Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the Coats amendment allows open-ended exemptions to the mercury air toxic rule. This is not a 1-year extension, it is a permanent extension if any President, now or in the future, simply decides it. It doesn't even require any finding. Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about mercury. It is dangerous. It is poison. It harms the brain, the nervous system, and childhood development. It is especially damaging to infants and pregnant women. Mercury harms a child's ability to speak, to hear, to walk, to see, and to think. Can't we protect our children? I want to give my colleagues 11,000 reasons to oppose the Coats amendment. That is how many premature deaths will be avoided with the rule he wants to eviscerate. Just last June we held on this rule. Let's vote no on the Coats amendment. Thank you very much.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 273

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 705

Mrs. BOXER. I have the answer. It is 61.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 338

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Coons so much for including me in this opportunity to speak about the choices we have before us. Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains for Senator Coons so I have some idea?

Mrs. BOXER. We all know a budget is critical because it is not just a bunch of numbers, it is a statement as to who we are as a people--what are our values, what we think is worth investing in, what we think we should cut, and so on. It is interesting because we have been attacked--Senator Murray and the Democrats--for backing a budget the Republicans say is not in balance. Well, I want to argue the point. I think it is, in fact, the only budget, between this budget and the Republican budget in the House--which is the one embraced by the Republicans--that is balanced in many ways. The first way this budget is balanced is between investments--the things we need to invest in for our Nation; in innovation, education, investing in our kids, investing in their health--and commitments we have made over the years to our senior citizens. I am going to talk more about that in a minute, about what the Republicans do to Medicare in their budget--by the way, they kill it. I will explain how and why. Our budget also moves us toward numerical balance in a way that economists of all sizes and stripes believe is wise, which is to get the deficit down below 3 percent of GDP. My colleagues don't think that is good enough, although I never heard one word from them--not one word--when George W. Bush came in and shredded the budget. He took a surplus that Bill Clinton and the Democrats, with the help of some Republicans, had put in place, and they shredded it under George Bush by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest, putting two wars on the credit card, adopting a prescription drug plan that didn't allow Medicare to negotiate for lower prices, and the deficit went wild. And it didn't even make sense. I am an old--well, I am old--economics major, and I remember the basics. You don't go into such deep debt because, if there is a recession, you can't really help but spend your way out of it. So what happened when President Obama got elected is he faced the worst deficit crisis, and that deficit went up to well over $1 trillion. He has gotten it back to $850 billion. It is still too high, but the fact is I never heard a word from my really good friends on the other side of the aisle when they were racking up those debts. It was, oh, this supply side stuff is going to be great. Well, it wasn't great. It wasn't good. And I am glad this budget takes us back to the notion of the Clinton years, which is we have a balanced approach between revenues, investments, and commitments to our people. If we look at the Republican budget--that Ryan budget over there that passed with huge Republican support--we can see what he does. I have to tell the people something they may not know. The Ryan budget, the Republican budget, includes more tax breaks for the people at the top. Surprise. I thought we had an election about this. That didn't seem to matter to the Republicans. A new tax break of $200,000 a year for people making over $1 million. Just what we needed, Mr. President. More tax breaks for the people at the top. This is per year. Think about that. The average income is about $50,000 a year, and the Republicans are giving $200,000 a year to millionaires. Forget it. That is why they want us to send this budget back--to come out with that kind of a budget? No way. I want a balanced budget. By the way, how do they pay for this? With unspecified closing of tax loopholes. Well, let me tell you, the amount of money they are putting in these new tax breaks--$5.7 trillion--is so high they will have to end the home mortgage deduction, which the middle class really needs. The wealthy people don't need mortgages, they can buy their homes outright. The middle class, the upper middle class need this tax break. Charitable deductions, which our charities count on, is another of their loopholes; and making sure you can write off State and local taxes, which helps our States and our cities. That is what they are going after. They do not say it because it is ``unspecified.'' I hope I have made the point that the Republican budget is basically a sham because I don't know any Senator on either side of the aisle who would vote today to do away with the charitable deduction, the home mortgage deduction, or State and local tax deduction. Maybe a couple of them would, but I can tell you, hearing from my folks at home and the charities that depend on that deduction and the real estate people who are finally seeing a little recovery, what a time to do that. So I say that budget is a sham. It doesn't balance and, worse yet, it hurts our people. I have only one more point to make and then I will yield back the time to my friend. How much time remains?

