Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I stand here as one of the two Senators from the largest State in the Union to recognize that there is a hole in the heart of America today as we cope with the tragedy of violence on all sides. I am working on comprehensive remarks because I am doing it more, in a way, for myself, and those are not prepared right now, but right now I want to send my deepest condolences to those who are suffering, who have lost loved ones, be those loved ones police officers or community members, and for that matter, so many Americans, so many American families who suffer losses because of violence every day. It is critical that we address this issue. I compliment the voices on all sides--the voices of compassion, reason, and love--and I hope I can add my voice to their voices. Climate Change Mr. President, what several of us are doing on another topic is calling attention to the web of denial that is being peddled in our Nation by special interests and their think tanks and organizations that are working to undermine peer-reviewed climate science. Their goal is to create uncertainty and to delay action on the biggest environmental and public health threat we face today. Climate change is real, human activities are the primary cause, and the warming planet poses a significant threat to our people and to our environment. That is not my opinion. I am the first one to say I am not a scientist. I rely on scientists, and 97 percent of them have said that climate change is real and human activity is the primary cause. The level of scientific certainty on manmade climate change is about the same as the consensus among top scientists that cigarettes are deadly, but some of you may remember that up until the late 1990s, the tobacco industry scoffed at the best available science proving that tobacco is addictive and causes cancer. No one in today's world would argue with the fact that tobacco is addictive and causes cancer. In the 1990s, there was a campaign of denial, just as there is for climate change now. Year after year, the tobacco industry attacked the science that showed the link between cigarettes and the threat to human health, as well as the Surgeon General's warning that nicotine was as addictive as heroin and cocaine. Let me share a few of the statements made by or on behalf of the tobacco industry. In 1970, the Tobacco Institute advertised that the scientific finding that proved a connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer was wrong. They said: ``The Tobacco Institute does not--and the public should not--accept these claims at face value.'' In 1971, Joseph Cullman, the chairman of Philip Morris, said: ``We do not believe cigarettes are hazardous; we don't accept that.'' In 1988, a lobbyist from the Tobacco Institute submitted written testimony for a congressional hearing stating: ``In sum, there is no medical or scientific basis for viewing cigarette smoking as an `addiction.' The effort to disparage cigarette smoking as an `addiction' can only detract from our society's attempt to meet its serious drug problem.'' That was what the cigarette companies said. At congressional hearings in 1994, executives from the seven biggest tobacco companies testified that they believed nicotine was not addictive. Do you remember the picture of them swearing to that fact? A tobacco industry doctor said: ``The proposed addiction warning and the assumption upon which it is founded are based neither in science nor fact and will have unintended harmful results.'' This is the tobacco company doctor saying that if you warn people, it will have unintended harmful results. Sure--for his bosses, the tobacco companies, who are paying his salary. In 1998, Walker Merryman, vice president and chief spokesman for the Tobacco Institute, said: ``We don't believe it has ever been established that smoking is the cause of disease.'' The reason I spent so much time going through that painful history is that a lot of people died of cancer because the tobacco companies and their think tanks would not tell the truth to the American people. That is why a lot of people died. At the end of the day, the tobacco companies failed, but there are so many bodies out there because of their heavily funded propaganda campaign. When the people knew the truth, America's smoking dropped from 42 percent in 1964 to 15 percent in 2015. To anybody out there who is still addicted, I pray God that they will get help. There are very few things where we know the cause and effect. We know the cause and effect of smoking--it is not good. Investigative reporting has clearly shown that those who led the fight against health warnings on tobacco have been involved in the climate denial movement from the beginning. Just as Big Tobacco denied that smoking was dangerous to people's health, Big Oil and other special interests have tried to undermine scientists' warnings about harmful climate pollution by claiming that climate change does not exist. So we had Big Tobacco spreading the big lie that smoking was nonaddictive--they even said at one point that it was good for you--and Big Oil telling us