Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I take the floor today in strong support of comprehensive immigration reform. The action that was taken yesterday by the House of Representatives underscores how critical the work we will do in the next few weeks is to the future of our Nation. What did the House Republicans do yesterday? They voted to deport hundreds of thousands of young people whom we refer to as DREAMers. These young people were brought to this country through no fault of their own, and they are contributing greatly to our society and our economy. Some of these young people were brought here at 2 years old, 4 years old. They had no idea they were doing anything wrong. Senator Durbin has been working for years to pass the DREAM Act. President Obama implemented the DREAM Act to put a stop to deporting these people if they met certain requirements, and those requirements are pretty clear. They have to be truly good people, they have to be people who are getting their education, serving in the military, and being responsible. But yesterday, the House Republicans said: No. They said: Deport these DREAMers. That is not what the American people want. In poll after poll the American people say: If someone is brought here through no fault of their own at a young age, this is their country. Yet the House Republicans would say we should deport them. Now, I never say I speak for the American people. I am just talking about polls. And the polls I have seen--and, Madam President, the polls you have seen--show the people know we need immigration reform, comprehensive reform, that will take people out of the shadows, that will make sure they are not afraid to be part of society. If we do that, they will buy homes and start businesses. They will create jobs, they will lift our economy, they will lift their families out of poverty, and they will strengthen our country. The American people get this. Like so many Americans, I am proud of my immigrant roots. My mother came here from Austria as an infant. She never finished high school because she had to work to support her family. My dad was from an immigrant family too, the only one of nine children to be born in America and the only one to graduate from college. Then, when I was a little girl, he graduated from law school. When my mother passed away, I remember going through her memorabilia and I discovered a certificate that was wrapped in plastic. She stored it with other valuables in her jewelry box. It was the only document she protected in that fashion because it meant so much to my mother. It was her certificate of citizenship. That is what the dream of citizenship means to the millions of Californians and to the millions of Americans who are now forced to live in the shadows. For immigration reform to be truly comprehensive it must include a path to citizenship for all 11 million undocumented immigrants in our country today, and it must include the DREAM Act. We can't have two classes of citizens in America: one with full citizenship and one with half citizenship. That is not the promise of our Nation. The bill we will debate next week addresses this problem, and it provides a tough but fair path to citizenship. It is also crucial we pass reforms that protect workers and their families from exploitation and abuse. Too many immigrants, especially women, face sexual harassment in the workplace, violence and discrimination. The Judiciary Committee bill includes critical protections for women, including U visas, to keep women safe from domestic violence. A strong reform bill must also include a fair and effective guest worker program which provides workers with livable wages and strong labor protections, and this bill meets many of these tests. Would I have made it even stronger? Yes. Would my friend in the Chair have made it even stronger in many ways? Absolutely. But the bill is a real step forward. When we pass comprehensive immigration reform, we don't just help immigrant families, we help all Americans. I would like to see family reunification be made stronger in this bill. I commend those who worked on this bill. I know they had to hammer out these compromises. Having brought a successful highway bill to passage, a successful WRDA bill to passage on the Senate floor, I know I didn't get everything I wanted, so I am sympathetic to the fact this is not a perfect bill. But I know the Presiding Officer and I will support making this bill better, making this bill stronger, and maybe we will persuade colleagues to go along with us. We have to remember this bill isn't the be-all and end-all. We can make it stronger over the coming months and years. According to a 2010 USC study--University of Southern California-- when we create a path to citizenship, it will result in 25,000 new jobs and $3 billion in direct and indirect spending in California alone every single year. Nationwide, our immigration bill will increase our GDP, our gross domestic product, by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. It will increase wages for workers. That is what happens when workers come out of the shadows. It will lead to between 750,000 and 900,000 new jobs, according to the Center for American Progress. When workers come out of the shadows their wages rise, they open bank accounts, they buy homes, they spend money in their communities, and they are known to find new businesses. Businesses will benefit by having access to talented workers in fields ranging from manufacturing to health care to agriculture to high tech. And taxpayers are