Mrs. BOXER. If the Chair will advise me when I have used 5 minutes. So let me now tell you about Medicare. In the Republican budget, if you are younger than 55, instead of getting the same Medicare your parents had and the same Medicare you have paid into and the same Medicare that you counted on, it is over, folks. It is over. You will get a voucher. There is no more Medicare. They tell you to go out with that voucher and find your own insurance. Now, we know, because studies have shown us, that plan says you will be paying $6,000 a year more out of your own pocket for health care. That is what this so-called Medicare--new Medicare--Program is. It is not Medicare. Medicare is a guaranteed benefit where you take the card and go to the doctor. Here you take a voucher. So now you are 55, and then you get older. If you are lucky enough to get health insurance, and you get older and now you are 70 or 80, and you are taking an insufficient voucher--you are retired--this is a giant nightmare. These are supposed to be the golden years. Well, the people who lose this will have lost the golden Medicare guarantee, I will tell you that. Here is the final point. The Republicans say if you have Medicare, don't worry. You are fine. Baloney. If you end Medicare, destroy it like the Republicans do, the people left in it are part of a dying program that is being phased out. Who is going to try to improve the quality of that program? It is going to be like fixing an Edsel or fixing your typewriter. There is no more Medicare. It is going to be a program that is dying, that is being phased out, and that will hurt current senior citizens. So let's be clear. The Ryan budget, the Republican budget, takes the Medicare promise and shreds it, destroys it, and it is the end. When President Johnson signed the Medicare law in 1965, here is what he said: No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings they have carefully put away over a lifetime. No longer will young families see their own incomes eaten away because they are carrying out their deep moral obligation to their parents, to their uncles and their aunts. So I am saying to Senator Murray: Thank you, thank you, thank you, for your leadership. I am saying to Democrats such as Senator Coons, who has organized this today, thank you for your leadership, thank you for a budget that recognizes our obligations to our seniors, to our veterans, to our children, to this Nation, to make sure this is a Nation of innovation, and thank you for protecting transportation, an issue that I care deeply about as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Without being able to move people and move goods, our Nation will not be a leading economic power. So I thank you, and I yield back to Senator Coons.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 297

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to add my words to those eloquently spoken by our Budget Committee chairman Patty Murray and by one of our leaders here, the able Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. We have been waiting for hours and hours. I can only imagine what the public thinks when they look down on this floor and absolutely nothing is happening. I came down here not knowing my friend and colleague was going to be here. I guess we both had the same sense of it, that we had to explain to the American people why this is happening. There is only one reason: Republicans are stalling and stalling and stalling and filibustering and filibustering and filibustering. But they are not doing a talking filibuster; they are just letting the clock tick. They are filibustering a very important bill to keep this government open. They say they want to keep the government open and they don't want to shut down, so why not get that vote done with? Senator Mikulski has led us, in a beautiful way, with Senator Shelby, in a very bipartisan fashion--let's vote on that bill, keep the government open, and, as Senator Mikulski said, show the country we can work together and get to the one thing the Republicans have been saying not for months but for years; that is, a budget. The truth is, instead of doing a budget, we did the Budget Control Act, so of course we did a budget. As a matter of fact, the Budget Control Act was actually in many ways more specific than a budget. But setting that aside, they went out on the campaign trail and attacked Democrats: Where is your budget? Where is your budget? Well, guess what. Under the able leadership of my friend from Washington Senator Murray, there is a budget, and it is well done, and it has strong deficit reduction and strong investments. It is balanced in a way the Ryan plan is not. It saves Medicare where he destroys it. It invests in education and infrastructure where he destroys that. His budget is a wrecking ball. Our budget, under the able leadership of Senator Murray, is an optimistic path to our future, not the pessimistic, painful plan Mr. Ryan put forward in the name of the Republican Party. Now the people are witnessing a filibuster. It is possible that we could end it, but I will tell my colleagues this: We are trying for some friendship and comity across the aisle right now. We want to keep the government open. The Senator from Kansas stood here last night and said the reason he is filibustering--he never used that word, but the reason he is insisting that we spend 30 more hours, 40 more hours, 50 more hours on this last year's business, which is last