Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before Senator Leahy leaves the floor, I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart. What he has shown is that he can team up in a bipartisan way to help the women of this country avoid needless, senseless, dangerous violence. I thank the Senator, and I stand here to support his efforts. The Leahy-Crapo bill is the bill we need to pass. Why? Because it is the bill that includes everyone. We do not want to leave out 30 million people. We do not want to leave 30 million people out of the Violence Against Women Act. That is what the House of Representatives does because they leave out immigrant people, they leave out the gay and lesbian community, they leave out students and Native Americans. When you look at those women and those groups, you find out, indeed, they have a very high percentage of violence in their communities-- violence against women that leaves women in deep trouble and threatens their lives. So only the Leahy-Crapo bill--only the Senate bill--which passed here with such a great number of votes can include everyone. So if you take, for example, Cristina, in my home State of California, whose boss threatened her with deportation unless she complied with his demands for sex, she is not covered in the House bill. This is a woman who is essentially being held hostage by her boss. He is using his power over her, and she is not covered by the House bill. The House bill, again, fails to protect LGBT individuals when they have problems with abusive partners and have been turned away in the past from shelters because the Violence Against Women Act did not cover the LGBT community. Mika is a student who struggled to get her college to enforce a restraining order against her boyfriend after he had assaulted her and stalked her. She should not have had to struggle. Under the Leahy-Crapo Senate Violence Against Women Act, Mika will be covered. Then-Senator Joe Biden, now Vice President Biden, wrote the Violence Against Women Act. It was a long time ago. I was in the House, and I was so honored when Joe Biden came and asked me to carry the House version of the bill. I did that, and I remember being so proud because Joe was such a leader on this and he had the faith in me to ask me to help him. But I can tell you, it was a struggle to get it done. It took several years to get it done. And when I got to the Senate, I watched Joe Biden team up with Senator Hatch, and I helped them on the floor. I was only able to get a portion of the bill passed in the House, so there was a lot more we needed to do, and we did it. I want to read a statement that Vice President Biden made today--he just sent it out--because it speaks to this issue. He said: Eighteen years ago today, the landmark Violence Against Women Act was signed into law. It was founded on the basic premise that every woman deserves to be safe from violence, and since its passage, we have made tremendous strides towards achieving that goal. We gave law enforcement and the courts more tools to combat domestic violence and hold offenders accountable. We created a national hotline to direct victims to life-saving assistance. And since VAWA passed, annual rates of domestic violence have dropped by more than 60 percent. It is important to reflect on what Vice President Biden is saying. Because of the Violence Against Women Act, we have seen a drop in the annual rate of domestic violence by more than 60 percent. And now we are here to say: Let's make it even better by including 30 million people who were left out of the bill. Quoting the Vice President, he says: But we still have much work to do. Three women still die every day as a result of domestic violence. One in five women have been raped, many as teenagers, and one in six women have been victims of stalking. He writes: While women and girls face these devastating realities every day, reauthorization of the strengthened VAWA languishes in Congress. VAWA is just as important today as when it first became law, and I urge Congress to keep the promise me made to our daughters and our granddaughters on that day--that we would work together to keep them safe. In closing, because I see Senator Coons is here--we are so happy he is here to talk on this issue, I feel it is important to note that over 900 groups nationwide have signed a letter in support of the bill that includes these 30 million people--that includes everyone. We know this law is working. On today, the 18th anniversary of the VAWA being signed into law by Bill Clinton, let's pass this legislation and send it to President Obama, legislation that strengthens the law, is bipartisan like the Leahy-Crapo bill, and includes everyone. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to 30 servicemembers from California or based in California who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since June 6, 2012. This brings to 381 the number of servicemembers either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Afghanistan. This represents 18 percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan. CPT Scott P. Pace, 39, of Brawley, CA, died June 6, in Qarah Bagh, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when his helicopter crashed. Captain Pace was assigned to 1st Squadron, 17th Cavalry Regiment, 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC. Cpl Anthony R. Servin, 22, of Moreno Valley, CA, died June 8, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Corporal Servin was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. SPC Nathan T. Davis, 20, Yucaipa, CA, died June 9, in Tore Obeh, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when his vehicle was attacked with an enemy improvised explosive device. Specialist Davis was assigned to 1st Battalion, Airborne, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, Airborne, 25th Infantry Division, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK. Cpl Taylor J. Baune, 21, of Andover, MN, died June 13, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Corporal Baune was assigned to 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. SSG Nicholas C. Fredsti, 30, of San Diego, CA, died June 15, in Spedar, Afghanistan, when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire. Staff Sergeant Fredsti was assigned to 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC. SGT Jose