that there is no climate change, that it is a hoax. But if we look at the 97 percent of scientists, what have they told us we are going to see? Higher temperatures, more extreme weather, severe droughts, increased wildfires, decreasing polar ice, and rising sea levels. That is what 97 percent of the scientists said would happen. Guess what. It is happening. Don't take my word for it. Let me give specifics. Mr. President, 2015 was the hottest year on record. Every month of this year continues to set records. Sea levels are rising many times faster than they have in the last 2,800 years. The 2015 wildfire season was the costliest on record, with $1.71 billion spent. California, my fantastic home State, is suffering from its worst drought in modern history, and scientists are predicting megadroughts. Rising temperatures are expected to worsen air quality and threaten public health. The American public sees what is happening, and they understand the need to act. Seventy-one percent of Americans supported the historic Paris agreement to address climate change by reducing harmful carbon pollution. A March 2016 Gallup Poll shows that 64 percent of Americans--the highest percentage since 2008--are worried about climate change. Gallup also found that between 2009 and 2015, a decline in public concern about climate change was linked to a well-publicized campaign of misinformation about climate science. The fossil fuel industry took a page right out of the tobacco company's playbook, supporting a network of organizations that create a false sense of uncertainty. So let me tell you that I have joined my colleagues on a resolution condemning the effort by the fossil fuel industry to discredit climate science, just as the tobacco industry worked to discredit science that proved tobacco causes cancer. I want to work with my colleagues to call attention to this web of denial. There are organizations out there--they have beautiful names. They are funded by ExxonMobil, they are funded by the Koch brothers, and organizations like DonorsTrust, which hides the identities of funders and was called the Dark Money ATM in the press. Dark money is a good description because the deep pockets of Big Oil and other special interests have been misleading the American people for many years. As I close my presentation, I want to talk to you briefly about three organizations based in my home State: the Reason Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, and the Hoover Institution. These three organizations have been involved in efforts to undermine climate science. The Reason Foundation has been churning out materials to raise uncertainty. The Hoover Institution, which is affiliated with Stanford University--which has so many wonderful things to commend it, but in my opinion not this--has been identified by the researchers as part of the climate countermovement. I have great respect for the work former Secretary of State George Shultz and others are doing at Hoover. However, I have to point out many articles published under Hoover's name have created uncertainty about climate science, trying to undermine the need for action. The third organization is Pacific Research Institute, which is a free market think tank that published a number of anti-climate science materials, including the ``Almanac of Environmental Trends.'' Just last month, 31 major scientific organizations basically said there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on society, including natural resources, the global economy, and human health. For the United States, climate change impacts include greater threats of extreme weather, sea level rise, increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, disturbance of biological systems. We expect to see this increase. This is what the real scientists are saying, the ones who care about our people, our environment. They don't get their paychecks from Big Oil and those who stand to lose if we turn to clean energy. So the scientists who work for that money from the Koch brothers, this is what they say: The world is warming far less quickly than we thought. A little warming will also extend growing seasons. Now consider the dire prediction regarding global warming and think of climate like golf. It is easy to see where the ball has landed but difficult to construct a model to predict with much confidence where the next ball will land. We have many other comments by these sham groups that are funded by Big Oil, by the special interests, just like the tobacco industry had think tanks that supported them. You know, fool me once, OK. Fool me again, I am going to find out. We know about these organizations. ExxonMobil gave a total of $381,000 to Reason; $295,000 to Hoover; $615,000 to the Pacific Research Institute--ExxonMobil. Foundations associated with the Koch brothers provided more than $1 million to the Reason Foundation and to the Pacific Research Institute. So we know what is going on here, but there is good news. The American people are not asleep at the wheel. They understand what happened with Big Tobacco. They understand the phony science that was put forward by Big Tobacco. Thanks to the leadership of my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse, who has done an extraordinary job--he knows the truth. He knows the truth that these organizations are puppets of the big fossil fuel industry. You know what. They are going to be found out. The people already do not, in any way, support them. That is why I am optimistic and came to the floor today. The truth will have its day. The people understand. They look out the window and they know. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am here to talk about the sanctuary cities legislation and the GMO labeling issue, which Senator Tester was so eloquent about. If ever there should be a leader on this Senate floor telling us the truth about the GMO labeling bill, it is he because he deals with this. As he explained, he has worked the family farm for a long time--and his family, for generations. Unfortunately, at this point, it is big agribusiness that is influencing this. I am more hopeful than he is that we can stop the bill. But let me talk about the fact that we have an immigration crisis in this Nation. Part of it is because we turned away from a very important bill, a bipartisan bill, in 2013 that was comprehensive immigration reform--bipartisan, passed by a huge number of Senators, and it died in the Republican House. That is No. 1. No. 2, we have the Supreme Court that is deadlocked on the immigration issue, and Senators on the other side of the aisle will not even bring up President Obama's Supreme Court nominee for a hearing. They will not do their job. So the House Republicans killed immigration reform that was comprehensive back in 2013, and the Senate Republicans are deadlocking the Supreme Court for partisan purposes. It is a nightmare that can be rectified only in this election that is coming up. Today we are going to be facing a vote on sanctuary cities legislation instead of taking another vote on the comprehensive immigration bill, which would have added 20,000 more Border Patrol agents, increased surveillance, and hired additional prosecutors and judges to boost prosecutions of illegal border crossings. The measure would have made clear that serious or violent felons will never, ever get a pathway to citizenship or even legal status. That bill would have brought families out of the shadows, taking away the fear of deportation, or being separated from loved ones, or parents being sent back, leaving kids who were born here alone. Sanctuary cities are important because it leads to cooperation with the local police, and it leads to reporting crimes in the communities. The fact is, the sanctuary cities bill before us will increase crime and make our communities less safe. It would undermine the trust that has been developed between police and immigrant communities, setting back efforts to protect victims and put criminals behind bars. Let us be clear. The sanctuary cities bill of Senator Toomey--for some crazy reason--cuts Community Development Block Grant funding, which can be used by the police to buy equipment, rehab a police station, fund special anti-crime initiatives. Why would anyone ever get rid of funding for our law enforcement when they are under siege? The bill also cuts Economic Development Administration grants, which foster job creation and attract private investment. I know this sanctuary cities bill is another piece of political garbage. I want to be clear because, at the end of the day, it will increase crime in our communities. I was a county supervisor. I served proudly, and I know how important local grants are to the local economy. So to punish communities by taking these funds away because they don't decide that Uncle Sam has a right to tell them what to do is the dumbest idea ever. Let's make communities safer by passing real immigration reform--comprehensive reform--and defeat these misguided bills that are coming before us. GMO Labeling Bill Speaking of misguided bills, I want to talk about another one, and that is the Roberts bill on labeling genetically modified organisms-- or, should I say, not labeling genetically modified organisms, because the definition of GMO is so narrow that most of the products that really are engineered will not have to have the label. If ever there were a bill that proves that leaders are out of touch, that leaders are elitist, it is this bill. People want information-- information that is given in 64 nations, simple information. You go to the grocery store, and you see on a label whether the product you are buying is genetically modified. That is pretty straightforward. Don't create some definition that essentially exempts most of the products. What a scam on the American people, and what a scam to say: By the way, for some of the products that will still be labeled, you may have to use your smartphone or a Web site to find out what is in the product. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that if two-thirds of the world's population--64 countries--have this information, I want my constituents to have the information. Why should a Russian have this information and an American not? Why should a Chinese person have this information and an American not? Why should someone in New Zealand have this information and an American not? Why should a Japanese person have this information and an American not? Why should 64 nations give their people this simple information, and we can't do it here? Why are we punishing our people, giving them less information? Do we feel we are so smart and smug that we can keep this information from our people? I don't understand it. This bill should be rejected. Is this an issue people care about? Yes. Ninety percent of Americans want to know if the food they buy has been genetically engineered. What this bill gives them is confusing at best and no information at worst. Let me be specific because I don't want someone to say: Oh, Senator Boxer is upset, but she hasn't given us the details. Bear with me. Here are the details. First, the bill's definition of genetically engineered, or GE food, as it is known--genetically engineered--is extremely narrow. The Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, says that many common foods made with genetically engineered corn syrup, sugar, and soybean oil would not be labeled under this bill. For example, products that many of us have right now in our kitchen--such as yogurt, salad dressings, cereal, ketchup, ice cream, pink lemonade, and even cough syrups--would not be required to have a label even though they are derived from genetically modified organisms. It is important to know if your food is made with GMOs. I will tell you why. Many of us don't know yet if GMOs are fine. Let's say we think they are fine. We still need to know if they are in our food, No. 1, because it is our right to know but, secondly, because GMO crops are heavily sprayed with pesticides. Let me repeat that. You may think GMOs are fine, and they may be fine. The jury is out. But we know GMO crops are heavily sprayed with pesticide. So if I have a little baby and I don't want to expose my baby to pesticides--if it is a GMO product, you know it has been sprayed heavily. According to USGS, the U.S. Geological Survey, growers sprayed 280 million pounds of Roundup in 2012--a pound of herbicide for every single person in our country, a pound of pesticide sprayed for every single person in our country. GMO foods are heavily sprayed. I want to know when I go to the store--because sometimes I do shop for my grandkids--if it is a GMO product because, guess what, then I know it has been sprayed with pesticides. Now I want to take us to the label. Let's set aside the narrow definition. Let's look at what somebody has to go through under the Roberts bill to find out if there are GMOs. Here is a picture. This is a dad in his supermarket with his kids. One is in the basket with the products, and one is a toddler walking alongside--a pretty common sight. What would it be like for this dad with his two kids to get the information he wants under this bill? He is searching the shelves for items on his grocery list. We know what that is like. You have the two kids here, one in the basket, one over here. You have your list in front of you. He picks up a product, and he looks for a label to learn whether the food has been genetically engineered. Under this bill, the chances are overwhelming that there will not be a simple label on it, but there may be a phone number, a Web site, or a QR code. It is not clearly defined in this bill. But what it means is that this dad would have to stop shopping for every item on his list. He would have to pull out his phone to make a call or type in a long Web site or scan a QR code just to find out if the product he wants to buy is genetically engineered. Let's say he has 50 products in his basket--50. Does he have to make 50 phone calls? Can you imagine looking up 50 Web sites, scanning 50 different QR codes with a confusing cell phone app? You can't imagine it because it isn't going to happen because by that time these kids have melted down and so has dad, and he says: I can't. I give up. I give up. He is not going to make 50 phone calls. And even if he owns a smartphone--which, by the way, many Americans still do not--he may not really know exactly how to work it. According to Pew Research, only 30 percent of Americans over 65 own a smart phone and just half of the people living in a rural area own one. Just because someone owns a smart phone, that doesn't mean they know how to use it. Why are we putting Americans through hoops like this just to find out what they are feeding their families? Why? I will tell you why: Big Agriculture, special interests, campaign donations. We will be able to prove it. Seventy groups are against this horrible legislation: Center for Food Safety, Empire State Consumer Project, Family Farm Defenders, Farm Aid, Food Alliance, Label GMOs, Maine Organic Farmers, Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service, Northeast Organic Farming, Our Family Farms, Rural Advancement Foundation International, Sierra Club, Slow Food USA, Sunnyside CSA, and Public Interest Research Group. It goes on and on. Believe me, my colleagues, you are going to hear from these people over the next several days until we