year's appropriations bill, is because he demands to have a vote on his amendment, about which he feels very strongly. It has to do with making sure the sequester doesn't hit our air traffic control towers, meaning they can stay open. I agree with the Senator from Kansas; we should keep those air traffic control towers open. But I want to say to him--and maybe we have a chart here, if I can get to it--I want to say to my friend who isn't here who is leading the filibuster that this is where we are. We want to restore those air traffic controllers. But I will tell my colleagues what I want to restore in addition to the air traffic controllers and the towers--he is right--I want to restore Head Start for 70,000 children. I want to restore 10,000 teacher jobs. I want to restore 7,200 special education teachers who are working with kids who desperately need help. I want to restore the title I funds that impact 1 million kids. I want to make sure we can conduct 424,000 HIV tests that are administered by the CDC. How does it make us a better country when people don't know if they are HIV positive and they spread that virus? How about the 25,000 breast and cervical cancer screenings that are not being done? These are the consequences of the sequester, in addition to the terrible consequences to the FAA. I was here when the Republicans shut down the FAA, if my colleague remembers that. They shut it down, but suddenly they care about it. Good. I am glad they care about it. I care about it too. I haven't talked about the 804,000 outpatient visits to Indian health centers or 2,100 food inspections that are going to save lives. These are not happening because of sequester: 4 million meals served to seniors; 600,000 women and children who are not getting nutrition assistance because of sequester; national science grants cut, 1,000 of them; and $902 million cut from loans to our small businesses, which are the job creators; and even 1,000 FBI agents and other law enforcement personnel. So, yes, I say to my friend who is not here who is leading the filibuster, the Senator from Kansas--I hope he comes and shows up--I hear him. I feel the pain he feels for his State. I have a list I won't bore my colleagues with that just shows the cuts to my State. It is painful. But how do we solve it? Not by amendment after amendment after amendment on a must-pass bill that the House has said to keep simple or the government shuts down--not that way but by turning to the Democratic budget, where Senator Murray and colleagues on her committee have restored those cuts, and they have found other ways to cut, better ways to cut, sensible ways to cut. So I call on my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you want to wait 10 hours, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 hours, it is your call. We will be here. We will be here. But we are not going to put off the passage of the budget. It is too important. We will be here until it is done. I yield back the remainder of my time. I thank my colleague Senator Murray so much for her leadership.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Jeremiah MacKay, Michael Crain, Monica Quan, and Keith Lawrence--four extraordinary members of Southern California's public safety community who were tragically killed by the same deranged gunman. It is heartbreaking to lose these brave heroes, who dedicated their lives to protecting our families and our communities. Jeremiah MacKay, a San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy, was a 14- year veteran of the force. He served at the Yucaipa sheriff's station and was a bagpiper and officer in the Inland Empire Emerald Society, which provides financial assistance for the families of fallen law enforcement officers. A native of San Bernardino and a graduate of Rim of the World High School in Lake Arrowhead, Jeremiah was a proud husband and father known for his love of family and his infectious laugh. Michael Crain was a Riverside police officer who served as a patrol officer and a member of the Special Weapons and Tactics, SWAT, Team. During his 11-year tenure with the Riverside City Police Department, Officer Crain also served on the University Neighborhood Enhancement Team and as a Helicopter Observer, Field Training Officer, and Firearms Instructor. A decorated retired Marine sergeant, Officer Cain is remembered by his colleagues as a consummate family man who loved nothing more than coaching his son's baseball team or attending his daughter's dance recitals. Monica Quan was the daughter of attorney Randal Quan, a former captain with the Los Angeles Police Department who had represented the shooter during his unsuccessful appeal of dismissal from the Los Angeles Police Department. Monica, a former high school and college basketball star, was the assistant women's basketball coach at California State University, Fullerton. Keith Lawrence, Monica Quan's fiance, was a public safety officer at the University of Southern California who had attended the Ventura County Sheriff's Academy and trained with the Oxnard Police Department. He and Monica met when both played basketball at Concordia University, and they had recently become engaged. On behalf of the people of California, whom they served with such valor and distinction, I send my deepest condolences to the families and friends of Jeremiah MacKay, Michael Crain, Monica Quan, and Keith Lawrence.