Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I need to say here, please, colleagues, this is not any kind of an extension of time. This says: No funds made available under this Act shall be used to implement or enforce with respect to any farm. . . . And it goes through the Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule. Does my colleague read it the way I do? This is not an extension of time. This is a prohibition on EPA implementing the rule. Am I correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Exactly.

Mrs. BOXER. I want to ask my colleague a couple other questions. Farmers are exempted if they store less than 1,320 gallons of oil aboveground or less than 42,000 gallons underground. That is the rule. Is my colleague aware of that?

Mrs. BOXER. Will my colleague yield for one more question? I know my colleague, Senator Inhofe, wants to speak. By the way, we have a deep friendship. But this is something we have never agreed on. I want to make a point about the EPA rule. Farmers storing any amount of oil, I say to my colleague, are exempted if an oilspill could not reasonably be expected to reach rivers and streams. My colleague was talking about this as some Draconian rule. The fact is, even one quart of oil, used oil, can contaminate up to 2 million gallons of drinking water. I am a little blindsided on this, I have to say to my friend. If he is going to keep on doing these riders on here that threaten the health of the American people, I wish he would take it to me and at least give me a personal heads up because this is something that is very serious, and I will be speaking more on it tomorrow. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. 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, and I ask unanimous consent that I have up to 20 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to see that we have confirmed a couple of judges. We have judges all over this country, nominees waiting to be confirmed and judicial emergencies all over the country, so I hope this is a start of a new day. We will see what happens. Mr. President, I stand here as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee to talk about one of the greatest threats facing our Nation; that is, climate change, dangerous climate change, or you could call it climate disruption. It seems as though the only people who do not get it are Members of Congress. They do not get it. Last week I talked about a front page story in USA TODAY that highlighted the impacts of climate change unfolding around us. The story I talked about is the first of a yearlong series called ``Why you should sweat climate change.'' Everyone else is sweating about it but not here, not in this Senate, not in this Congress. Since last week, additional information concerning climate change has been released that I want to talk about today. I want to build a record in this Senate on an issue that threatens the very lives of our grandchildren. It is hard to imagine that this country is facing a question of our own survival and so few people seem to care about it. I am going to talk about another report. A study published last week in Science reports that average global temperatures were higher in the past decade than over most of the previous 11,300 years. Let me repeat that. Let me repeat that for any colleagues who might be listening. Average global temperatures were higher in the past decade than over most of the previous 11,300 years. Yet the Senate does very little. Senator Sanders and I have a bill--a very important bill--to put a price on the pollution that is causing the climate to be disrupted and to change. Let me say that we do not have a slew of sponsors. The lead author of the study in this Science report said average global temperatures were higher in the past decade than most of the previous 11,300 years. He is a paleoclimatologist at Oregon State University. Here is what he said: What's different is the rate of change. . . . What we've seen over the past 150 years is much greater than anything we saw in the past 11,000. That is Shaun Marcott, Ph.D., the lead author of the study. Some people may ask, why is this study important? What does it mean for our kids? What does it mean to our grandkids? Let's go to the quote. If the scientists' forecasts are correct, the planet will be warmer in 2100 than it has been for 11,300 years. The scientific evidence continues to mount. Study after study has concluded that the planet is warming and the impacts have already started. Yet the only place that doesn't seem to get this message is right here in Washington, DC--not at the White House; they get it. President Obama understands it. That is why he worked with us to increase fuel economy, to keep that carbon pollution from automobiles out of the air, and we are moving to a 55-miles-per-gallon standard. That is going to help, but that is not enough. We need to put a price on pollution so polluters turn away from dirty energy and turn toward clean energy. That will save us from most of the ravages of the changing climate. But the window is closing on the timeframe because impacts have already started. Another study released last week by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, found there was a dramatic jump in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air in 2012. It was the second highest increase since 1959, when record-keeping began. The increase in carbon in the air is yet another signal that scientists' predictions about climate change and climate disruption-- those predictions are coming true. We have already seen the devastating and far-reaching consequences of unchecked climate disruption in the extreme weather events. The Government Accountability Office--the GAO; they are not partisan, and they are not ideological--recently released a report entitled ``2013 High Risk List'' that discusses how climate disruption and extreme weather events threaten our Nation. This is the Government Accountability Office. We, the taxpayers, support the Government Accountability Office. They are nonpartisan, and they are straight- from-the-shoulder analysts. They say: Climate change could threaten coastal areas with rising sea levels, alter agricultural productivity, and increase the intensity and frequency of severe weather events such as floods, drought, and hurricanes.'' I guess they look out their window in addition to looking at the numbers. Anyone who looked out their window who lives in the area of Superstorm Sandy understands this. Climate change could threaten our coastal areas--it is already doing it. I don't know if anybody saw those homes being removed from a beach in Massachusetts--gorgeous homes. They were there for a while--gone, because the ocean was going to envelope them. According to the GAO, extreme weather events have cost the Nation tens of billions of dollars already, just over the past decade. As these extreme weather events increase, so will the cost to American taxpayers. This is more from the Government Accountability Office. This is not from the EPA. This is not from NOAA. This is not from Barbara Boxer. This is not from Bernie Sanders. This is not from Sheldon Whitehouse. This is not from the Environment Committee. This is from the GAO. [T]he impacts and costliness of weather