vote on this. Why are my friends in this body so afraid of letting consumers know what is in their food? Because they are doing the bidding of the big agricultural companies, and that is what I believe. It is my opinion. Why on Earth would we stop people in this country from getting the same information the people of Russia get, the people of Japan get, the people in the EU get, the people in Australia get, and the people in New Zealand get? Why would you do that? Don't you believe in the consumer's right to know? This bill should be entitled ``the consumer's right not to know''--not to know. That is what this bill is. We know the people of this Nation are smart. They will use this information if we only give it to them in the best way they can. Some will decide they don't want GMOs. Some will decide they do. If the price is better and they don't have a problem, it is fine. Let the people decide. It is like the dolphin-safe label I created in the 1990s. The tuna fishermen were killing tens of thousands of dolphins a year because they were using purse seine nets. The dolphins were swimming over the tuna, and tens of thousands of dolphins a year were dying. The people wrote to me and said: Senator, is there a way you can help? I said: Yes, let's put a label on and say which tuna companies are fishing dolphin-safe, and let the consumer decide. We have saved hundreds of thousands of dolphins over the years, but some people still will buy the other kind of tuna. That is their choice. All I am saying is to treat people with respect. Don't be an elitist. Don't keep information from them. Don't make them jump through hoops. I will tell you the truth. This is the biggest issue in this election. The government elite is telling people what they can know and what they can't know and is making them go through hoops and making them use a smart phone and defining GMO in such a way that many products aren't covered. What a sick bill that is. If you don't want to have this done by the States, why don't you come to the table and negotiate in good faith? The FDA currently labels more than 3,000 ingredients. They require the labeling of more than 3,000 ingredients, additives, and processes. Millions of Americans have filed comments with the FDA urging the agency to label GE foods so they can have this information at their fingertips. Ninety percent of the people want a simple label. What you are giving them in this so-called compromise is the narrowest definition of what is a genetically modified food so that most of that food is never going labeled. By the way, it could even be labeled organic, which is a travesty. You have 70 organizations, and counting, against it. Ninety percent of the people want a simple bill. But, oh, no, the elitists in this Chamber know better. Oh, they know better. They took a simple concept--labeling just like we did on the tuna can--and they turned it into a nightmare for the consumer. The consumer will never find out. This dad will never know because while he has his kids there and his grocery list, he has to be looking at every single item that is in his cart, every single product, and most of them will not have a simple label. A lot of them are GMO, and they are not labeled. It seems to me that it is an embarrassment that we would even bring this bill up. I will do everything in my power to stop this bill. I would rather do nothing than this sham of a bill that does the bidding of the special, powerful interests and says to the American people: You know what, sorry, folks, we don't really trust you with this information because we don't really know what you are going to do with it. It is too bad that you don't know what they are going to do with it. You have no right as a Senator to determine what the American people will do with information. If it is a national security issue, of course, that is different. We know about that. If it is a consumer's right to know what is in their food, don't talk about how great this bill is because it is the opposite. It is completely the opposite of what it says. It is not truly a labeling bill. It is a phony sham, and I hope we defeat it whenever we get to it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. So the title will remain; is that correct? Even after the majority leader does what he says he is going to do, the title called Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 would remain; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. I am sorry. I am trying to get an answer. I didn't hear it.

Mrs. BOXER. So the title would no longer be in the bill; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. So the House is going to determine whether or not to remove this title: ``This Act may be cited as the `Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015.' '' I just say to my friends, I don't know why the majority leader chose to bring up this shell. He could have brought up any other shell. We should vote no on this. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. So if I were to make a unanimous consent request--further parliamentary----

Mrs. BOXER. Even the title?

Mrs. BOXER. What does that mean?

Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. President, Parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. BOXER. I just want to understand where we are, because there is a lot of angst and discomfort, and I want to say to Senator Hirono, who happened to read what we are voting on, which I really appreciate, and called it to our attention---- is it the Presiding Officer's view, in answer to Senator Leahy and Senator Sanders, that the Senate has no ability to strike the title called the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 at this time; that we do not have the ability to do this? Could we not do it by unanimous consent or would that not be allowed as well?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I oppose invoking cloture on this measure because the House version of this bill is flawed, and the Senate should have the opportunity to improve it. Puerto Rico is drowning in more than $70 billion of debt, equal to nearly 70 percent of the island's GDP. This is a serious situation deeply affecting the 3.5 million Americans who call the island home. And let us be clear: these Americans need their country's help. But the current PROMESA Act is not the answer, and here are two reasons why. First, one of the provisions in the bill would set up a seven-member oversight board to oversee Puerto Rico's fiscal plan and annual budgets. This board would consist of four Republicans and three Democrats and the Governor of Puerto Rico would serve as a nonvoting member. This is not a fair solution. Representation must be fair, and the way this board is currently proposed, it is one-sided. We need to fix that. Second, this legislation could reduce the minimum wage in Puerto Rico from $7.25 an hour to $4.25 an hour for workers 25 years old and under. How can young workers needing to gain economic independence in a suffering economy begin their careers on solid footing making only $4.25 an hour? In addition, this would reduce consumer spending, hurting an already weak economy. We should be lifting all workers--from California to Puerto Rico--up, not letting them fall further and further behind. We must give Puerto Rico the tools it needs to come out of this disaster stronger and with a clear path forward. As it stands, I do not feel this bill provides the smart and necessary solutions needed to resolve this fiscal crisis, and therefore, I oppose invoking cloture on this measure.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, may I ask for 10 minutes after my colleagues have spoken?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. That is fine.

Mrs. BOXER. That is exactly what I asked.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the order?

Mrs. BOXER. OK. I understand that Senator Nelson wants some time and Senator Murphy wants some time. May I ask through the Chair how much time remains on our side?

Mrs. BOXER. Let me suggest, then, that after I finish on our side, that Senator Nelson be followed by Senator Murphy at times they can work out on our side and Senator Grassley in between--for how many minutes?

Mrs. BOXER. I didn't say that, no, sir. Madam President, I think we will let everyone work it out, but I know I have 10 minutes, so I will take that time at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Madam President. First, I thank my colleague Senator Feinstein for her decades of work to address gun violence. I also thank Senators Murphy, Blumenthal, and Booker for standing on their feet for almost 15 hours to force the Republican leadership to at least allow some votes on gun safety. Six months after we joined the Senate, Senator Feinstein and I--this was in 1993--learned the horrific impacts of assault weapons when a deranged gunman entered the law offices of 101 California Street in San Francisco and killed eight people and wounded six others. When you lose someone you know to gun violence, it is very hard to get that out of your soul. And one of those killed in that attack in a law office with an assault weapon was one of my son's best friends. Yes, the soul of our family and his family and all the other families who were gunned down--I will tell you this: The pain does not go away. And I know we all feel that. I know we all feel that. The question is, ``What are we going to do about it?'' If not now, when is the time to do something about it? After Orlando--the worst mass shooting in American history--and I see my friend Senator Nelson, who has been there and who has looked into the eyes of families, and he will never be the same, having done that. This is a moment for us to do the right thing, to finally take action. Is it going to stop everything in the future? No. But it is a crisis, so we have to do what we can do. We should have done it after San Bernardino, we should have done it after Sandy Hook, and we should have done it after Santa Barbara and Aurora, but we didn't, so let's do it now. By the end of this year, 30,000 Americans will have died from gun violence. In 10 years, roughly 300,000 Americans are killed by guns-- 300,000. We lost more than 4,000 after 10 years in Iraq and nearly 60,000 after 10 years in Vietnam. Losing those incredibly large numbers of soldiers--64,000, roughly, in 10 years of those two wars--tore our Nation apart. It tore our