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Albert ``Cap'' Lavin, a high school and college basketball star, dedicated English teacher, and loving husband, father, and grandfather. Cap passed away on February 10, 2013 at the age of 82. Cap Lavin was a San Francisco Bay Area native through and through. Growing up in San Francisco's Richmond District, Cap played pickup basketball games at Rochambeau Playground before becoming a star player and All-City guard on St. Ignatius College Preparatory's basketball team. He was so good that he was named St. Ignatius's player of the decade for the 1940s. He continued to hone his basketball skills at the University of San Francisco, where he played for two Hall of Fame coaches in the early 1950s and was later inducted into the USF Dons Hall of Fame. Following college, Cap turned his love of reading into a 43-year-long career as an English teacher at the University of California Berkeley, San Francisco State University, Dominican University, and Drake High School in San Anselmo, his true home, where he taught English for 40 of those 43 years. Though his students at Drake kept him busy, Cap also found the time to author 19 books and co-found the Bay Area Writing Project at UC Berkeley. After inspiring generations of students, Cap retired from Drake in 1997. In retirement, Cap and his wife, Mary, enjoyed exploring the Bay Area, hiking, biking, taking tai chi classes, and going to the opera, the symphony, and lectures in San Francisco. Those who knew Cap will always remember him as a generous, inspiring, and passionate man full of zest for life. His contributions to the sports world, academia, and the San Francisco Bay Area community will never be forgotten. I extend my deepest condolences to Cap's loving wife, Mary; his children Rachel, John, Mark, Ken, Suzanne, and Steve; and his many grandchildren.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Loran ``Butch'' Baker and Elizabeth Butler, two members of the Santa Cruz Police Department who were recently killed in the line of duty. These extraordinary officers dedicated their lives to their family, community, and Nation. Their courage and dedication inspired all who were lucky enough to know them, and they will be deeply missed. A 28-year veteran of the Santa Cruz Police Department, Detective Sergeant Baker was one of the most experienced and respected officers in Santa Cruz. He loved his job and served as a friend and mentor to many Central Coast law enforcement officials, including his son, Adam, who in 2010 joined the department as a community service officer. Detective Sergeant Baker was in turn inspired by his son, noting that he saw in Adam glimpses of himself when he had first started police work. Father and son relished working together. Adam called his dad ``Sarge'' at work, and the two had mailboxes next to each other marked ``Baker'' and ``A. Baker.'' Detective Sergeant Baker, a graduate of San Jose's Bellarmine College Preparatory and Fresno City College, patrolled Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz's downtown strip and he was easy to spot. As one friend noted, ``Even in the dead of winter, he always wore his signature shorts.'' Detective Sergeant Baker also worked in community services and hostage negotiations, served as a field training officer, and was one of the founding members of the DUI Enforcement Team. He was well known for his fantastic sense of humor, his infectious laugh, and his commitment to the community that loved him so much. Detective Butler, a 10-year veteran of the Santa Cruz Police Department, grew up in Los Angeles and moved to Santa Cruz in 1992 to attend UC Santa Cruz, where she graduated as a community studies major. Filled with idealism and a passion for helping others, she first focused her talents on community development lending with the nonprofit Opportunity Fund and then Wells Fargo Bank, before settling into her career with the Santa Cruz Police Department. During her tenure, she worked as a patrol officer, hostage negotiator, downtown foot and bike officer, and agent assigned to the Santa Cruz County drug task force. Detective Butler dearly loved living and working in Santa Cruz. She savored the morning buns rolled in sugar from Kelly's French Bakery and the sweeping views of Santa Cruz from atop a roller coaster at the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk. ``I enjoy living and working in Santa Cruz because one can enjoy the ocean, the mountains, interesting people, and a healthy lifestyle all in one spot,'' she once wrote. Detective Butler was known by friends and family as warm, caring, and funny. Above all, she loved spending time with her partner and two young sons. On behalf of the people of California, whom they served so valiantly, I extend my deepest sympathies to Detective Sergeant Baker's wife, Kelly, and three children, Adam, Ashley, and Jillian; Detective Butler's partner, Peter, and two sons, Joaquin and Stellan; and their extended families, colleagues, and friends.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Do you object?