disasters-- resulting from floods, drought, and other events such as tropical cyclones--will increase in significance as what are considered ``rare'' events become more common and intense due to climate change. When I started in this work a very long time ago, we talked about the 100-year flood, and we could protect ourselves against the 100-year flood. Now--as Governor Cuomo has stated so eloquently--we are seeing the 100-year flood every couple of years. Now taxpayers are on the hook due to extreme weather events such as Superstorm Sandy and because the Federal Government owns buildings across the Nation and insures property and crops and provides disaster assistance. Let's see what else the GAO says: Climate change . . . impacts pose significant financial risks for the federal government-- Which, by the way, means us, the taxpayers-- which owns extensive infrastructure, insures property through federal flood and crop insurance programs, provides technical assistance to state and local governments, and provides emergency aid in response to natural disasters. So our Federal finances are significantly at risk. [T]here is a growing recognition that the cost of inaction could be greater and--given the government's precarious fiscal position--increasingly difficult to manage given expected budget pressures. We are going to see a couple of different budgets emerge--one from the Democrats in the Senate and one from the Republicans in the House-- and they will have different visions for America. One budget, the Democratic budget, is going to get to a deficit reduction, but it will invest in our people. It will say to the very wealthiest: You have to do your share so our kids can go to Head Start, get their education, job training, and clean up the environment. The other budget is going to be hurtful. It is going to be painful because the other budget--the Republican budget--is going to protect and defend one group of people in this country, which is the wealthy few. Therefore, we will not have the resources to do what we have to do, and we are going to see cutbacks in the areas that we need in order to make sure we plan for this extreme weather and make sure we can avert this climate disruption by investing in clean energy. The GAO report is clear: Unchecked climate change comes at a very high price, but that is what is happening in this Congress. The President is doing his best. Some of us over here are pushing hard. In the House they passed a bill. We fell short because of a filibuster. We had 54 votes, and we needed 60 votes. As a result, a price on carbon never happened, and now we are seeing hotter days, a hotter climate, and more severe, extreme weather. We need to take these steps. We need to make these investments. As these budgets come down, let's take a look. I can assure everyone that when we have a travesty and tragedy such as Superstorm Sandy, we are never going to turn away from our people whether it happens to your State, Mr. President, due to a severe drought or certain types of pests that arise because of a change in the weather. We know such events happen. It is happening all over the country, and it can happen anywhere. There is extreme weather where we have fires and droughts. We have snow when we never expect it, torrents of rain that we cannot even believe is happening, not to mention these high temperatures. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren not to turn away. Now, let's see what else the GAO tells us. This is a call from them to us. Is anybody listening? Is anybody who gets to vote in this Senate listening? The GAO calls for ``a government-wide strategic approach with strong leadership and the authority to manage climate change risks that encompasses the entire range of related federal activities and addresses all key elements of strategic planning.'' That is a lot of words for something so simple. What the GAO is saying to us is, you guys better act because this thing is getting out of control. Every time I get a chance on a Monday evening, I intend to come down to the Senate floor and take a few minutes to build a case-- and I hope an indisputable one--that we put a price on carbon pollution just like we made sure other pollution had a price on it. It didn't matter if it was a regulatory price or if they had to go buy scrubbers to keep dangerous pollutants out of the air. Carbon pollution is dangerous. It is putting our people at risk, but no one would know it from what is happening around here. I want to close by thanking my colleague Bernie Sanders, with whom I am so proud to serve. I am the chairman of the Environment Committee, and he is a great member. Together we have come up with an excellent bill. The bill takes the proceeds of that carbon tax and invests it in our people, invests in clean energy, makes sure our middle class and working poor have the funds they need to pay the higher prices of electricity in the early years, and it will create jobs. There is no question as far as what is happening to our coastal States. There is no question as far as what is happening to our farms. There is no question as to what is happening to our natural resources. There is no question what is happening to our species. Scientists predict that 50 percent of God's species will be gone if we do nothing. When people stand here and laugh off this notion that we are facing severe climate change, I tell them: Look at some of the church groups who are supporting us. They have come together. They are with us. They understand that God's creation is at stake. There is no doubt about it. We are the stewards of this environment. We are the ones who are supposed to protect it. Yet in this Senate, it is shrugged off as if it is a nothing burger. There are young people who are here whose future is at stake. They want to enjoy the same opportunities my generation enjoyed. We owe it to them to do better. This nonpartisan GAO report tells us clearly that we better have a ``government-wide strategic approach with strong leadership.'' I have to say I hope we have more people on this floor who will show that kind of leadership because the clock is ticking. I say to every Member here--we have old ones, young ones, and middle ones: You are here at the moment that we can do something. You are here at the moment we can still do something. The Bush administration wasted 8 years by going to the courts and arguing that the Clean Air Act did not cover carbon pollution. They did nothing for 8 years. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 and said: Yes, of course, it covers carbon pollution. God bless the Obama administration for moving forward in every way they can--unfortunately, without us at this point. We will be judged harshly if we turn away. We are here now. We didn't choose this time to be born. We didn't choose the fact that this is an issue that is upon us. I don't know what is going to wake up this place, but I am going to do my best to ring the bell as often as I can. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I was unavoidably absent from the votes related to the nomination of John Brennan to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture and yea on the nomination.