going to benefit. We will hear horror stories about how expensive this is, but the fact is studies show--that is, studies that don't have a bias--that taxpayers will benefit from an estimated $5 billion in new revenues in the first 3 years alone, including $310 million a year in State income taxes, which will help support education and other important services just in my home State of California. So will we see workers benefiting? Yes, from higher wages, but also better working conditions. And they will get respect and they will get dignity. What that means is they will be proud members of our communities. Families and children will benefit when we lift the fear of being deported and separated from their loved ones. I know the DREAM Act that Senator Durbin has worked on for so many years does impact the families of the DREAMers, and it will help them, because we don't want to separate families. I am going to be working on many amendments and offering some to improve this bill--amendments to provide a fair and reasonable path to citizenship, amendments to ensure we treat immigrants with dignity and respect, amendments that are friendly to family reunification, amendments that are friendly to workers. Workers are the backbone of this country. I want to close with a quote from President John F. Kennedy. Back in 1958, he wrote a book entitled, ``A Nation of Immigrants.'' In that book he eloquently described how immigrants have strengthened our Nation. I already talked about my own immigrant roots. This is what John Kennedy wrote: This was the secret of America: a Nation of people with the fresh memory of old traditions who dared to explore new frontiers, people eager to build lives for themselves in a spacious society that did not restrict their freedom of choice and their action. He added: Every ethnic minority, in seeking its own freedom, helped to strengthen the fabric of liberty in American life. Those words were true back in 1958 and they are just as true today. Americans are ready and they are waiting for comprehensive immigration reform. I thank our colleagues who worked so hard on this bill, including my own colleague, Senator Feinstein, who worked so hard on the ag jobs title. We have to protect that title. There are those who would weaken it, and we can't weaken it. It is put together in such a way that we have the growers and workers supporting it. That is pretty good when we can get those two sides together. The President has said the time is now. I agree. The time is past now. We need to get this done. I think Senator Leahy has handled this bill beautifully. I believe 150 amendments were adopted in the committee, and also many others were offered. The system has been fair. Senator Reid has given us plenty of time to offer amendments, to debate these issues. I am excited about it. My State is waiting with bated breath for this. It is so overdue. Let's get to work. Let's make comprehensive immigration reform a reality. I am pleased to say to the President, I leave this floor with great hopes that we can get it done. Madam President, I 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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael London, a law clerk with the Finance Committee, and Kate Glazebrook and Johnathan Diem, interns with the Finance Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 2013 calendar year.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I understand there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mrs. BOXER. I now ask for a second reading en bloc and object to my own request en bloc.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, June 10, 2013; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform bill, under the previous order.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, we expect to swear in Senator-designate Cheisa during Monday's session. At 5:30 p.m. on Monday there will be a rollcall vote on passage of the farm bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was unable to attend this roll call vote. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the Moran amendment No. 974 to require the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to carry out research and development regarding a crop insurance program for alfalfa.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was unable to attend four roll call votes that occurred on May 23, 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the confirmation of Srikanth Srinivasan to be U.S. Circuit Judge, yea on Feinstein amendment No. 923 to end the Federal crop insurance subsidy for tobacco, yea on Hagan amendment No. 1031 to reduce fraud in the crop insurance program, and yea on Durbin amendment No. 953 to reduce crop insurance premium subsidies for those earning over $750,000 annually in adjusted gross income.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. Here is the problem. The people in my State are saying the same thing: Roll up your sleeves and attack the problems. Because, guess what. I remember when this budget was balanced, when Bill Clinton was President. It took literally a few months before George W. Bush gave a tax break and put it on the credit card, two wars on the credit card, and the debt was off and running. But put that aside, we are where we are. Does my friend not think if we could get into a conference--and I know a lot of us here have been in tough conferences--that is where we would roll up our sleeves? I say Patty Murray and Paul Ryan are ready to roll up their sleeves and get to work. Why would my friend want to give instructions--of course, I would love to give instructions. I would like to give instructions the richest of Americans pay the same effective tax rate as their secretaries. I would love to do that. I would love to order that, but I wouldn't do that. Let Patty Murray and Paul Ryan and the respective committees get in there, in an open process, and come back. Doesn't my friend understand what he is calling for, when he says roll up your sleeves and get to work, is exactly what Senators Murray, McCain, Collins, and lots of us want to do, those of us who believe we need to use regular order? Can my friend comment on that?