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about a very important issue called climate change or climate disruption. Before I do, I wish to address the issue my colleague has raised. He did not want to stop debate on the continuing resolution bill because he wanted to offer an amendment to ensure we cut somewhere as well as keep the FAA able to keep open air traffic control towers. As someone who fought a partial government shutdown which shut down the FAA, my friends on the Republican side--my friend wasn't here then--I can tell you I was instrumental in making sure we passed that FAA authorization bill. It was a great bill. It breaks my heart to see this sequester in action. This is not the way to govern. I respect my colleague's point of view. He has a right to his opinion, but to say this is the only opportunity to stop the sequester is absolutely incorrect. The President has said he is ready to sit down with the Republicans, pass a balanced plan which would fix the sequester, get the FAA back up to snuff, take care of all of our problems which were caused because of the sequester, deficit reduction, and balance our budget. If this happens, this sequester will end not only for the FAA--my friend is right, this is ridiculous--but for the 70,000 children who are being cut out of Head Start. Why isn't there more discussion about that when we know every dollar invested in a child in Head Start saves $10 because they get that head start in life? Where is the outrage of the 421,000 fewer HIV tests? This is a public health emergency when 421,000 people can't get their HIV test. They don't know if they are HIV positive and could spread the virus. This is what is happening with this sequester. There are 10,500 teacher positions lost and 2,700 will lose title I funds, which amounts to 1 million children who will lose special reading help because of the sequester. I think we all agree the sequester is no way to govern. We can get to a balanced budget without a sequester. We did that under Bill Clinton. We had a balanced approach. We made investments in our people, we cut out unnecessary spending, and we had a fair Tax Code. I could go on with the problems. There are 25,000 fewer women who will not receive breast cancer screening. I could offer an amendment on that. I want to offer an amendment on that. I understand we need to keep the government running, and that is what this continuing resolution does. I praise the Republicans on the other side who crossed over to vote with Democrats. Thank you very much for seeing we can't turn this bill into everyone's favorite amendment to restore something which is cut because of the sequester, which none of us ever thought was going to move forward. I want to repeat this. My friend speaks about the FAA. I agree with him. I hope he would agree with me on Head Start, on teachers, on title I, on HIV tests, and on breast cancer screenings. What about the $540 million which is cut from the Small Business Administration loan program which is so critical to our small businesses and job creation? There are 600,000 children losing their nutrition assistance because of the sequester. Let's all agree. The sequester is bad, and we need to stop it. Why not do it in the right way, which is to sit down with the President, ensure we can get the deficit reduction the sequester is bringing in in a better way. He is offering this. He is offering a balanced plan. All of these cries about, oh, they are cutting this, that, and the other--it is all bad. Sequester is not the way to budget or to govern. We have 1 week to keep this government open. The House has told us not to start a series of amendments or we are never going to be able to keep the government open. Let's do our work and keep this as clean as we can. Let's make sure we all listen to our President, who was reelected in a huge victory. He said he wanted to move us toward balance with a balanced plan, cuts in spending, new revenues. Patty Murray's budget, the Democratic budget, does that. I am very pleased we are moving toward keeping this government open. This is the basic thing we need to do--keep this simple and move on. As you know, I am the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is a joy for me to have that job, truly. My whole life I have cared about environment and about infrastructure. The way the Senate works, they put those two together. Not only am I able to speak about clean air, safe drinking water, cleaning up Superfund sites, and protecting the health of our families, but I also get to talk about jobs which are created when we build roads, highways, and water systems. There is something which does not bring us together on that committee, and that is the issue of climate change. What I have decided to do is come down to the floor every Monday possible when the floor is available to speak a few minutes about the devastating consequences of unchecked climate disruption. I wish to discuss and put into the Record every week the latest scientific information. On March 4 I began these talks and spoke about a front-page story in USA Today which spotlights the impacts of climate change unfolding around us. The story is the first in a year-long series called ``Why You Should Sweat Climate Change.'' It describes how climate disruption is happening all around us. Last week I discussed a report entitled ``The 2013 High Risk List,'' which was a GAO study, Government Accountability Office study, which said climate disruption is leading to intense weather events, such as Superstorm Sandy, which threaten, our Nation and the finances of our Nation. Plus, I told colleagues of an Oregon State study which appeared in Science which said that we have had the warmest decade in over 11,000 years--the warmest decade in over 11,000 years. Now, not 11 years, not 1,100 years, but 11,000 years. So Earth to my Republican colleagues, please wake up to this fact and let's do something about