: We believe--and Americans, including people of faith, overwhelmingly agree--that the decision to end a pregnancy is best left to a woman in consultation with her family, her doctor, and her faith. Our laws should support and safeguard a woman's health--not deny access to care. In closing--and before we hear from my colleague--let me tell you this: Speaker Boehner said last week that creating jobs is ``really our No. 1 priority.'' Majority Leader Eric Cantor said ``House Republicans are focused on creating jobs and restoring faith in our government.'' No, they are not. They are continuing the war on women. If this is what their agenda is, why are they doing that? Why are they attacking 40 years of settled law? President Obama has threatened to veto this bill, saying it shows ``contempt for women's health and [their] rights.'' In the Senate, my friend and I, who are here--and many others--are going to block this dangerous and extreme bill. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield for a question? I wish to engage my friend in a colloquy. We are very fortunate, the Senator and I, because we chair important committees here. Of course all the committees are important--the Budget Committee and I the Environment and Public Works Committee. Both of us have worked hard to get important bills through the Senate--Senator Murray, the budget of the United States of America, and for me, the Water Resources Development Act, which deals with making sure the infrastructure around our water, our ports is sound. About 500,000 jobs go along with it. The Senator's is critical because it attacks the issue of jobs and deficits and the rest. So it seems to me--and I want to know if my friend agrees with me-- there is an agenda the Republican House can embrace to deal with what is concerning the American people, such as taking the Senator's bill, the budget bill, to conference after they went out and campaigned all over the country saying we did not want a budget. We pass a budget, now they are stopping the budget; picking up and passing the water resources bill, or their own version of it if they want; certainly dealing with comprehensive immigration reform, which is critical. I was disheartened to hear Speaker Boehner say: Well, I am not that interested in comprehensive immigration reform. Well, why doesn't he take a look at the budgetary impact which is so positive for our Nation doing this, getting people out of the shadows, getting them to start businesses and work. Does my friend agree there is no shortage of important and critical issues facing the American people they could take up there other than an attack on women and women's health?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I think it says it all here. We need to do our work on the issues that matter to the people. We need to make sure the economic recovery gains steam. We need to make sure we look at this sequester and fix it. We need to make sure we have, yes, deficit reduction, but investment. We need to stand strong here in the Senate. We will. Hopefully our House colleagues will change their minds. Republicans over there set the agenda. Get to the business of the people and stop attacking women. Amendment No. 1240

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1240.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise in support of the Boxer-Landrieu- Murray amendment numbered 1240 which is a very simple amendment. It has bipartisan support as well. It would require the participation of the National Guard and the Coast Guard in new Border Protection training programs. The underlying bill includes language authorizing specialized training for Federal law enforcement agents who have been tasked with securing the border to update them on how the law will impact their duties and their responsibilities. The bill specifically requires Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, ICE officers, and agriculture specialists at the border to undergo training on such things as identification and detection of fraudulent travel documents, civil rights protections, border community concerns, environmental concerns, and how agents should handle vulnerable populations such as children, victims of crime, and human trafficking. But the bill leaves out two very important groups of Federal officials who will be key to further securing our lands and sea borders. They leave out the National Guard and the Coast Guard. The bill provides new authorizations for the National Guard to assist Customs and Border Protection agents with border enforcement duties. In the case of the Coast Guard, the bill continues their large role with maritime border security. But the new training language excludes both the National Guard and the Coast Guard. So we look at our amendment as making a pretty easy fix. We do not think it was intentional to leave the National Guard and the Coast Guard out of the training. So we simply restore it. I noted that Senator Cornyn identified the same problem during Judiciary Committee consideration of the bill. This piece was tucked into a more controversial amendment, so it did not pass. This bipartisan idea needs to be taken out. It needs to stand alone. It needs to pass. I am very hopeful it will. In closing, I will list who is supporting us: National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women; Asian Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence; Casa de Esperanza; National Latina Network for Healthy Families and Communities; Futures Without Violence; Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community; Jewish Women International; Legal Momentum; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National Congress of American Indians Task Force on Violence Against Women; National Council of Jewish Women; National Network to End Domestic Violence; National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault; National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; and the YWCA. We have a big group out there that understands these officers need that training. With that, I thank everybody for their indulgence for allowing me time to explain the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1227

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, on June 12 and 13, 2013, I filed two amendments, Nos. 1258 and 1282, to S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. The name of Senator Hirono was inadvertently omitted as a cosponsor of both amendments. I have asked that Senator Hirono be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1258 and amendment No. 1282.

Mrs. BOXER

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