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area Act. Congressman Mike Thompson and I introduced this legislation in the 112th Congress, and I am glad to continue working on this effort with him in this new Congress. This important legislation designates close to 350,000 acres of public lands in Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano, and Yolo Counties as the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area, or NCA. The area is a haven for hiking, camping, rafting, and horseback riding, and is home to a diverse array of wildlife including black bears and bald eagles. My bill does not add any new lands to the Federal Government, the lands included in this NCA are already managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Forest Service and it does not apply to state or private lands. A National Conservation Area designation will require these three agencies to develop a multi- agency management plan in consultation with stakeholders and the public, improving coordination on wildlife preservation, habitat restoration, and recreational opportunities. Creation of the NCA will also help the agencies take a more coordinated approach to preventing and fighting wildfires, combating invasive species and water pollution, and stopping the spread of illegal marijuana growth. By unifying these individual places under one banner, my bill helps put the Berryessa Snow Mountain region on the map as a destination for new visitors. This region is one of the most biologically diverse, yet least known regions of California. By raising its profile, an NCA designation will boost tourism and increase business opportunities in the region's gateway communities. The Outdoor Industry Association has estimated that outdoor recreation supports 732,000 jobs and contributes $85.4 billion annually in consumer spending to California's economy, underscoring the immense potential of sites such as the proposed Berryessa Snow Mountain NCA to drive local economic growth. Additionally, the region will become recognized by more people as uniform signage and publications are created to reach more diverse audiences, allowing them to learn more about this beautiful area. Creation of this proposed National Conservation Area has strong support from a large coalition of local governments, elected officials, business owners, landowners, farmers, private individuals, and many conservation and recreation groups. This bill is the culmination of a grassroots effort of concerned citizens taking the initiative to care for the beautiful areas in their communities, and I am proud to support their work and commitment. The Berryessa Snow Mountain region deserves national status and recognition, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area Act. Congressman Mike Thompson and I introduced this legislation in the 112th Congress, and I am glad to continue working on this effort with him in this new Congress. This important legislation designates close to 350,000 acres of public lands in Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano, and Yolo Counties as the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area, or NCA. The area is a haven for hiking, camping, rafting, and horseback riding, and is home to a diverse array of wildlife including black bears and bald eagles. My bill does not add any new lands to the Federal Government, the lands included in this NCA are already managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Forest Service and it does not apply to state or private lands. A National Conservation Area designation will require these three agencies to develop a multi- agency management plan in consultation with stakeholders and the public, improving coordination on wildlife preservation, habitat restoration, and recreational opportunities. Creation of the NCA will also help the agencies take a more coordinated approach to preventing and fighting wildfires, combating invasive species and water pollution, and stopping the spread of illegal marijuana growth. By unifying these individual places under one banner, my bill helps put the Berryessa Snow Mountain region on the map as a destination for new visitors. This region is one of the most biologically diverse, yet least known regions of California. By raising its profile, an NCA designation will boost tourism and increase business opportunities in the region's gateway communities. The Outdoor Industry Association has estimated that outdoor recreation supports 732,000 jobs and contributes $85.4 billion annually in consumer spending to California's economy, underscoring the immense potential of sites such as the proposed Berryessa Snow Mountain NCA to drive local economic growth. Additionally, the region will become recognized by more people as uniform signage and publications are created to reach more diverse audiences, allowing them to learn more about this beautiful area. Creation of this proposed National Conservation Area has strong support from a large coalition of local governments, elected officials, business owners, landowners, farmers, private individuals, and many conservation and recreation groups. This bill is the culmination of a grassroots effort of concerned citizens taking the initiative to care for the beautiful areas in their communities, and I am proud to support their work and commitment. The Berryessa Snow Mountain region deserves national status and recognition, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to vigorously support the confirmation of Caitlin Halligan to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Halligan is an exceptionally qualified nominee, and the D.C. Circuit needs her. I urge all my Senate colleagues to join me in voting for her. The breadth and depth of Ms. Halligan's legal experience and expertise are very impressive. After law school, she clerked for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and for Judge Patricia Wald on the D.C. Circuit, the court to which she has been nominated. She continued her public service as the solicitor general of the State of New York for 6 years, spent some time in the private sector, and is currently general counsel at the New York County District attorney's office, an office that investigates and prosecutes 100,000 criminal cases annually in Manhattan. Throughout her career, Ms. Halligan has served as counsel of record in nearly 50 matters before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing five cases before that court and many cases before Federal and State appellate courts. Her legal and oral advocacy training is as extensive as any nominee that the Senate has confirmed. One of the reasons I wanted to speak about Ms. Halligan today is because her reputation precedes her. The American Bar Association's nonpartisan standing committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. Halligan ``well-qualified'' to serve on the D.C. Circuit, the highest possible rating. Messages of support for her nomination have poured in from hundreds of female law school deans and professors, former U.S. Supreme Court clerks and current judges, preeminent lawyers across the political spectrum from Ronald Reagan's solicitor general to the legendary D.A. Robert Morgenthau, and law enforcement associations. Put simply, this woman has proven herself to be worthy of our vote and the public's trust. But there is another reason we