Rodriguez, 22, of Gustine, CA, died June 19, in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered from enemy small arms fire. Sergeant Rodriguez was assigned to 4th Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. PFC Steven P. Stevens II, 23, of Tallahassee, FL, died June 22, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Private First Class Stevens was assigned to 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. LCpl Niall W. Cotisears, 23, of Arlington, VA, died June 23, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Cotisears was assigned to 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. SPC Alejandro J. Pardo, 21, of Porterville, CA, died July 8, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit in Maidan Shahr, Wardak Province, Afghanistan, with an improvised explosive device. Specialist Pardo was assigned to 978th Military Police Company, 93rd Military Police Battalion, Fort Bliss, TX. Cpl Joshua R. Ashley, 23, of Rancho Cucamonga, CA, died July 19, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Corporal Ashley was assigned to 2nd Law Enforcement Battalion, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, NC. PO2 Michael J. Brodsky, 33, of Tamarac, FL, died July 21, in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, from injuries related to a dismounted improvised explosive device blast. Petty Officer Second Class Brodsky was assigned to Navy Region Southwest Security Detachment, San Diego, CA. SGT Eric E. Williams, 27, of Murrieta, CA, died July 23, of injuries sustained when his forward operating base received indirect fire in Pul-E Alam, Afghanistan. Sergeant Williams was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC. 1LT Sean R. Jacobs, 23, of Redding, CA, died July 26, in Khakrez, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when he encountered an enemy improvised explosive device. First Lieutenant Jacobs was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. SPC Benjamin C. Pleitez, 25, of Turlock, CA, died July 27, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident in Mazar E Sharif, Afghanistan. Specialist Pleitez was assigned to 1072nd Transportation Company, 746th Combat Support Battalion, 224th Sustainment Brigade, Van Nuys, CA. PFC Jose Oscar Belmontes, 28, of La Verne, CA, died July 28, in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered from enemy small arms fire. Private First Class Belmontes was assigned to 630th Engineer Company, 7th Engineer Battalion, 10th Sustainment Brigade, Fort Drum, NY. GySgt Daniel J. Price, 27, of Holland, MI, died July 29, while conducting combat operations in Badghis province, Afghanistan. Gunnery Sergeant Price was assigned to 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion, Camp Pendleton, CA. LCpl Curtis J. Duarte, 22, of Covina, CA, died August 1, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Duarte was assigned to 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. PFC Jesus J. Lopez, 22, of San Bernardino, CA, died August 1, in Paktika Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when he encountered an enemy improvised explosive device. Private First Class Lopez was assigned to 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, KS. PO3 Clayton R. Beauchamp, of Weatherford, TX, died August 7, when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device while conducting a dismounted patrol in the Shaban District, Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Petty Officer Third Class Beauchamp was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 6, 1st Marine Division, Forward, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Forward, Camp Pendleton, CA. Capt. Matthew P. Manoukian, 29, of Los Altos Hills, CA, died August 10, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Captain Manoukian was assigned to 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion, Camp Pendleton, CA. GySgt Ryan Jeschke, 31, of Herndon, VA, died August 10, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Gunnery Sergeant Jeschke was assigned to 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion, Camp Pendleton, CA. SSgt Sky R. Mote, 27, of El Dorado, CA, died August 10, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Mote was assigned to 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion, Camp Pendleton, CA. SSgt Scott E. Dickinson, 29, of San Diego, CA, died August 10, while supporting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Dickinson was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force. Cpl Richard A. Rivera Jr., 20, of Ventura, CA, died August 10, while supporting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Corporal Rivera Jr. was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force. CW2 Suresh N. Krause, 29, of Cathedral City, CA, died August 16, in a helicopter crash northeast of Kandahar, Afghanistan. Chief Warrant Officer 2 Krause was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 25th Aviation Regiment, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, HI. SGT Richard A. Essex, 23, of Kelseyville, CA, died August 16, in a helicopter crash northeast of Kandahar, Afghanistan. Sergeant Essex was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 25th Aviation Regiment, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, HI. PO1 Sean P. Carson, 32, of Des Moines, WA, died August 16, in a helicopter crash northeast of Kandahar, Afghanistan. Explosive Ordinance Disposal Petty Officer First Class Carson was assigned to an explosive ordnance disposal mobile unit in San Diego, CA. PO1 Patrick D. Feeks, 28, of Edgewater, MD, died August 16, in a helicopter crash northeast of Kandahar, Afghanistan. Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer First Class Feeks was assigned to a west coast- based naval special warfare unit. PO2 David J. Warsen, 27, of Kentwood, MI, died August 16, in a helicopter crash northeast of Kandahar, Afghanistan. Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer Second Class Warsen was assigned to a west coast-based naval Special warfare unit. LCpl Alec R. Terwiske, 21, of Dubois, IN, died September 3, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Terwiske was assigned to 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when I have completed my statement, Senator Harkin be permitted to take the floor at that time.