Mrs. BOXER. The Senator skipped over George W. Bush, who caused the deficits. But let's not argue that.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for one more question? Then I will yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question? And I thank him so much. Listen, let's cut through what is happening and tell me where I am wrong, and I would respect the Senator's answer. The Senator represents a lot of folks, I represent 38 million, so we are two big States and we owe a lot to our people. That is for sure. What is happening here today is very clear. The Republicans, except for Senator McCain and Senator Collins, who were here, are stopping us--this Nation--from having a budget, and they are saying their reason is that something might happen in the conference. Well, that is not the way we work in a democracy. Anything can happen at any moment. Let's get into that conference. Paul Ryan has a budget that I think is apocalyptic and that the Senator from Texas may well support. Patty Murray has a budget that the Senator probably thinks is apocalyptic. They want to get into that conference and they want to work together. That is called democracy. I will close with this and ask my friend to respond. Ronald Reagan supported raising the debt ceiling about 18 times. He put out a number of statements that were totally counter to my friend's. Ronald Reagan said--and I am paraphrasing, and I will get the exact quote and put it in the Record, as I have done in the past--even thinking about defaulting on the government's bills is enough to send shock waves through the country. The last time the Republicans played that game it cost us $19 billion. We cannot afford that. My friends say they are conservatives, but they are leading us down that road. I beg them to think about what they are doing. I beg them to have faith and trust in this democracy. I beg them to let the people who are very responsible in the House and in the Senate, who are on different wavelengths when it comes to this budget, get to work. And to quote my friend, let them get to the place where they can roll up their sleeves and get the job done. I think by my friend's continuing presence to stop us from having a budget, he is doing a great disservice not only to this country but to his party. That is it for me.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Before my friend from New Jersey leaves the floor, I wish to thank him for leading a letter regarding this important nomination. We need a Secretary of Labor. We had a wonderful Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis. The reason it is so essential is we now see that the middle class is essentially collapsing, even though we are coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression because of the leadership of our President and those of us who tried to help him. We need a head of the Department of Labor to make sure everybody gets a fair chance. I wish to thank my friend. He makes a very important point about Republican obstructionism. After the election, they sat around, all of them, and said: Oh, my goodness. We have to do better with Hispanics. We have to do better with women. Who are the two people they are holding up with all their might at this point--and I hope they end it--Mr. Perez and Gina McCarthy, a woman who deserves a promotion just as Mr. Perez deserves a promotion. They can say all they want that they are reaching out to minorities and women, but then they are blocking promotions of people who are outstanding Americans. I wished to say that before my friend left the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are focused on several issues, which they call scandals. I would like to address those and then talk about issues that seem to be falling through the cracks while they focus on ``gotcha'' politics; they are going to get the President. I think we will start with the IRS. It is wrong to target any group for scrutiny whether they are on the right or on the left, if it is a tea party group or a liberal church. We have seen this with the IRS over the years. As a matter of fact, I looked back to see how many of my Republican friends stood up and talked about going after the IRS and straightening them out when they went after the NAACP or when they went after a liberal church in Pasadena in Congressman Schiff's district. The fact is they got exercised when they went after the tea party. OK. I hear you. I am with you. What is important is so is the President. If this President says: I agree with you, they say: We didn't hear you. They just want to fight. I have friends where sometimes we are having a debate, and all of a sudden a bright light goes on and I will say, you know what, I think you are right. Sometimes they keep on arguing. The President said this is an outrage, and he has already made sure people are being fired. We are going to make sure we straighten things out at the IRS. Let's