must confirm Ms. Halligan today: the unacceptable delay in her nomination is causing a growing gap in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Halligan was first nominated by President Obama three years ago. Now, this important court in our country--often called ``the second most important court in our land'' because of the high profile, complex cases it handles--is one-third vacant. The caseload for the existing judges is growing, and justice is being held up. Finally, if confirmed, Caitlin Halligan would become only the sixth female judge in the D.C. Circuit's 120-year history, a change I would certainly welcome for this important court. We need to continue building on the important legacy of diversity and inclusion that President Obama has established by nominating record numbers of women to the Federal bench. Thanks to his leadership, women today make up roughly 30 percent of the Federal judgeships at every level for the first time in history: in trial courts, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court. This diversity bolsters the legitimacy of our court system, and the public's confidence in it. We should continue this progress by confirming Ms. Halligan. For all these reasons, I look forward to voting for Caitlin Halligan's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Let's fulfill our constitutional obligation to keep our judicial system working efficiently and fairly for the American people. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Lavone ``Pepper'' Paire Davis, the baseball star and pioneer in women's professional sports who died in Los Angeles last month at age 88. Ms. Paire Davis was one of the models for Dottie Hinson, the immortal Geena Davis character in the hit film ``A League of Their Own,'' and she was a role model for millions of women and girls across the country. Lavone Paire was born in Los Angeles and grew up playing baseball with her older brother Joe on the streets of West L.A. By age 9, she was playing for an amateur team in Santa Monica and later she and her good friend Faye Dancer played together on a girls softball team known as the Dr. Peppers. In 1944, Lavone was working as a shipyard welder and taking classes at UCLA when she and Faye were recruited to join the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, AAGPBL, which recently had been launched by Chicago Cubs owner Philip K. Wrigley and other major league owners to help maintain fan interest while many major league players were away at war. Pepper Paire quickly distinguished herself as an outstanding defensive catcher who could also play shortstop and third base, pitch when needed, and drive in runs in clutch situations. She also cowrote ``Victory Song,'' the AAGPBL's anthem, which was later featured in ``A League of Their Own.'' She helped the Racine Belles win the league championship in 1946 and was named to the AAGPBL all-star team in 1948. In 1953, Pepper left baseball to marry Robert Davis, start a family, and establish an electronics business with her friend Faye Dancer. But ``A League of Their Own'' brought Ms. Paire Davis back in the public eye. A popular speaker, she used her renewed fame to promote women's professional sports and urge girls to fulfill their athletic dreams. In 2009 she published ``Dirt in the Skirt,'' a book about her adventures in the AAGPBL. Lavone Paire Davis was a true inspiration both on and off the baseball diamond. On behalf of the people of California, I send my gratitude and condolences to her brother Joe, sons William and Rob, daughter Susan Gardner, four grandchildren, and great-grandson.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. 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. And I ask unanimous consent that I speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, one of the virtues of traveling back home is to hear what the people are saying about us. And it isn't good. The people are on anxiety overload. The purpose of my remarks is not to increase anyone's anxiety but just to tell it the way it is. How did we get to a place where we are having mindless, across-the- board cuts in spending with absolutely no thought? It came about because the Republicans refused to increase the debt ceiling. We were about to default on our obligations, after raising the debt ceiling many times--18 times under Ronald Reagan. And Ronald Reagan warned us in those times never to play games with the debt ceiling. Well, the Republicans did. They played games with the debt ceiling, and they did it because, if you follow what the Republican leader said, his highest priority was defeating President Obama. I am sure they thought that kind of chaos would lead the way. It didn't happen, clearly. Our President was reelected, and he was reelected with the big vote. We got into this situation with the sequester because there were games being played with the debt ceiling, and as a way to get out of it, we did something we thought would never come to pass. We said: OK, give us this ability to raise the debt ceiling so we can pay our bills and not become a third-world nation and not lose our credit rating even more than we have already lost it, and then we will look at deficit reduction. If the supercommittee can't come up with a deal, we will have these across-the-board cuts. No one thought they would happen, and they are happening. And now what we hear is, oh, it is really no big deal. Our Republican friends are saying it is OK. Maybe people watching this in their homes may not be touched by the sequester, but let me tell you who will be touched by the sequester, and let me make the argument that when these people are touched by it, we are all touched by it. This is one Nation under God, and when we hurt our people, we get hurt. Seventy thousand children will not get Head Start. Is that supposed to be good for the country? Ten thousand teacher jobs will be lost. Is that supposed to be good for the country? How about 7,200 special ed teachers, teaching every day kids who have such a hard time just getting dressed in the morning? Is that good for America? I would argue that this list is terrible for our country. Maybe you don't have a kid in Head Start. I don't. Maybe you don't know a special ed teacher. The point is that we are one country, and we do best when we help our most vulnerable. How about this: 424,000 HIV tests conducted by the Centers for Disease Control will no longer happen. Is that good for the country, to have HIV-infected people walking around not knowing they have HIV? How about 25,000 fewer breast and cervical cancer screenings? Maybe it is not your wife or your sister or your mom, but somebody's sister or somebody's daughter is not going to find out she has breast cancer. Tell me how that is good for this country. I am not even talking about the cuts to defense, some of which I think we can do but many of which don't make sense. I am just looking at the cuts to the most vulnerable people. Four million fewer meals will be served to senior citizens. Does that make you proud, Republicans? I hope you are proud. Programs such as Meals on Wheels are going to be impacted, and 600,000 women and children won't get nutrition assistance. There will be 1,000 FBI agents and other law enforcement personnel laid off or furloughed, and 