it. Today I want to talk about the impact of unchecked climate change on the health of our people. This is a statement made by Dr. Cecil Wilson--and let's look at this chart--the former president of the AMA, the American Medical Association: The scientific evidence clearly indicates that our climate is changing, air pollution is increasing, weather is becoming more extreme, and with these changes come public health consequences. That is why our President made a finding there actually is a danger to public health. It is called an endangerment finding for a reason. It is putting our people in danger. Wake up, colleagues. Please, wake up before it is too late. The fact is the Bush administration found--and we got this through documentation--that climate change was a threat. The CIA has found that climate change is a threat. The defense establishment has found that climate change is a threat. The only place that doesn't seem to get excited about it is right here, in a bipartisan way, in the Senate. Again, we know temperatures are continuing to increase. The Draft National Climate Assessment of January 11, 2013, said this: Heat caused by climate disruption is especially harmful to our children. Now I want to talk to colleagues who might just be listening. They might not be because it is 7:20 at night, but if they are, you all say you want to protect our kids. You all love your children and your grandchildren and your nieces and your nephews. This is according to the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee--and I think we have a chart on that: Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change include injury and death from extreme weather events and natural disasters, increases in climate-sensitive infectious diseases, increases in air pollution-related illness, and more heat-related, potentially fatal illness. Within all of these categories, children have increased vulnerability compared with other groups. Again, I say to my colleagues, if we were sent here to do anything, it is to protect the health and safety of our children, for goodness' sakes, and they are one of the most vulnerable groups if we don't act on climate change. And if that doesn't move you, I say to my friends, what about the elderly? They are particularly vulnerable. This is from the Draft National Climate Assessment. Older people are at much higher risk of dying during extreme heat events. Preexisting health conditions also make the elderly susceptible to cardiac and respiratory impacts of air pollution and to more severe consequences from infectious diseases. So if I didn't touch your heart with your kids and grandkids, how about your grandmas, your grandpas, your great-grandmas, and your great-grandpas. They also are terribly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Laurence Kalkstein, a University of Miami professor, who studies the effects of heat on health, said: Climate change is a silent killer. Heat can cause fatalities among even the fittest. It is a silent killer. And he knows because he studies the impact of heat on our health. So let's not be silent. Maybe climate change is a silent killer, but we can't be silent in the face of the information we have. Continuing to quote Laurence Kalkstein: The warming planet can cause many other serious health problems that are harmful to our families. Scientists predict they will get worse. Scientists believe it will only get worse. Listen to what they say: Heatwaves are also associated with increased hospital admissions for cardiovascular, kidney and respiratory disorders. Extreme summer heat is increasing in the U.S., and climate projections indicate that extreme heat events will be much more frequent and intense in coming decades. Is this the future we want for our people, increased hospital admissions for cardiovascular, kidney, and respiratory disorders? I think not. But, boy, part of me thinks so. I can't seem to get anybody excited about this in the Senate. You might ask me why that is? I have my theories. There is a lot of power on the other side. There is a lot of power on the other side-- people who don't want to move off coal, people who don't want to move off oil. There is a lot of power on the other side. The increase in temperatures can lead to respiratory illnesses associated with air pollution, such as asthma. Have you ever seen a child with asthma gasping for breath? I say to my colleagues, asthma is a leading cause of hospital admissions for kids at school. I go around and visit the schools, and I ask a simple question: How many of you kids have asthma or know someone with asthma? Almost 50 percent of the room has hands up. If you saw a child gasping for air on the street, you would hold them close, you would calm them down, you would get them oxygen, you would do everything in your power. You would call 9-1-1, you would take them to the hospital, you would sit by their side, you would hold their hand, you would nurse them back to health. We have a situation, folks, where climate disruption is going to bring us more cases of asthma. Let's not stand with the giant polluters. Let's move to clean energy. Let's clean up our act and save our children, save our grandparents. We are not talking about a remote possibility sometime in the near future. Climate disruption is here. It is happening before our eyes. More American children are getting asthma and allergies, more seniors are suffering from heat strokes. And let me tell you about what is happening in