Mrs. BOXER. I wish to thank Senator Harkin because he and I were spending a little time together in the great State of our Presiding Officer, and he and I agreed that one of the issues that ought to be talked about a little bit more involves the stark choice we are facing in November in large part due to the budget of Paul Ryan, who is now the Vice Presidential nominee for the Republicans. And Governor Romney has endorsed and embraced the Ryan budget. I think it was Senator Harkin's idea that we ought to explain that Ryan budget, so I am going to do my best to talk about it as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has the jurisdiction of highways, bridges, transportation systems, and the environment, and I will also make a couple of comments about Medicare. I know Senator Harkin is going to go into that in great depth. I want to make sure everybody understands that what I am talking about comes straight from the budget. So if you look at page 78 of the report accompanying the Ryan budget resolution, Mr. Ryan makes it clear he wants to make devastating cuts to transportation. What do I mean when I say that? I mean devastating. I mean a 50-percent cut, which means about 1 million jobs would be lost if the Ryan budget were to go into effect. We are talking about construction jobs--an area that has been hit so hard. We still haven't come back from this recession. And if there is one thing we learned when we were in the Presiding Officer's great State at that convention, it was the depth of this recession--the worst since the Great Depression. What a time Paul Ryan picks to bring devastating cuts to the construction industry. I am talking about businesses and jobs mostly in the private sector, not the public sector. We have to think about the fact that 70,000 of our bridges are deficient and 50 percent of our roads are not in good condition. We know bridges fail. We have seen it happen. We are not only talking about devastating cuts to the construction industry and its workers but a devastating situation for people who use our bridges--the 70,000 of which are structurally deficient--and our roads, which need help. So no country can lead the world if we can't move people and goods, and we cannot be a world power when it comes to transportation. The Ryan budget is a jobs killer. I am talking about 1 million jobs that would be lost--in the private sector mostly--and it would put our families at risk by neglecting our bridges, our highways and our transit systems. Now, President Obama, on the other hand--and, frankly, a lot of us here on both sides of the aisle--reject the notion that we can walk away from rebuilding our infrastructure. So this is a very key issue. I said I wanted to speak as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I have talked a little bit about public works, but what does the Ryan budget do to the environment? What he does is he undermines the public health protections provided by the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other landmark laws. If we look at pages 13 to page 15 of his budget, we can see he cuts $62 billion for activities such as protecting our drinking water, protecting our air, and preserving our public lands. Let's face it: When kids get asthma, when people are too sick to go to work, when children are too sick to go to school, and when people die prematurely from heart attacks because of the air quality, there are no real savings. He says he is cutting $62 billion from the budget. Let me just say that for every dollar we spend on clean air protections, we know we get $30 worth of benefits. In 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 premature deaths. Ask a family who stands to lose the breadwinner in that family: Did we save money? No. Let me cite some numbers: 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, 86,000 emergency room visits, 13 million lost workdays, and 3.2 million lost schooldays. In 2010 the Clean Air Act prevented all that. So what is the point, Mr. Ryan? What is the point? It will cost the American public dearly out of their pockets and out of their lives if they suffer more asthma attacks, emergency room visits, lost workdays, lost schooldays, and they have more heart attacks and premature deaths. That is shortsighted. The American Lung Association--and they are not Republican or Democratic--says that 40 percent of our population lives in areas with unhealthy levels of smog or toxic soot. So let's remember that when we look at a budget, there is a set of values that accompany the numbers. And I don't think it is an American value to say to our people that we don't care if they get sick, they miss work, or they go to the emergency room. Finally, I want to set the stage for Senator Harkin's very in-depth discussion about health care. I am just going to talk about Medicare and Medicaid as someone who is privileged to represent, along with Senator Feinstein, the largest State in the Union, with the most senior citizens. We have almost 38 million people. So whenever I talk about this Ryan budget and how many people get hurt, believe me, I speak from the heart when I say we can't let it happen. The American people know Medicare, they like it, and they do not want to change it. Now, the Republicans tell us their plan saves Medicare. But just ask someone. Ask someone who is going to be the victim of the Paul Ryan plan if we don't stop it. That person will find they are getting a voucher; they are not getting Medicare. Medicare will be gone. They will get a voucher, and experts tell us and the studies show that voucher will be almost $6,000 a year