1,000 criminal cases won't be prosecuted. Is that good for America? Maybe your family wasn't the victim of a crime. Maybe it is not your relative who happens to be a law enforcement officer. But this is one Nation under God, with liberty and justice for all. How does it make sense for these cuts to go into effect when all we have to do to avert them is reform the Tax Code and take away those juicy little tax loopholes companies that ship their jobs overseas get? How about asking someone who earns $2 million a year to pay the same effective tax rate as their secretary? What kind of a country is this? You would rather have these kinds of brutal cuts to the least among us than just have a fair Tax Code? In the last 40 years only one party balanced the budget, and that party is the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress--the only party that ever balanced the budget. So spare me the lectures from my friends on the other side of the aisle about how they are the ones who know how to do it. No, they don't, because when you make these mindless cuts and people are furloughed and they have less money to spend, they don't go to the corner store and take their family for lunch or dinner. They don't spend as they would normally spend, and it is a trickle-down effect on this economy. As a matter of fact, Mark Zandi, the respected, nonpartisan economist, said it is going to take a half a point off economic growth at a time when we are not growing that robustly. Here is the point. When President Obama inherited the job--because we elected him to it--he faced the $1.2 trillion deficit of George W. Bush, who had turned the Bill Clinton surplus into raging deficits, and the deficits are down now to $850 billion. So don't say we are not making progress. A Democratic President is making progress on the deficit. But let's do the rest of this deficit cutting wisely, in a balanced way. We have cut $1.7 trillion in spending and, yes, $700 billion in revenue. We have raised taxes on those earning a lot of money. But there are a lot more cuts we have made than revenue increases we have made. So I come to the floor to say this is a self-inflicted wound. And if I hear anyone say: It doesn't really affect me, let me tell you that is not true because when our kids are hurt, we are hurt. When our health care system is hurt and people are walking around with diseases, we are all hurt. When our senior citizens don't get the meals, we are all hurt. Otherwise, what is the point in having a country if it is everyone for themselves? That isn't the greatness of America. So I was proud to vote to avert the sequester. We had a majority vote before we left here for the weekend, but my Republican friends filibustered that. We had over 50 votes to get rid of the sequester, and the Republicans filibustered. Enough already. I hope they will come to their senses so we can do this deficit reduction in a serious way that makes sense.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Now I wish to talk about climate change. It is one of the most serious threats facing our Nation. All you really have to do is look out the window to see it is already happening. I would like to talk about a great thing that happened recently. When USA TODAY, the Nation's largest newspaper in print form--more people read that paper than any other. They announced in a front-page story last Friday, on March 1, that they are going to spend a year looking at the issue of climate change. This is the front page. They show that the temperatures are going up. They talk about more asthma. But let's look at what they say because I am appalled that with all of this going on around us, we seem to have no way forward on this issue. I am going to be here every Monday after votes to talk about this, and I urge every Member of the Senate, Democratic or Republican, who cares about this issue to join me. We have to wake up the American people to the fact that this Senate is doing nothing. Even though I believe there is a majority for doing something, we don't have the 60 votes. So let's talk about it. This is what USA TODAY says: "Why you should sweat climate change.'' More American children are getting asthma and allergies, and more seniors are suffering heat strokes. [Already] food and utility prices are rising. Flooding is overrunning bridges, swamping subways and closing airport runways. We know this is true. People are losing jobs in drought-related factory closings. Cataclysmic storms are wiping out sprawling neighborhoods. Towns are sinking. And Congress does nothing.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the great work that afterschool and summer learning programs in California and across the country are doing to engage children and youth in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, education. Afterschool and summer programs are a vital part of our country's education tapestry. They provide engaging, hands-on learning experiences that stimulate student interest, develop crucial skills, and drive home the relevance of STEM to our daily lives. Out-of-school learning opportunities help children develop the academic and life skills, such as problem-solving and determination, which are crucial in STEM fields. Additionally, these programs provide key opportunities for mentors and role models to engage with children. High-quality afterschool STEM learning programs are having a significant impact on the young people who participate in them. A recent study shows participants in afterschool and summer programs have improved attitudes toward STEM fields and careers, increased STEM capacities and skills, and a higher likelihood of graduating from high school and pursuing a STEM major in college. One of these exemplary programs is the Woodcraft Rangers Program in Los Angeles, CA. Woodcraft Rangers exposes middle school students to cutting-edge STEM activities, including robotics. This highly engaging program allows students to configure high-tech robotics, enhancing their STEM skills, unlocking their imaginations, and exposing them to real-world problem-solving situations. Afterschool and summer programs are uniquely positioned to deliver valuable enrichment activities like robotics that help children gain valuable creativity, critical thinking, and team-building skills. In addition to programs that serve children and youth directly, organizations such as the Afterschool Alliance are working to advance policies, research, and partnerships so that all children can access rich STEM education experiences through out-of-school programs. Private companies are also embarking on efforts, such as Time Warner Cable's Connect a Million Minds, CAMM, initiative, to promote youth interest and performance in STEM fields during out-of-school time. Businesses like Time Warner Cable know that investing in STEM education now helps ensure a robust workforce in the future, and they know that afterschool, summer, and other out-of-school programs are key venues for students to develop the problem-solving, team-building, and creative thinking skills necessary for a strong STEM workforce. I applaud the afterschool and summer learning programs, advocacy organizations, and community partnerships across the country that are working to advance our students' STEM achievement and our country's future through enriching out-of-school learning. To support the work of these organizations, I hope that the Senate can come together to reauthorize the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program--the only Federal program dedicated to supporting afterschool and summer learning.