Nation apart. But we lose 300,000 Americans from gun violence over 10 years and my Republican friends do nothing. That is the hard, cold truth. They claim they want to do something, but, as Senator Feinstein pointed out, when we look at the bottom line of their proposals, they essentially do nothing. And the gun epidemic continues. How many times do we come to the Senate floor to send our thoughts and prayers to families, but we don't do anything of substance to back those prayers up--not since my colleague got through her assault weapons ban. Since then we have done nothing, and that was in the 1990s. Unfortunately, I was just on the floor in December after a mass shooting at a holiday party that killed 14 people and wounded 17 others in San Bernardino. I stood right here, and I begged for us to come together and pass sensible laws to prevent another community from the gut-wrenching heartbreak my state was going through. That was just six months ago. We did nothing. I was on the floor after a mass shooting in Santa Barbara in 2014, and I called for us to pass a pause that gives family and friends who fear their loved ones are going to use a gun in a dangerous way--to give them a way to temporarily stop that loved one from obtaining a gun and do it legally through a court hearing. California passed that law. We did nothing--no action. When is it finally going to happen? When are we going to do something? I would urge every single person watching this debate to watch the votes. The only two proposals that do anything are the Feinstein proposal and the Murphy proposal. One deals with keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists; the other makes sure that people who buy a gun at a gun show or a private transaction get a background check. Should terrorists have guns? Every one of us says: Oh, no. Do we need to defeat ISIS? Yes, they are one of the most brutal, vicious terrorist groups, and that is why I support the President's actions to take them out. I was glad to see the Iraqis recapture Fallujah from ISIS, but that doesn't stop the lone wolves over here. We need to make sure those lone wolves don't get a gun. Should mentally unstable people have guns? No. We need to address that. Should weapons of war be allowed on our streets? Even the inventor of the assault-style weapon--his family said he never meant it to be used on the streets. It is a weapon of war. Those weapons have no business being in civilian hands. Today we have some good news out of the Supreme Court. They refused to take up a case that challenged the assault weapons ban in Connecticut. That is good news. It follows the legal opinions we have seen from the Court that say: Yes, there is a right to bear arms, but, yes, you can have commonsense gun laws so that people who can be trusted get a weapon and those who cannot, do not. Responsible people should be able to get a gun and pass a background check. What happened in the world? Look at this chart. Do you see this big huge line? That is America. These are the rest of all the industrialized nations in terms of gun deaths. We know that tough gun safety laws around the world save lives. Germany tightened their laws and shooting deaths dropped in half from 106 in 2002 to 61 in 2012 after they acted. In Australia, after they acted, gun deaths dropped from 98 in 1996 to 35 in 2014--after they took action. In my home State of California, there was a 56 percent drop in gun violence between 1993 and 2010, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, because our State took action. According to Johns Hopkins, Connecticut also saw an estimated 40-percent drop in gun- related murders in 10 years because they passed a 1995 law requiring a license before a gun purchase. No, we can't prevent every single tragedy, but we can respect the Second Amendment and still pass commonsense gun safety laws. We should pass Senator Feinstein's amendment to prevent a suspected terrorist from buying firearms or explosives, and we should pass Senator Murphy's amendment requiring background checks for all firearms sold or transferred privately. There are 30,000 reasons to pass these amendments--one for every American who will die by year's end because of gun violence. There is another number I want to conclude with--100. We are 100 Senators. We have the honor and the privilege of being here. We can do something about those 30,000 deaths a year. No, we are not going to cure it all with two measures. It is going to take more time than that. But people deserve to be safe at work, safe at school, safe at a shopping mall, at a movie theater, at a restaurant, at a health care clinic, and, yes, at a nightclub. So it is up to us to act. One hundred of us can look at the fact that we lose 300,000 Americans over 10 years, and we have done nothing since the 1990s. Today we can change all that. I do thank so very much my colleagues, Senator Feinstein and Senator Blumenthal, for their work on this legislation. Mr. President, I retain the time for the debate on our side.