short. Imagine an older person who really is struggling for a quality of life having to have the added worry of not knowing whether he or she will be able to find health insurance. Look, putting Republicans in charge of Medicare is like putting the Cookie Monster in charge of your favorite bakery. And I am not overstating it. No one would put the Cookie Monster in charge of their favorite bakery. Well, we can't put the Republicans in charge of Medicare, and I will prove why. This isn't just rhetoric. Listen. In 1995 Newt Gingrich said he thought Medicare, in his words, should wither on the vine. In his 1996 Presidential campaign, Senate majority leader Bob Dole bragged: I was there fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965. Really? Really. Medicare works. Why would we end it? We are not going to end it. But if Paul Ryan gets into power, he will have a good chance of ending it with his friend and Presidential candidate Mitt Romney who has endorsed the Ryan budget. Listen to what Michael Steele, the head of the Republican National Committee, said in 2009: I mean, the reality of it is this single-payer program known as Medicare is a good example of what we should not have happen. The Ryan budget at page 53 shreds Medicare. As if he hasn't slammed Medicare enough, look what he does to Medicaid. He cuts it by more than $800 billion. Where are low-income families going to go? Senator Harkin is the expert, but I can tell you this. So many of our elderly rely on Medicaid for nursing home costs. It is a disaster. We know that in addition to all these terrible cuts--and by the way, when Paul Ryan attacks President Obama for cutting money from Medicare, what he isn't telling us is the President has found savings from overpayments to providers. Do you know what he does with the money? He puts it right back into Medicare, extends the life of the program for 8 years, closes the doughnut hole to help seniors, and gives senior citizens preventive health care, well checkups, and the like. To quote President Clinton, that ``takes a lot of brass.'' Because the fact is, President Obama has strengthened Medicare and has extended the life of Medicare. What Paul Ryan does is he takes those cuts and he gives tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. I yield to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. Both his budgets take the same amount. But instead of putting it back into Medicare, he robs Medicare, and Medicare will go broke--my understanding--in 2016 under the Ryan plan; whereas, President Obama puts the money back into Medicare, extends the life 8 years, and gives more benefits. I am going to finish up and just say this. However you look at this, this Ryan budget is a roadmap for disaster for the American people. He cuts the heart out of things the American people like. The American people want clean air, they want safe drinking water, they want Medicare, they want to make sure our seniors can be safe in nursing homes. The American people want transportation--and they don't want to be worried if a car is on a bridge that is going to fall down into the water below. It has happened. Here is the deal. If we were to say to Mr. Ryan: Are you cutting all this so you could balance the budget today, he would say: Oh, no; that is 25 years from now. What is he doing with the ``savings''? He is giving these huge tax breaks. I will close with this. People earning more than $1 million a year are going to receive $400,000 more in tax breaks every year. So he cuts everything to give these tax breaks to the people who already have millions and billions, but it is still not enough. As President Obama has pointed out, he will then have to go after the middle class and take away middle-class tax deductions, such as the home mortgage deduction, because he doesn't even get enough money from these Draconian cuts. He has to go ahead and raise taxes on the middle class. I watched Presidential nominee Romney be asked this question: What are you going to cut? He said: Well, we will discuss it later. Mr. Ryan, the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, said: We will work with Congress on it. Right. Listen, they know they have to make Draconian tax increases on the middle class and the working poor. They have to cut the things America wants in order to pay for their tax cuts. No wonder Mr. Romney picked Mr. Ryan. Mr. Romney will be in the 1-percent tax bracket--that is what the experts say--can you imagine?--while his secretaries and everybody else pay through the nose. These next 60 days or so is an important time for us. I wish to thank my friend from Iowa because I was very interested in laying out some of these issues and he encouraged me to do so. I am very delighted to be here with him. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to the great talents and accomplishments of Gore Vidal, the extraordinary American writer who died this week at age 86 in California, where he spent the last 9 years of his life. Gore Vidal was a child of the Senate--or more precisely, a grandchild of the Senate. His maternal grandfather was Senator Thomas Pryor Gore of Oklahoma, and the writer's happiest childhood memories were of the times he lived at Senator Gore's Washington home. According to Vidal's New York Times obituary, ``He loved to read to his grandfather, who was blind, and sometimes accompanied him onto the Senate floor.'' Vidal himself later said, ``At something like 13 or 14, I wanted to be a politician, but knew that I was a writer. . . .'' This change of career path worked out best for everyone. Gore Vidal's prose was elegant and crystal clear, and his range as a writer has seldom been equaled. His essays, perhaps his greatest triumph, utilized and displayed his wide-ranging interests, encyclopedic learning, and dazzling wit. He also wrote more than two dozen novels including a series on American political history that is widely read and admired on both sides of the aisle--as well as plays, screenplays, television dramas, and two volumes of memoirs. Gore Vidal twice ran for office, losing a 1960 run for Congress in upstate New York and a 1982 Senate primary in California. Despite these political setbacks, he remained convinced that ``There is no human problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise.'' He dispensed his advice with great wit and intelligence for more than 60 years, and America is far the richer for it.