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI(2) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, Senator Isakson and I ask unanimous consent that the Rules of Procedure of the Select Committee on Ethics, which were adopted February 23, 1978, and last revised November 1999, be printed in the Record for the 113th Congress. The committee procedural rules for the 113th Congress are identical to the procedural rules adopted by the committee for the 112th Congress.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before Senator Mikulski, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, leaves the floor, I want to thank her for her very hard work along with several colleagues putting together a plan that is a commonsense plan to avoid this sequester, these automatic, senseless spending cuts. It was not easy to do, but I think they figured out a way to pay for it, as she described, called the Buffett rule, which basically says to a multimillionaire: We think it is only fair that you pay the same effective tax rate as your secretary. If you were to ask anyone on the street, any party--Republican, Democratic--if they think that is the right way to go, I am convinced 90 percent of the people would say: Of course. I thank her. I know Senator Inouye is looking down and smiling because his successor, Senator Mikulski, is doing such a great job already. I rise as a Senator from California. Senator Feinstein and I represent 38 million people. Anything that happens around here comes down very hard on our State--or if it is a good thing, it is very good for our State. What we are facing is not a good thing, the sequester. It is a self-inflicted wound that will harm our economy. I have to say, when I listened to Speaker Boehner over there--he is refusing to do anything about it. He says, and I will not quote him because it would be language not acceptable, but he basically said in the press, and it is written there--I urge everyone to see it--that the Senators ought to get off their ``blank'' and get to work and get something done. I am proud to say we have an alternative to the sequester. Senator Mikulski laid it out. I believe we have a majority vote in this Senate for that plan. I hope our colleagues will not filibuster. Let's have that up-or-down vote because when you are looking at job losses into the hundreds of thousands--and that is certainly true in my State and the country as a whole--no one should filibuster a plan that would stave off that pain. How did we get to this place? In 2011 the Republicans decided to hold our country hostage over raising the debt ceiling. We know if we do not pay our bills--which is what the debt ceiling is about--this country is going to face default, and our credit rating is going to be lowered. Even though we finally resolved this thing at the eleventh hour, we still caused the downgrade the time before. This time we averted another downgrade, but it is very important that we remember why we got to this place of facing this sequester. The Republicans played games with the debt ceiling again. Even though under Ronald Reagan, their hero--and, by the way, I think even Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting into the Republican Party these days because Ronald Reagan said you should never play games with the debt; even talking about the debt is a problem. We raised the debt when Ronald Reagan was President; 18 times we raised the debt ceiling. But all of a sudden, when there is a Democratic President, they are playing games. That is wrong. Obviously, we didn't want to see another downgrade. We had already seen a delay the last time, which cost us $1.3 billion, in borrowing costs alone. In order to avert this, on August 2, 2011, we enacted the Budget Control Act. When it became law, we were within hours of defaulting on our debts. The Budget Control Act allowed us to raise the debt ceiling, but on the condition that a ``supercommittee'' find $1.2 trillion in cuts or force a trigger of across-the-board cuts known as sequestration. Straight from my heart, I say this: No one thought the sequester would go forward. Everyone thought the pain to the economy would be so great that everybody would sit down and resolve it. But here is what is going on right now. Democrats say the way to resolve it and avert the sequester is to have dollar-for-dollar spending cuts and increases in revenues. Republicans say 100-percent spending cuts and they would prefer to do no defense cuts and have it all come out of education, transportation, medical research, law enforcement, the environment. That is what their plan was last year. So let's face it. No one thought we would get to this point, but we are at this point. What is the choice? I think it is pretty clear what the choice is. It is the Democratic plan, which is a growing economy, versus the Republican plan, which is a sequester, which is a slowing economy. When I say that, I mean it. Mark Zandi, who is one of the leading economists in the country, said if sequestration goes forward, it would cut a half of a point off our economic growth. What does that mean? It means jobs lost. I have to say, when I look at my State, this is not a pretty picture. The Los Angeles Times, in an article by Ricardo Lopez and Richard Simon today, says: ``California braces for impending cuts from Federal sequestration.'' I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record. [From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 25, 2013] California Braces for Impending Cuts From Federal Sequestration (By Ricardo Lopez and Richard Simon) California's defense industry is bracing for a $3.2-billion hit with the federal budget cuts that are expected to take effect Friday. But myriad other federally funded programs also are threatened, and the combined effect is expected to slow the momentum that California's economy has been building over the last year. As the state braces for pain from so-called sequestration, there are warnings of long delays at airport security checkpoints, potential slowdowns in cargo movement at harbors and cutbacks to programs, including meals for seniors and projects to combat neighborhood blight. Despite the grim scenarios from local and state officials, economists say the cuts' overall blow to the economy would be modest, felt more acutely in regions such as defense-heavy San Diego and by Californians dependent on federal programs, such as college students who rely on work-study jobs to pay for school. Critics say the cuts come at an inopportune time because the economic recovery in the U.S. and California is still weak. ``We need stimulus, not premature austerity,'' Gov. Jerry Brown said during a break at the National Governors Assn. meeting in Washington. Rep. John Campbell (R-Irvine) contends that critics of the cuts are exaggerating the effects. ``If we can't do this, what can we do'' to reduce Washington's red ink, he asked. ``We ought to be panicked about the day when people won't buy our