New York right now. They are seeing indications that extreme weather events such as Superstorm Sandy are linked to health problems. They have already given a name to a cough that has developed in that part of the country known locally as the Rockaway cough because it is in Rockaway. The Rockaway Peninsula on Long Island, NY, was devastated by Sandy. Lives were lost, homes and businesses were destroyed, and now local residents are experiencing health problems from the flooding--coughing, which is a common symptom, health officials said, that could come from mold or the haze of dust and sand kicked up by the storm and demolitions. Governor Cuomo said they are seeing these so-called 100-year storms--supposed to come once in 100 years--all the time. I say to my colleagues: Wake up to the truth. Look out the window. Figure it out. Look at this. Is this what we want to see in our country? I was speaking to Senator Warren about what happened recently, and I was shocked to see houses in Massachusetts on the beach, beautiful homes, being totally razed and taken away because the ocean is moving so close they can't stay there. It is happening before our eyes. Right here. With the haze of dust and sand kicked up by the storm and demolitions, the air in the Rockaways is so full of particles the traffic police wear masks, though many recovery workers do not, and that worries people who recall the fallout of another disaster. Another real threat we are seeing more and more in the West is wildfires. Wildfire smoke contains dangerous compounds. Why do we see this? The droughts that are coming. Smoke exposure increases respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations, emergency department visits for asthma, bronchitis, chest pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory infections, and medical visits for lung illnesses, and has been associated with hundreds of thousands of global deaths annually. That is the bad news. Now, if I stopped here, I wouldn't sleep very well tonight, having gone through all this. But there is good news. We can take steps now to address climate change, and those steps will benefit public health. We have an opportunity to turn this crisis into a win-win situation. When we reduce carbon pollution from powerplants to address climate disruption, we reduce dangerous air pollutants, such as soot and toxic metals that are harmful to our health. Here is a chart: Policies and other strategies intended to reduce carbon pollution and mitigate climate change can often have independent influences on human health. For example, when you reduce carbon emissions, you reduce air pollutants, such as particles and sulfur dioxides. We call that cobenefits, Mr. President. When you go after one kind of pollution--carbon pollution--you get the cobenefits of going after the soot, the small particles that lodge in our lungs. So we know when we reduce carbon emissions, we reduce those small particles and sulfur dioxide. Here is the other good news. As we move away from the very dirty power sources of, what I hope will be, the past, and we move toward clean energy, we help our families' budgets because we move away from polluting automobiles. I drive a hybrid, a plug-in hybrid car. I have to tell you, it is pretty amazing. I get the first 12 miles on electricity, and if I do a few chores and come home and plug the car in again, then when I go past the 12 miles, it goes to a hybrid, which is part gas, part electric. So overall I am getting about 150 miles to the gallon. You know what. That feels pretty good when you don't have to stop and fill up your car all the time and get the sweats because of what it costs to fill up that car. President Obama and my colleague Senator Feinstein, and my former colleague Senator Snowe, I have to compliment them because in a bipartisan way they moved us toward fuel efficiency. So we are moving toward 50-miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency, and that will help us. But we have to do more. We have to do more because the health costs associated with climate change are heartbreaking and expensive. Taking steps to reduce carbon pollution will lower our doctors' bills when we don't have kids wheezing and gasping for air. The evidence is clear: Climate change is a public health threat. We have moved before when we have seen threats to public health. We did it on cigarettes. I was here when the Congress voted to ban smoking on airplanes. Let me tell you, that was a hard vote. We had all the money of the cigarette and tobacco companies against us. And I want to compliment Senators Lautenberg and Durbin. Senator Durbin was in the House. This was a long time ago, but I can tell you what it was like because I do so much travel across the country. Mr. President, I would get off the plane where there was smoking, and I would reek of smoke. You felt it all over, and you certainly were breathing it in. It was unhealthy. Everyone said it would never happen; that we would never, ever ban smoking on the airlines. But guess what. We did the right thing. Now some people say: Well, how do you know that human activity and the kinds of power we are using, the dirty oil and so on, the coal, is causing this? Let me tell you how I know. Because 98 percent of the scientists tell me so. People say, what if they are wrong. Ninety-eight percent of the scientists agree that human activity is causing this climate disruption. If you stand with the 2 percent, you are standing with