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. I have a question, and I want to make sure everyone listening to this debate gets what is about to happen. Is it not true that the Senate passed the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act with well more than 60 votes?

Mrs. BOXER. Is it not correct that the House passed its version and left out 30 million Americans?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. And the immigrant women, as the Senator has discussed, which Senator Blumenthal pointed out, are the most vulnerable because they are so afraid of their status, they are very scared to report that someone is raping them, beating them, or harming them every single day; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Isn't it fair to say that the 30 million people we cover--which the House leaves out--include college students, enhanced protections for them on campus; the LGBT community; Native American communities; and undocumented immigrants; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. As my friend pointed out, is it not true that when you look at rates of violence against these particular people in our communities, they are higher than the population at large?

Mrs. BOXER. Isn't it fair to say that the House bill--their version of the Violence Against Women Act left out the most vulnerable people who are the most susceptible to violence?

Mrs. BOXER. I have two more points, and then I will yield to my friend so she can make the unanimous consent request. Isn't it also true that the excuse Speaker Boehner is giving as to why he will not take up and pass the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill, isn't it true that the excuse is that there is a technical problem, which he calls a blue slip, in the Senate bill? And isn't it true that my friend today is going to ask unanimous consent to correct that problem so that we can send this inclusive bill over to Speaker Boehner?

Mrs. BOXER. Finally, I hope, when my friend makes the unanimous consent request, to take the very same text of the Violence Against Women Act, which passed this body with well over 60 votes, and put it into a bill that would overcome the technical problem and enable us to send it back to the House. It is my strong hope that the Republican leadership will not object. If they do, let the whole country understand what they are objecting to: a way to fix this technical problem so that Speaker Boehner and the Republicans can pass the Senate bipartisan Violence Against Women Act and include the 30 million people who have been left out. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2012 with Senators Hutchison, Casey, Snowe, Shaheen, Gillibrand and Scott Brown. A companion bill was also introduced in the House of Representatives today by Representatives Carnahan, Berman and Schakowsky. This important legislation will help codify the United States National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, which was released by the Obama administration in December, 2011, to help further ongoing U.S. initiatives regarding women, peace, and security and the objectives of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, UNSCR 1325. UNSCR 1325 calls on all countries to establish national action plans aimed at promoting the inclusion of women in conflict resolution efforts and peace-building institutions, such as police services. This is essential because women and girls are disproportionately impacted by violence and armed conflict. But at the same time, we know that women are critical to helping prevent violence before it occurs and resolving crises once they begin. Furthermore, evidence shows that integrating women into peace-building processes helps promote democracy and ensure the likelihood of a peace process succeeding. With the National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, the U.S. joins the more than 37 other countries who have released similar National Action Plans recognizing women's contributions to peace building and committing to support women's inclusion in all aspects of peace processes. As Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy, and Global Women's Issues, I am proud of the Obama Administration for undertaking this important initiative, and remain committed to continuing to promote the full inclusion of women in all aspects of peace-building efforts. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2012 with Senators Hutchison, Casey, Snowe, Shaheen, Gillibrand and Scott Brown. A companion bill was also introduced in the House of Representatives today by Representatives Carnahan, Berman and Schakowsky. This important legislation will help codify the United States National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, which was released by the Obama administration in December, 2011, to help further ongoing U.S. initiatives regarding women, peace, and security and the objectives of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, UNSCR 1325. UNSCR 1325 calls on all countries to establish national action plans aimed at promoting the inclusion of women in conflict resolution efforts and peace-building institutions, such as police services. This is essential because women and girls are disproportionately impacted by violence and armed conflict. But at the same time, we know that women are critical to helping prevent violence before it occurs and resolving crises once they begin. Furthermore, evidence shows that integrating women into peace-building processes helps promote democracy and ensure the likelihood of a peace process succeeding. With the National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, the U.S. joins the more than 37 other countries who have released similar National Action Plans recognizing women's contributions to peace building and committing to support women's inclusion in all aspects of peace processes. As Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy, and Global Women's Issues, I am proud of the Obama Administration for undertaking this important initiative, and remain committed to continuing to promote the full inclusion of women in all aspects of peace-building efforts. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for putting this into context for America. What has happened here this morning is, instead of celebrating with us because tomorrow, August 1, an entire list of preventive services for women goes into effect because of ObamaCare--yes, our health care law--the Republican leader says he wants to repeal all those benefits. Not only does the Republican leader, on behalf of the Republican minority, want to repeal the benefits that go into effect tomorrow for women, he wants to repeal the entire health care bill. He wants to have an amendment to the cyber security bill--which is so critical to our national security--he wants to put an amendment on there to repeal a law that the U.S. Supreme Court found was constitutional and whose benefits are beginning to take hold in this country, benefits that mean right now people are receiving refund checks in the mail because their insurance company overcharged them, and under ObamaCare you cannot do that, and hundreds of millions of dollars are going out to our people. The Republicans want to, I assume, force those people to send back their refunds because they want to repeal ObamaCare. Look at the list of preventive health benefits I have on this chart that are already in effect because of the legislation. Already because of health reform--and I see Senator Harkin in the Chamber, who shepherded this through, as our dear friend Ted Kennedy became sicker and sicker with brain cancer. I will never forget how Senator Harkin stepped up to the plate, Senator Dodd stepped up to the plate, Senator Mikulski stepped up to the plate, and they were the lieutenants who got it done. And the Republicans want to take it away. I can only imagine how Senator Harkin feels, having been in that fight. But I am here to say I am your supporter. I know what you did. I know my people in California--the largest State in the Union--are getting breast cancer screenings now, with no copays. They are getting cervical cancer screenings, hepatitis A and B vaccines, measles and mumps vaccines, colorectal cancer screenings, diabetes screenings, cholesterol screenings, blood pressure screenings, obesity screenings, tobacco cessation, autism screenings. How important is that? In my State, they say there is an epidemic of autism. They are getting hearing screenings for newborns, sickle cell screenings for newborns, fluoride supplements, tuberculosis testing for children, depression screenings. How important is that? They are getting osteoporosis screenings. I watched as my mother was in agony from osteoporosis. There are things you can do now to avoid it. But you need the screening. You need to know whether those bones are losing their density. They are getting flu vaccines for children and the elderly. This list goes into effect tomorrow. So let's take a look at the list that goes into effect tomorrow that my Republican friends want to repeal today. Tomorrow, women will get access to all of these things without copays or coinsurance: contraception, well-woman visits, STD screenings and counseling, breastfeeding support and supplies, domestic violence screenings, gestational diabetes screenings, HIV screenings, and HPV testing. I am stunned that on the eve of the broadest increase in benefits in my lifetime, the Republicans want to repeal these benefits for women. This is a continuation on their part of the war on women. They can get up and stand on their head and deny it and everything else. How else can you explain why, on the eve of the day that women are going to get all these benefits, they want to now cancel ObamaCare and stop all this from happening? If you think it does not matter--let me say to you, Mr. President, I know you know it matters whether women get free contraception to cut back on unintended pregnancies and abortion and well-woman visits and breastfeeding support. How about domestic violence screenings--so critical. Some women are in these terrible relationships, and they go to the doctor, and they say: Well, I do not want to talk about it. Doctors will be taught how to spot domestic violence, and there can be an intervention that will save lives. So here we stand. We have this list of benefits, women's preventive