debt anymore because we borrowed too much.'' If automatic spending cuts occur as planned, the growth in the country's gross domestic product is likely to slow by 0.4 percentage points this year, from about 2% to 1.6%, economists said. California's GDP would see a similar slowdown. The state stands to lose as much as $10 billion in federal funding this year, according to Stephen Levy, director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto. Levy said the more than $1 trillion in cuts planned over the next decade include ``items in the federal budget that invest for the future,'' such as support for research and clean energy, that particularly affect California because of its ``innovation economy.'' The ripple effects the cuts might have on business and consumer confidence--which would further dampen economic activity--remain to be seen, said Jason Sisney, a deputy at the state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office. ``We're at a point where gains in housing and construction markets have begun to take hold,'' Sisney said. ``A slowdown from sequestration would come at just the moment that the economy was beginning to right itself.'' Jerry Nickelsburg, a UCLA economist who writes a quarterly economic forecast on the Golden State, said the state's recent economic gains would provide a buffer against sequestration. ``California can absorb it,'' Nickelsburg said. ``Will it slow economic growth? The answer is yes. Will it result in negative economic growth? I think the answer is no.'' Los Angeles officials project that the city would lose more than $100 million at a time when they're struggling to close a hole in the city's budget. Douglas Guthrie, chief executive of the Los Angeles city housing authority, said Monday that rent subsidies to as many as 15,000 low-income families would be cut an average $200 a month, forcing many families to search for less expensive housing. His agency also might face as many as 80 layoffs in an already reduced workforce. But Guthrie said in a letter to the Los Angeles City Council that the housing authority must plan for the ``painful consequences'' of the federal budget cuts and is preparing to send warning notices to participants in the housing assistance program ``as soon as we see that the cuts are made and there are no immediate prospects to resolve the budget crisis.'' At Yosemite National Park, snow plowing of a key route over the Sierra would be delayed, ranger-led programs are likely to be reduced and the park would face ``less frequent trash pickup, loss of campground staff, and reduced focus on food storage violations, all of which contribute to visitor safety concerns and increased bear mortality rates,'' according to the National Park Service. Some programs, such as Social Security, would be spared from the $85 billion in cuts nationwide due to kick in Friday. But defense programs are expected to be cut by about 13% for the remainder of the fiscal year and domestic spending by about 9%, according to the White House budget office. The Obama administration sought Monday to highlight the effects close to home in an effort to step up the pressure on Congress to replace across-the-board cuts with more targeted reductions and new tax revenue collected from taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year. The Los Angeles Unified School District is bracing for a loss of $37 million a year in federal funding. Supt. John Deasy said Monday that he is sending a letter to the California congressional delegation warning about the ``potential very grave impact'' of the cuts on Los Angeles schools. Rachelle Pastor Arizmendi, director of early childhood education at the Pacific Asian Consortium for Employment in Los Angeles, said she anticipated that the cuts would cost her agency $980,000 in federal Head Start funding. That would force PACE to eliminate preschool for about 120 children ages 3 to 5. ``It's not just a number,'' she said. ``This is closing down classrooms. This is putting our children behind when they're going to kindergarten.'' The nonprofit serves about 2,000 children, providing most of them two meals a day in addition to preschool education. The cuts would mean PACE would have to lay off four of its 20 teachers, forcing the closure of eight Head Start classrooms, Arizmendi said.

Mrs. BOXER. Our Governor makes the point--he has a way of getting to the point: ``We need stimulus, not premature austerity,'' said Gov. Jerry Brown. The Republicans have become the austerity party and the Democrats have become the jobs party. I think people want jobs. There are still too many long-term unemployed. We have a stubbornly high unemployment rate. There is no question about it. Jerry Nickelsburg, a UCLA economist who writes a quarterly economic forecast on the Golden State--my State--said: The State's recent economic gains would provide a buffer against sequestration, but would it slow economic growth? Yes. Why would we do something like this, a self-inflicted wound, when there is an easy way to get out of it, which is to put into place a rule that says on a person's second million dollars, once they get to that point, they are going to pay an effective tax rate equal to their secretary? Give me a break. This is the greatest country on Earth, and the people I know who live in California, for the most part, in the wealthy brackets are very happy to pay their fair share. They want to pay their fair share. They want to give back. They love this country. It gave them everything. A lot of them started with nothing. So we have the two plans. The Democratic plan was outlined by Senator Mikulski and we are going to vote on it on Thursday. I pray to God it is not filibustered and a majority will rule and we will get it done. It will create a growing economy because it is a balanced plan with half cuts, half revenues. Then there is a Republican plan which we don't know yet, but the one they passed in the House doubled down on the cuts to education, the environment, transportation, and left defense alone. That is not fair, and that is a sure way we are going to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. I wish to share a picture with my colleagues. I don't know if people can see this, but it is on the front page of the Washington Post and it is a picture of a shipyard worker. The look on his face I can only describe as frightened. As a matter of fact, when I saw the photo, without seeing what the story was about, I thought, This man is expecting some terrible gloom and doom to occur. And, yes, it is his fear that he will be laid off. He said his wife is pregnant and he doesn't have a second source of income in the family and he is desperate. We just went through that. Why would we ever do it again? And people say to me, What is going to happen? How will I feel it back home? Will I have a longer wait at the airport? Yes, you might. Will I go to the National Park Service and it may be closed down? Yes. Will job training centers, some of them, shut down? Yes. There is a list of what will happen. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the consequences of the sequester cuts nationwide.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, following my remarks I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, be recognized.