the 2 percent who said smoking never caused lung cancer. I would say, if we went to the doctor and the doctor looked at us and said there is a 98- percent chance if you don't change your eating habits or your smoking habits you are going to die an early death, you would say, 98 percent chance? OK, I will change my ways. Well, 98 percent of the scientists are telling us to change our ways when it comes to carbon pollution. How do we do that in a way that is smart? We have several bills to put a price on carbon. We have the Sanders-Boxer bill. We have the Whitehouse bill. There will be other bills. Once we put a price on carbon, it makes sense because we are factoring in the true cost of carbon pollution, which I just explained is enormous in public health alone and economics related to superstorms and the rest. So we need to put a price on carbon. What Bernie Sanders and I do is we take the funds that come in from that and we give it right back to the people and say: Here is a check, and now you can pay for your new clean energy. It is kind of capping the carbon and giving a dividend to the people. With the rest of the money we lower the deficit, we invest in solar rooftops, and a little bit in solar transportation. It is the way to go. Some say wait. We can't wait. We wasted 8 long years when George W. Bush was President. Do you know why? He said carbon pollution wasn't covered in the Clean Air Act. All one had to do was read the Clean Air Act. I am not an attorney, but it is right there. It says, in essence, here are the following pollutants that are covered, and it listed greenhouse gas emissions. But, oh, no. He took it all the way to the Supreme Court and wasted 8 long years while the problem got worse and worse. So here is the deal. Here is a quote from Washington School of Public Health, University of Washington, Dr. Howard Frumkin, who says: In public health, when faced with threats to entire populations, we act. For infectious diseases, we vaccinate. If 98 percent of the doctors say vaccinate to prevent illness, there is always 2 percent who are going to say don't do it. But we go with 98 percent. For lung cancer, we ban smoking. We didn't stand with the doctors who were paid off by big tobacco. We stood with the doctors who had an independent judgment, and we banned smoking on airplanes and in close quarters and in the Senate cloakroom and all the other places in government buildings. For injuries, we install seat belts and air bags. Another big battle. Remember that battle? The auto companies said: We don't want to spend the money installing airbags or seatbelts. We said: You have to do it. You know what. It is worth the cost, and so many lives are saved. For obesity, we promote physical activity and healthier eating. The First Lady has taken this on as a cause and we are starting to see a change. We have a long way to go. Why do that? Because we know the connection between obesity and diabetes and heart disease and stroke. So even though it is a difficult issue, we have tackled it. For climate change, we need to act. We surely do. I am talking to pretty much an empty Chamber, but I am glad the Presiding Officer is here, and I feel a few people are watching. It is good. But there are a few of us who are determined to keep on bringing the facts to the floor of the Senate. Everyone has the right to act or not act, but I believe we need to make the record now, because when my grandchildren grow up, I want them to look back and say: Wow. That was great what grandma's generation did. They took care of this issue. I don't want them to look back and say: What were they thinking? What was wrong with them? Why didn't they act when they could have made a difference? So next week I will be back. I will be talking about national security threats. This is one of the biggest national security threats we face. That doesn't come from me. That comes from the Pentagon. It comes from the CIA. It comes from the national security teams. So we can just close our eyes to this and we can wish it goes away, but it is not going away or we can ease the pain of climate disruption by moving to clean energy, energy efficiency, and we will face a win-win as we eventually have better public health, save money, and save the planet.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Well, now is the time.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much. Amendment No. 29 to Amendment No. 26

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mrs. BOXER. I just 2 minutes ago got a copy of what my dear friend is going to offer, and here we go again with a series of environmental riders that have nothing to do with this bill, that would change laws that protect our rivers and our streams, and involve the EPA making sure we prevent oilspills. Frankly, I am objecting to this at this time unless I know we are going to have a 60-vote threshold; otherwise, I will put us in a quorum call at this time. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. I have the floor because I am reserving the right to object.

Mrs. BOXER. All right. Go ahead.

Mrs. BOXER. Does the Senator wish to have time?

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield? Go ahead.

Mrs. BOXER. If I could ask my colleague a couple questions, if he would engage in a colloquy with me.

Mrs. BOXER. I know the Senator from Rhode Island--and I appreciate what he said about how sweeping this is. The Senator has the amendment in front of him, does he not?