health benefits, that are going to go into effect tomorrow. We are here to celebrate that. And instead of our Republican colleagues coming on the floor and joining us and saying how wonderful this is, and by the way, at the end of the day this saves money--we all know that. We all know it saves money when you have screening and counseling for STDs and you head off an illness. We all know it saves money. The health care bill saves money, and it reduces the deficit because of this investment in prevention. I cannot think of a more ridiculous situation than after a bill has become law for how many years now, Senator Harkin? Is it a couple of years since we passed it? Years. It went to the Supreme Court. It was upheld. And now, just as we are about to see these great benefits for women go into place, the Republican leader says: Let's repeal ObamaCare today. Let's have an amendment on the cyber security bill, he said, to repeal the entire health care law. The House voted 33 times, at least, to repeal it. So I am wondering, what is with this idea of repealing? Do you want to take away these benefits from women? From children? From men? From families? Yes, I guess you do. I guess you stand for going back to the old days when people could hear from their insurance company that they were cut off, when insurance companies could spend 70 percent on themselves, on their own perks, and CEOs getting hundreds of millions of dollars and you, the patient, getting hardly anything. They want to go back. They want to take away the refunds. They want to take away the funding our seniors are getting as they deal with the high cost of prescription drugs. And we fixed that in this bill. So I have to say, we make an investment in prevention, in keeping people healthy. We make sure being a woman is not a preexisting condition. And the Republicans today have relaunched their war against women. They are holding up the Violence Against Women Act that we passed over here in a bipartisan way. They will not take up the Senate bill and pass it. Why? They want to take away coverage in that bill from 30 million Americans. They do not care about the immigrant population, obviously, the most vulnerable women there. They do not care about the college students, apparently. Because we get extra protections for them on college campuses. We protect the LGBT community. Clearly they are not interested in that. And they are not interested in protecting the Native American women. So while the Speaker says: Oh, I will send conferees to a nonexistent conference on the Violence Against Women Act, he could simply pass the bill and make sure everyone is protected. Instead of celebrating today because women are getting all these wonderful benefits without a copay, they want to repeal all these benefits. They want to repeal this law. Truly, I do not know what motivates them. I do not speak for them. But if they say it is to save money, that is simply not true. Because this bill saves money. This law saves money. Because we are investing in prevention. So the only thing I can think of is they want to hurt this President. The Republican leader said his highest priority was making sure that President Obama is a one-term President. So I guess if it means attacking the health care law to hurt this President, he is willing to do it and hurt all my constituents who are getting these benefits and all of our constituents who are getting these benefits, hurting the American people. Well, I say put politics aside. Let's see the Republicans come down here and celebrate the fact that finally our people are getting the health care they deserve and that they pay for. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 2 minutes followed by Senator Cardin.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think it is important to simplify what is going on with these two proposals, the Republican proposal and the Democratic proposal. So I am going to attempt to do that. We have two packages of tax cuts. The Democratic package gives everyone a tax break on their income tax for the first $250,000 of income. So everybody gets that tax break. The main difference is that under the Republican plan, they give more to incomes above $250,000, where we say everybody gets a tax break up to $250,000, and after that we go back to the tax rates of Bill Clinton when we created 23 million jobs, balanced the budget, and created a surplus. Now, in order to do this, the Republicans don't do some of the things we do for the middle class, which is an extension of the tuition tax credit and a generous child tax credit. So that is the difference. Their package costs $50 billion more. If we figure we do this over 10 years, we can do the math. That comes to $500 billion. But let's just take it to 1 year. The $50 billion cost of their package, if we didn't go that way and supported the Democratic package, we could use that to either reduce the deficit or to soften the sequester. We have people running all over television saying we are ruining the country with this sequestration. The Republicans came up and supported that idea of automatic spending cuts. We can take the $50 billion if the upper income would pay their fair share and cut the automatic spending cuts in half. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. How much time remains on each side?

Mrs. BOXER. How much on the minority side?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes of our time to Senator Hatch.

Mrs. BOXER. Whatever is more convenient for the minority leader. If the minority leader wishes to speak now, I will defer and take my 8 minutes later.