Mrs. BOXER. We are looking at 70,000 children not being able to go to Head Start. We are looking at 10,000 teacher jobs. We are looking at 7,200 special ed teachers--we know those special ed teachers; they are angels from heaven who work with kids who can't even sometimes manage to get dressed in the morning by themselves. Then: 2,700 schools won't receive title I funds, cutting support for 1.2 million children who need help learning to read. Tell me, does this make sense, when all we have to do is ask someone earning a second million dollars to pay the same effective rate as a secretary? I don't get it. How about 424,000 HIV tests conducted by the CDC won't happen, so someone is going to sneak through and give HIV to someone else? Really, that is not a smart thing. Twenty-five thousand breast and cervical cancer screenings will not take place, and some poor woman who might have had a chance to catch breast cancer at an early stage is thrown overboard. Eight hundred thousand outpatient visits to Indian hospitals and clinics. Food inspections. Just the time to cut back on food inspections. How about 4 million meals will be cut that would have been served to seniors through programs such as Meals-on-Wheels. Four million seniors won't get that. And what if they don't have a loving child to take care of them or what if they don't have a neighbor to take care of them? Six hundred thousand women and children won't receive nutrition assistance, and we have a lot of hungry people in this great country of ours; scientific grants to find cures for the diseases that plague our families, whether they are rich or poor or anywhere in the middle, to find the cures for Alzheimer's, to find the cures for diabetes. Small businesses that do so well when they get that little seed money--$902 million cut from there. Then: 1,000 FBI agents and other law enforcement personnel, and that is because we are just so safe in our communities. I have gone around my State and not one person ever came up to me and said, I want less enforcement in my neighborhood. It is just too much. It is too safe. Not one person ever told me, oh, don't bother checking my air or my water quality; I am just fine. So if we take these cuts and we apply them to our States, we will find out what happens and it is not a pretty picture. Los Angeles alone could lose as much as $115 million in Federal grants, just in the first 6 months of 2013. Community development, public safety, I have been through it. We don't have to inflict this pain on the American people. Everything I said relates to jobs. All of those cuts, what do they mean? Real people who do real things in the community such as law enforcement, teaching our kids, et cetera, will lose their jobs, not to mention people in the Defense Department who are making sure we are always safe and ready. That is why we see the look on his face, because he is potentially one of those people. In closing, I want to thank those who have put together a package for us, and I have a plea to my Republican friends: Do not filibuster this. Too many lives are at stake. Too many jobs are at stake. Put your plan forward, get a vote on it if you have a plan or if your plan is to let sequester go through, let's see that vote again, and let us have our vote on our plan to avoid this pain and suffering people are going to feel. I actually have one more point to make and then I will turn to my friend from Arkansas. We hear a lot of posturing from my Republican friends about how the Democrats are such big spenders and all they want to do is spend and tax and tax and spend. What party led the way to the first balanced budget in almost 30 years? I will give my colleagues a clue: It was not the Republican Party. It was the Democratic Party. When Bill Clinton was President, we not only balanced the budget but we left George W. Bush a surplus of $281 billion. By the way, I happened to be here when we voted on the budget plan and we did not have one vote to spare. We did it ourselves. What did George W. Bush do with this huge surplus? He squandered it. He put two wars on the credit card, never paid for them; gave tax breaks to people who didn't need them, and handed President Obama a $1.2 trillion deficit, which is now projected to be $850 billion for 2013. It is going in the right direction under a Democratic President. We want to get that down and we can get that down, and we can work together to get that down, but we do not have to do this sequester. History has shown us the balanced approach we used when Bill Clinton was President of smart investments in things that help our people such as job training and education and lifting up our children, and making sure they don't go hungry--those kinds of investments pay off in a society. We have 23 million jobs. Under George W. Bush, we lost jobs: George W. Bush, we lost jobs. And this President, our President who just got reelected, is following the model of Bill Clinton: a balanced approach to deficit reduction, investments in things we need, cutting things we don't need, and working together. I say if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. We are coming out of the greatest recession since the Great Depression, and we cannot afford to have this sequester. We need to avert it, come together with a balanced plan of cuts and revenues, not just the cuts- only approach, the austerity approach of the Republicans. I hope they don't filibuster our approach and let us have an up-or- down vote and pass this with a majority. I thank my colleagues very much, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we yield back the remaining time on the nomination.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Whatever my friend wishes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am glad we are voting today on the President's choice for Secretary of Defense, our former colleague, Chuck Hagel. I stand here as a Senator who has had a number of questions as well about some of the things he said in the past, some of the votes he has cast, and some of his philosophy. And what I did, as soon as I learned he was the President's pick, was to ask those questions. Remember the President is the Commander in Chief. This is a critical appointment. It has to be someone he has faith in, puts his trust in, and he picked someone. He picked a brave hero who served in Vietnam. So I wrote all my questions down, and believe me, they covered some tough ground on women's rights, gay rights, Iran, and Israel. There were a number of questions. I asked if it would be all right if when the answers came we could put them online so people could see the answers. The answer that came back was absolutely yes. The answers to my questions were very clear and very strong. Senator Hagel has evolved on certain issues. He admitted to a mistake on a couple. That is the hardest thing for any politician to admit. There are four words politicians hate to say, ``I made a mistake.'' He admitted to that on a couple of issues. I just think the way he is being treated is so sad. It is so sad. When I watch some of the questioning from my colleagues--not all of them, a couple of them, and I am not referring to my dear friend, Senator Inhofe--it was reminiscent of a different time and place when someone would say: I have here in my pocket a speech that you made on such-and-such a date--and, of course, nothing was in the pocket. It was reminiscent of some bad times. I am so glad we are voting today. I know it is going to be a close vote. I don't know what the outcome will be. I do believe eventually this good man will be the Secretary of Defense. I believe that in my heart. If anyone is still undecided on this vote, let's understand that never in history have we had a 60-vote requirement--to my knowledge-- for a nominee for Secretary of Defense. If I am wrong, I hope to be corrected. There is a reason for it. Lord knows I was one of the key voices of dissent on the Iraq war, and I was not happy about a lot of the people who were put into place by George W. Bush. Believe me, I didn't want to see them continue in those positions. I think they led us astray in Iraq, and it led to so many thousands of deaths. However, I never dreamed of requiring a 60- vote majority. In my view, this is not a good day for the Senate. I know my friend, Senator Inhofe, is very sincere. I am on the Foreign Relations Committee; I am a senior member of that committee. We have listened to the State Department on Benghazi. We have had briefings and hearings and answers came in. We had secret briefings that were highly classified. We had open hearings--I would ask for 30 seconds.