focus on how to fix it, not how to make it into a ``gotcha'' political issue. We also have Republican outrage over the Justice Department seeking the phone records of the Associated Press. I, myself, believe freedom of the press is one of the most important freedoms we have. I don't like to see phone records of reporters subpoenaed in secret. I was once a reporter and had a lot of confidential sources. I wrote for a very good weekly magazine called the PacificSun. I did indepth stories on all kinds of issues. People would talk to me, and they knew I would never say who they were and who was giving background. The thought of having the government take a look at these records without telling the press is bad. Guess what. The President agrees it is bad. The President said we need a law, a media shield law. Guess what else. We had a vote on this in 2008. It was 51 to 43 with all Democrats supporting the media shield law and all Republicans, save 5, voting to filibuster, so the bill was killed. How do they then say this is horrible when they themselves, Republicans, blocked us from protecting the media? I believe this is an important issue we should work on together, but it shouldn't be made into a political ``gotcha.'' We should fix it and move on. Let's take up a media shield law again. This time the Republicans shouldn't filibuster since they are all over this question, and let's get going. Then we look at Benghazi. I am on the Foreign Relations Committee. I sit next to the chairman. I sat next to John Kerry. I sat through all the hearings where Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, said: This was a tragedy. These were my friends who were killed. I take full responsibility. She ordered an independent investigation. It came back and guess what it said. We need to spend more defending our outposts. Guess who started cutting embassy security, who initiated it. The Republicans in the House. I think if they are looking to blame someone, why don't they look in the mirror for starters. Again, let's fix the problem. I am supporting a bill that will authorize funding for key items identified by the independent review board Secretary Clinton put together. It will deal with a number of pieces they recommend. It requires, among others, detailed reports from the State Department on how they are progressing toward implementing the recommendations, and it requires the identification of the most high-security threats. I understand why we would look at losing four brave Americans as a tragedy. It is a tragedy. Don't politicize it. Where were the Republicans when we lost 4,000 Americans in Iraq, injured 10 times as many. Where were they? Where was their indignation at that? Based on false premises, that war was a war of choice, not a war of necessity. We have all of this swirling around Washington and we look at the American people and we say what is it they want us to do. Sure, we should conduct oversight. I am all for it. Let's solve those problems, but let's move to the issues that matter. I will tell you what matters most in California: jobs, jobs, jobs, the economy, the economy, the economy. We just moved off a double-digit unemployment rate. For the first time in a long time we are below 10 percent. It means we have to keep our eye on this economy. We have to make the investments that matter. Restore some of the mindless cuts that were made with the sequester while we see this deficit going down. That is another point. All the howling from the Republicans about how this President doesn't care about deficit reduction, we are witnessing deficit reduction. We are witnessing the housing market come back. We are witnessing a lot of good. Just think of what we could witness if we came together, sat down with this President and inked a whole new plan for this economy, for deficit reduction. We have to do the farm bill. We just did the water resources bill. Let the House get it done. We did the Marketplace Fairness Act. Let the House get it done. Republicans, I say to them--they are not here--rhetorically, help us pass a budget. They are blocking the budget. They went around the country campaigning against Democrats saying we didn't pass a budget. Then we passed a budget and now they will not finish the job, which means making sure we get conferees appointed. Bring the two bills together, the House and the Senate, compromise on that, and get the budget done. There is no budget. They will not let us do it. Endlessly, they bash the President. Immigration reform, my colleagues are doing an incredible job in the Judiciary Committee, very difficult--sensible gun laws, background checks, things that matter to people. Working on the farm bill, I hope we get it done this week. Last time it died in the House. I have a message for my House friends. Please, do your oversight but do something for the people that they are asking us to do. Get a budget, get a farm bill, get a Marketplace Fairness Act. Work on restoring the mindless cuts so we can have more jobs. These are the things that have to be done. Background checks. We didn't get it here. It was very close. It would be great if they did something in the House. This week I believe we are voting on Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We have to protect the middle class. Today I read the paper about some new instrument that has been thought of by Wall Street that would go to people and say give us the proceeds of your pension plan, and we will give you a lump sum. Maybe that is great, but it sounds risky to me. We need someone who is out