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask consent to have printed in the Record an article from June 15, 2016, in the Huffington Post, regarding the Orlando shooting and the urgent need for the Senate to take action on gun control. The material follows: [The Huffington Post, June 15, 2016] On Gun Violence--Let's Come Together and Stop the Heartbreak (By Senator Barbara Boxer, Ranking Member, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee) Columbine. Virginia Tech. Fort Hood. Tucson. Aurora. Newtown. Navy Yard. Isla Vista. Charleston. Umpqua. Colorado Springs. San Bernardino. And now Orlando is etched into the list of places in America that have been forever scarred by gun violence. In the aftermath of each of these deadly mass shootings, we express our horror, our prayers for the victims and survivors, our condolences, our thanks to the courageous first responders--and of course, we must and we should. But words are not enough. After the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School four years ago, I was convinced that Congress would finally take action to address that epidemic of gun violence that kills more than 30,000 Americans every year. But only four Republicans were willing to join with 51 Democrats and independents, and so commonsense gun safety legislation was once more derailed. That's why I am so proud that Senator Chris Murphy--joined by his Connecticut colleague, Senator Richard Blumenthal-- took to the Senate floor with a simple message: Enough is enough. The Senate must address this issue with a vote. We may not be able to prevent every tragedy, but there is so much we can do to save lives and protect our communities. And we can do it while still protecting the Second Amendment. We should start by taking these six commonsense steps right now: We can pass legislation to prevent a suspected terrorist from buying firearms or explosives. We can pass legislation to keep military-style weapons off our streets. These are weapons of war, and they do not belong in our communities. We can expand background checks--an idea supported by almost 90 percent of the American people and a majority of NRA members--which will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. We can pass the Gun Violence Intervention Act, which would allow families to go to court to seek a ``gun violence prevention order'' to temporarily stop someone who poses a threat to themselves or others from purchasing or possessing a gun. We can increase funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), an important grant program that helps communities plan how best to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. We can protect our children by investing in the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative, which helps schools develop school safety plans and provide critical safety training to school personnel. We need a layered defense to protect our communities from criminals and terrorists who want to inflict mass casualties, and that is what these proposals would provide. We know that tough gun safety laws work. We have seen it in other countries, like Australia. And we have seen it in my state of California which--after passing sensible laws--saw a 56 percent drop in gun violence between 1993 and 2010, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. People deserve to feel safe in their communities. They deserve to feel safe at work, at school, at a shopping mall, at a movie theater, at a health clinic, at a night club. As elected officials, we take an oath to protect and defend the American people. Right now, we are failing at our most basic task--keeping our children and our families safe from harm. It isn't enough for us to keep lamenting these tragedies. The people of Orlando, San Bernardino, Isla Vista, Newtown and so many other communities want more than words. They want action. And they want it now.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have laryngitis, which is the dream of my friends on the other side of the aisle, but I want to say that the Sullivan amendment is dangerous and it is unnecessary. It is the last thing we should do given the lessons we have learned in Flint, MI, because what the Sullivan amendment says is that you can be exempted from nine Federal health and safety laws when you rebuild the bridge. For example, it would allow the dumping of oil, toxic materials that could include lead, construction debris, and that all will go in the water--water we swim in, water we fish in, water we drink. After Flint, how could we do this? This is not a problem. If you ask Senator Klobuchar--I just talked to her--and Senator Franken, they rebuilt their bridge in a year because there is already expedited language in all of the laws on which we worked together. So please reject this. It is dangerous, it is unnecessary, and it certainly is unrelated to the underlying bill.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. Wow. In the beginning, God created. I just want to say to my friend Senator King, just ask the people of Flint, MI, how happy they were that the State took over the health and safety rules. Their kids are suffering from lead poisoning. Sometimes you are talking about bridges that are 100 years old. They contain toxic materials. Again, this is not necessary. We haven't got a problem because we have taken care of expedited procedures. My arm was twisted on it in the FAST Act. So let's reject this because we want to protect the health and safety of the people we represent. I urge a ``no'' vote.