there protecting the consumers, particularly in banking and housing. I hope we get Richard Cordray done. I thought Senator Menendez was brilliant the way he explained why Thomas Perez deserves to be head of Department of Labor. I wish to spend a couple of minutes on Gina McCarthy. She has a history of bipartisanship. She worked for not one, not two, not three but four Republican Governors: Republican Governor of Connecticut Jodi Rell, Republican Governor of Massachusetts Paul Cellucci, Republican Governor of Massachusetts Jane Swift, Republican Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney. She worked for four Republican Governors. She is not enough qualified for my friends on the other side. She was confirmed here without a dissenting vote for her current position. What more do they want? She worked for four Republicans and one Democrat, Barack Obama. What more do they want? This is what Christie Todd Whitman said about the Republican boycott: They walked out. They have since returned to the table. I was happy, but when they walked out of that meeting, they didn't come to the meeting, and we couldn't mark her up the first time we tried. She said: They looked like sore losers when they walked out. If they don't object to the person and what they have done in the past, and they don't with Gina, then they have even less grounds to hold up this nominee. Jane Swift, who was a former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, said it was disgraceful. I don't get it. Ms. McCarthy answered 1,000 of their questions. Then when I approach my friends on the other side and say, you asked her a thousand questions, their answer was: Well, we only cared about five. Then why did you ask her a thousand questions? She had to sit there, exhausted, answering every single question. Now Senator Vitter says I don't know what I will do. I might let it go and not filibuster, but then I might filibuster or I might wind up voting for her. Well, you know, the time for all this contemplation has passed. The woman is qualified. The President deserves his Cabinet, he deserves an EPA Administrator. He made a bipartisan choice in Gina. Gina was brilliant when we had our hearing. Enough already. Please, it is time to have a vote up or down on Gina McCarthy. We have a lot of work to do. I mentioned a few. How about the latest threat from the Republicans? They decided they are not sure they are going to raise the debt ceiling so they now have a bill where they lay out who would get paid first when we default on our debt. And guess what, America: It is not you. It is China. Before we pay America's business or American bondholders, we are going to pay China. So when you look at where we are going with this debt ceiling, the last time they held it up it cost us $19 billion--$19 billion over 10 years--because they played games, even though when Ronald Reagan was President he said: Don't even go there. Of course, I am paraphrasing. But he said even the thought of not raising the debt ceiling and not paying our debts is dangerous for our Nation. Yet now the Republicans have a bill that we call ``Pay China First.'' That is what it is about. They would pay China and other foreign bondholders before we pay our troops, our disabled and retired veterans, doctors and hospitals that treat Medicare patients, and before we pay American businesses that are contractors. I understand they had a meeting to discuss this further, and they were so excited about it--what hostages they could hold--they talked about proposals that threaten a woman's right to choose, tax breaks for the wealthy, and repealing ObamaCare. They have already tried it 37 times. And cutting Medicare. What are they thinking over there? Pay our bills. Don't let this country's credit be downgraded again. I tell you something, if that is what they do, they do not deserve to get their salary. I have a bill that would say if we default on our obligations by not raising the debt ceiling we should give up our pay. I don't know what they are doing over there other than playing politics, and it is dangerous. We know they do not care for our President, but he is the President. Show a little respect for the office. Show a little respect for what he has on his shoulders. Show a little respect for what he has already accomplished, and accept the fact that when there is trouble he doesn't hide in the corner. He says: You are right, I want to fix it. Let's fix it together. Climate Change I have gone over just some of the issues we have to look at, but I am going to close with one very big issue that no one, except a handful of Senators, seems to care about, and that is climate change. I have to say it is shocking to me that as this planet enters a planetary emergency, where we are as close as we can be to carbon concentrations of almost 400 parts per million, which is the danger zone, I still don't see anyone here saying to me, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, let's get a bill to the floor. Oh, no. Oh, no. So we are burning up. I am going to read a little bit from what I thought was a very well- done piece in Politico, and I am going to read parts of it, but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire Politico article I am about to read from.

Mrs. BOXER. This is from an article dated May 10 from Politico: The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed a symbolic milestone this week, scientists announced Friday, reaching levels that haven't prevailed on the Earth since long before human civilization began. Let me say that again. Is anybody listening to this? Scientists said: The amount of heat-trapping carbon in the atmosphere passed a symbolic milestone this week, reaching levels that haven't prevailed on the Earth since long before human civilization began. Do you know who said that? NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. . . . CO2 concentrations had finally hit 400 parts per million at a key measuring station in Hawaii. . . . Still, there are few signs that Washington will emerge from its deep snooze on the issue. How right on. They are all sleeping, except for a handful of us. Wake up to this. Congress remains unable to pass serious legislation to tackle climate change. Melanie Fitzpatrick, climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, was quoted in the article saying: . . . it's been 3 million to 5 million years since the planet has had such high carbon dioxide levels. We've never been here before, certainly not while human beings were on the planet. She goes on. Oh, no, this is Jon Hoekstra of the Wildlife Fund. The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is like the thermostat in your house. Every time you turn it up, we are essentially turning up the heat in the planet. James Butler, Director of Global Monitoring of NOAA's Earth System Research Lab, was quoted as saying: It is unprecedented. Hitting 400 is just like saying, ``Folks, we haven't addressed this yet.'' The planet hasn't seen atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide this high since the Pliocene era, between 2.5 million and 5 million years ago. The global average temperature will reach 400 parts per million in 1 or 2 years. The article continues: Scientists warn that continued increase could result in catastrophe. . . . 5 million Americans living in low-lying areas who could be affected by sea level rise. It goes on and on. Hoekstra ends his quote with: At what point as a society do we say this is more than we can put up with? I will tell you why we are not doing anything. Special interest: Big oil, big coal, big polluters. They do not want to address this. For their short-term profit they do not to want address this. It is sad, the control they have here. Special interests have a lot of control, whether it is the NRA stopping us from doing something 90 percent of the people want, such as background checks, or it is big polluters--big polluters who don't want us to do anything about this issue for their short-term benefit. When they are all gone and people are suffering in our country, our grandkids and great-grandkids are going to say: What was my great- grandma thinking? What was my great-grandpa doing? We see what is happening in the weather. Just look out the window. We see it. Mr. President, I have discussed the latest scientific information that is available to us, including a front-page story in USA Today, on March 1, that spotlighted the impacts of climate change unfolding around us. The story was part of a year-long series called ``Why You Should Sweat Climate Change,'' and it described how climate disruption is happening all around us. I have also talked about a report entitled the ``2013 High Risk List'' that was released by the Government Accountability Office--GAO-- a government watchdog agency. That report told us how climate disruption and the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as Superstorm Sandy, threaten our Nation's financial security. Another aspect of climate change that I have discussed is its impact on public health in the U.S. and China, which has experienced the harmful health effects from air pollution due to its rapid industrialization over the past few decades. Today I will discuss how climate disruption poses a risk to our national security in several ways. It has serious implications on national security planning, it places additional burdens on the U.S. military, and it affects our military readiness. We have been told by a number of military leaders and defense experts, such as former Secretary of State George Schultz under President Reagan, that climate change is a fact and we must address it as a national security priority. It is a priority that we simply cannot ignore. An open letter was signed by 38 former high-ranking Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--including 17 former Senators and Congress members, 9 retired generals and admirals, and Cabinet officials from the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, and Bush (43) administrations. The letter was turned into an ad highlighting that. Look at this chart. ``The cost of inaction will be staggering.'' This is a February 25, 2013, Partnership for a Secure America ad. Some of our most senior military leaders have already told us that climate disruption will have significant impacts on national security. According to the Chief of U.S. Pacific forces: The significant upheaval from climate change `is probably the most likely thing . . . that will cripple the security environment . . . Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, III, ``Chief of US Pacific forces calls climate biggest worry,'' That is from the Boston Globe, March 9, 2013. There are a broad range of risks associated with the impacts of climate change, such as drought and lack of drinking water supplies, which can contribute to military crises around the world. These threats must be factored into our national security planning and operations. According to President Obama's National Security Advisor, the environmental impacts of climate change are clear: [T]he danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe. The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the degradation of land across the globe. That is from Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor, April 24, 2013. In March, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, reported to the Senate that climate change and extreme weather will create water scarcity, disrupt food supplies, and harm energy infrastructure in ways that will raise global risks of instability and aggravated regional tensions. This is from the March 12, 2013, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, report to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it can accelerate instability, increase the threat of international military crises, and hinder our ability to combat terrorism. According to the Department of Defense's Defense Science Board: Climate change effects, particularly those related to water and food and security, can erode the legitimacy of fragile states and create conditions terrorists and extremists seek to exploit. Therefore, they are significant factors in combating terrorism. This is from ``Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security,'' Department of Defense's Defense Science Board, October 2011. Climate disruption is also placing an additional burden on our military, because it impacts the type of missions that must be planned for and undertaken. Climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, and when a weather disaster occurs, our Armed Forces mobilize to provide humanitarian assistance to local communities and families in need. We saw this happen with Superstorm Sandy, which wiped out entire communities in just a few hours. In response, our soldiers came to the rescue of people on the east coast who were impacted by Sandy's storm surge. These types of humanitarian missions--whether it is in the U.S. or overseas--place additional burdens on our brave men and women in uniform. Disasters such as Sandy that harm our civilian infrastructure, such as airports, ports, and electric grids, also create national security issues, because they can affect military readiness. In addition to civilian infrastructure, Superstorm Sandy caused tremendous damage to our military facilities. A portion of the $60 billion Sandy emergency relief package that Congress passed earlier this year went toward repairing and replacing damaged Federal military assets, including: Fort Dix in New Jersey; Norfolk Naval Station in Virginia; Dover Air Force Base in Delaware; and the Coast Guard Academy campus in Connecticut. The U.S. military has almost 300,000 buildings valued at $590 billion--much of which is at risk because of climate change. In January, DoD stated: In many ways, coastal military installations have been on the front lines of climate change.'' In fact, 10 percent of DoD coastal installations and facilities are located at or near sea level. According to the National Intelligence Council, more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated risks from storm surges and rising sea levels. These installations include Eglin Air Force base, located on the Gulf of Mexico in the Florida panhandle--this facility faces storm surges and sea level rise; and Norfolk Naval Station and the neighboring Newport News shipyard--the location where we build aircraft carriers. These facilities are also threatened by storm surges and sea level rise. The U.S. military is not alone in viewing climate change as a threat. A recent study found that over 70 percent of nations surveyed around the world view climate change as a national security threat. This is from the American Security Project: Global Security Defense Index on Climate Change, March 21, 2013. Countries around the world recognize that climate change is a national security threat, but it is the U.S. military that must take a leading role. As one of America's retired military leaders, former U. S. Navy Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, stated: Climate Change poses a clear and present danger to the United States of America . . . The imperative, then, is for leadership and action on a global scale. The United States must act. The United States must lead. This is from the November 1, 2012, ``Climate Change and the Homeland,'' American Security Project. I could not agree more. We must follow the analysis and advice of our Nation's military leaders and national security experts to protect the American people by addressing the dangerous threat posed by climate disruption. I want to show a few charts about what people are saying, and then I will stop. ``The cost of inaction will be staggering.'' This ran in March. The effects of climate change in the world's most vulnerable regions present a serious threat to American national security. Countries least able to adapt to or mitigate the impacts of climate change will suffer the most, but the resulting crisis will quickly become a burden on U.S. priorities. Both the Department of Defense and State Department have identified climate change as a serious risk to American security and an agent of instability. This is a very bipartisan group. It is actually mostly Republicans on this, of people saying do something about this. Our national security is at stake. When there are refugees who are run out of their country, what is going to happen to the world? There already are climate refugees. There is a movie called ``Climate Refugees.'' ``Danger from climate change is real, urgent and severe.'' The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the degradation of land across the globe. That is a quote from Tom Donilon, National Security Adviser. So this is a national security issue. How could the polluters have so much power to overwhelm our national security people? But that is where it is. That is where it is. ``Climate change can hinder ability to combat terrorism.'' Climate change effects, particularly those related to water and food and security . . . can create conditions terrorists and extremists seek to exploit. Therefore, they are significant factors in combating terrorism. That was the Department of Defense, October 2011. Department of Defense. National security advisers. The CIA has been telling us this for a long time. We have to act. We have to act. I have to say there are a number of my colleagues here--a small number--who feel the way I do. We are all pushing hard. Senator Sanders and I have a bill, the Sanders-Boxer bill, that would put a price on carbon. Carbon could cost us the planet. The least we can do is put a little charge on it so people move to clean energy--clean energy. Take the issue of the Keystone Pipeline. It is a big controversy. People say, let's just do it. Well, you ought to see what will come out of that in terms of carbon pollution. It will undo all the good we did from fuel economy. And the oil won't stay here. They have a waste disposal problem with it. But it is a little bit inconvenient. Remember when Vice President Gore wrote the book ``Inconvenient Truth.'' It is a little inconvenient for us. We don't want to know about it because it is hard to deal with. But we can do it. In California, we are beginning to see more and more solar rooftops, more and more clean power, and the jobs that are coming with it are extraordinary. We can do this. This is the greatest Nation in the world, but we are kind of held hostage to the big polluters. We have to say that we have to act for the safety of the people. We are hearing it. We are hearing it from our national defense department, we are hearing it from George Shultz, who was the former Secretary of State under President Reagan. He says it is a national priority that shouldn't be ignored. Cabinet officials from the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush--41 from Clinton and 43 from Bush--wrote a letter to us. And Navy ADM Samuel Locklear, III, Chief of U.S. Pacific Forces, calls climate ``our biggest worry.'' That is what he said. The significant upheaval climate change ``is probably the most likely thing . . . that will cripple the security environment. . . . '' This is a Navy man. There are a broad range of risks associated with the impacts of climate change, such as drought and lack of drinking water supplies, which can contribute to military crises around the world. This is what the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, said: . . . extreme weather will create water scarcity, disrupt food supplies, and harm energy infrastructure in ways that will raise the global risks of instability and aggravated regional tensions. It goes on. The entire national defense establishment is speaking with one voice. We also wanted them to tell us what would happen to our military facilities. Many of them--300,000 buildings valued at $590 billion are at risk because of climate change. Those are coastal military installations. We are dealing with a lot of infrastructure. Norfolk Naval Station, neighboring Newport News shipyard where they build the aircraft carriers, they are threatened by storm surges and sea level rise. I have come to the floor now three or four times to keep raising these different issues. Tonight I am talking about national security, but we also saw terrible tornadoes in Oklahoma--horrible. I send my condolences to the people who lost loved ones. This is climate change. This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather--not just hot weather but extreme weather. When I had the gavel years ago--it has been a while--the scientists started to agree that we would start to see extreme weather. People said: What do you mean? Do you mean it is going to get hot? Yes, it is going to get hot, but we are also going to have snow in the summer in some places. We are going to have terrible storms and tornadoes and all the rest. We need to protect our people. That is our No. 1 obligation. We have to deal with this threat that is upon us. It is going to get worse and worse through the years. I certainly hope--and I pray over it--that people will wake up to this and we will start to have support for moving together and at the end of the day it is a win-win-win. We will help save our planet. We will create good-paying jobs right here in America as we move toward clean energy. We will see fewer people with asthma, and we will have a more healthy population. At the end of the day we will help those in the transition who have to pay a little bit more for their energy. We have it all figured out, how to do that, and no one will be hurt. But right now--I am a very straight from the shoulder person--I can tell you it is not happening, but I feel an obligation to my grandkids to be here every Monday I can be here to put in the Record the problems we are facing.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 309 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the Harkin amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill as amended be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 21, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 954, the farm bill; and that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.