Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are anxiously awaiting work on the Transportation bill that came out of the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am proud to be the chairman. Last year we wrote a bill called MAP-21. That stands for Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century. I was proud to see this bill become a bipartisan bill, with Senator Inhofe working with me and his staff and my staff working together as one. When we got it out of the committee, I think it was a unanimous, or close to unanimous, vote. I know when our young people learn how a bill becomes a law it sounds a little easier than it really is. I often think, in my spare time I should write a little pamphlet on how a bill really becomes a law because I would say to the young people who are here today, as well as those who might be listening, it is a little trickier than it sounds because when we learn about how a bill becomes a law in school, it is very simply put. The bill starts in a committee in the House or Senate, and it moves to the floor of that body. Then it starts in a committee in the other body, it moves to the floor of that body. It passes both Chambers. If it is identical, it goes to the President. If there are differences, there is a conference committee, and then it goes to the President. The President either signs it or vetoes it. If he signs it, it is a done deal. If he vetoes it, we need to have a whole lot of votes--two- thirds--to override. So that is how it is taught in schools, and it is absolutely true. But getting it to the point where we are now, where we await a conference report, is sometimes a very long and winding path. This one was a long and winding path. I think we are where we are, at the point where we hope to vote soon on it, because people were willing to meet each other halfway. I have been saying for a long time, we all stand in our respective corners and insist that it is our way or the highway and nothing ever gets done. We must come together, and the Senate proved it can come together around our version of the highway bill. It passed by 74 votes. We were hopeful the House would just take it up and pass it. It didn't happen that way. They wrote a less comprehensive bill; they sent it over; and then we went into a conference committee. There was a lot of difficulty because there were issues that were simply not seen in the same light between the House and Senate. I would have to say, through all of this Senator Inhofe and I, Republicans and Democrats, on the EPW Committee were united. But we didn't have that unifying factor with the House Republicans. I want to thank every member of the conference committee, Democratic and Republican, House and Senate, because everyone worked extremely hard. They worked hard. They were knowledgeable. Their staffs worked hard. They asked a lot of questions. They cared a tremendous amount about the policies. The great news about the bill that is coming out of the conference committee is that it is a jobs bill, first and foremost. It is going to save about 1.9 million--almost 2 million--jobs that are currently held in the private sector, and it will create up to 1 million new jobs through an expanded TIFIA program. TIFIA is a program that fronts the funds for local government to have a revenue stream, and the leverage on that is about 30 to 1. So if you have an amount of approximately $1 billion, you will be able to get $30 billion of economic activity. So that is a good part that we can all be proud of. That is a fact. The bill will be coming soon, we hope. It is not here yet, and it is not done yet, but it is close. What we hope we will have before us is a bill that creates close to 2 million--I am so tired. I have to say, I haven't gotten much sleep in the past 3 days because we have been working nonstop. I will say it again. We protect almost 2 million jobs that are currently held in the private sector, and we will create up to 1 million; hence, the 3 million jobs that are relying on this bill. We have thousands of businesses that care a lot about what we do. These are general contractors, these are equipment dealers, these are people in the concrete industry. I can tell you these organizations of business and labor have been behind us every inch of the way. When I was giving up hope because I didn't think we could move forward, they were there to say: Keep on going. And they weighed in. I think the work product reflects the fact that we would never, ever give up. There is a lot of talk about, What did Democrats give up? What did Republicans give up? Let's just say this is a negotiation between Republicans and Democrats, a negotiation between the House and Senate, and not everybody got what he or she wanted. That is for sure. But I just want to say to people who might be listening that in a negotiation nobody gets everything they want. You have to meet each other halfway, and that is what happened in this negotiation. We both wanted to see this as a reform bill. The Senate brought a package together that took the 90 programs down to 30, and that pretty much survived the conference committee. We also did some more reforms, certainly, on project delivery because all sides agree it is taking too long to get some of these public works projects done. It is taking sometimes 15 years, 14 years, 13 years to do a road start to finish or to do a bridge. We need to make sure we can move faster because our economy needs that, but still, in my view, protect the rights of citizens throughout this country to ensure their communities are taken care of, that there is no damage to their communities, that the air quality is protected, the water quality is protected. We were able to keep those environmental laws while we were tough on deadlines and milestones and very tough to say: This is it. If you can't finish in this time, and we are trying to get this for 15 years to 8 years per project--if you don't do that, you have to explain why. There has to be a really good reason why these projects would be delayed. I believe the funding in the bill is fair. Every single State is protected. This is a 2-year-3-month bill. Every State will get the amount of money they got last year, plus inflation. That is very important. It is the current level of funding with the inflation put in, and every State can now know, if and when this bill passes, that they can count on that funding for 2 years and 3 months. Everything is paid for. There are a lot of comments about, what did we do about pedestrian walkways and bike paths. I want to be clear. That was an intense subject of negotiations. There were those who wanted no funds set aside for bike paths, pedestrian paths, and it was very clear--safe streets, safe roads to school, et cetera--we had to negotiate on this. Honestly, I think what has come out is a good thing, and let me explain why. We kept the same amount of funding, same set-aside percentage for these transportation alternatives, but what we said was, for the first time, half of those funds will go directly to locals, will go to the metropolitan planning organizations, will go to the large cities. That is key because we want the local people, who know their area best, making these decisions. We protected those funds. The only way anyone in the State can use those funds is if there is a nationally declared disaster and there are some unobligated funds around--yes, that could be borrowed but must be paid back from any supplemental appropriation. On the State portion, which is the other 50 percent, we built in more flexibility, and there are a lot of people who are calling this a cut. It is not a cut. Some States will use it all. I say to the people in the States who are worried about it, use your pressure, use your power, use your grassroots strength to make sure you lobby your State legislatures and your Governors to provide for safe streets to schools, for bike paths, for pedestrian walkways. These are very important safety issues. I know not everyone is happy, but I wanted to be clear on that. If the choice is between doing away with that wonderful program, which I think is wonderful, or making a few concessions on flexibility, I think we did the right thing. I honestly do. This bill is all paid for. I have to thank so much Senator Max Baucus and his team, the Republican members of the Finance Committee, and also the team in the House headed by Mr. Camp because they came up with a pay-for that people on all sides can live with. It gives us that security for 2 years and 3 months. We don't have any riders on this bill. I know some people very much wanted it. We don't have them. It became part of the give-and-take at the end of the day. Two provisions that I lament are not on there are the oceans trust fund, which is part of the RESTORE Act, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund that was also part of the RESTORE Act. I lament that those provisions are gone. I commit myself to working with Senator Whitehouse on the oceans trust fund and Senator Baucus on the Land and Water Conservation Fund to get that done. But I have to be completely, totally frank with the Senate; we just could not get it done. There was nothing we could offer or give that would allow us to move forward with those two very critical environmental programs. I tell you, our oceans deserve attention and our land deserves attention. These issues are certainly not going away. Having said that, the rest of the RESTORE Act is in this bill. That means those folks in the Gulf States who were so harmed by this horrible BP spill will be able to use some of those fines as they come in to restore--that is why we called it the RESTORE Act--restore their environments, restore their fisheries, restore the damage that was done by that horrific BP spill. We don't know how much money will come from those fines. We will watch it very carefully. But we know that when they do come--if this bill passes, and I am very hopeful it will--our Gulf States will have the help they need. I want to say to the people, particularly in Louisiana, whom I visited many times, your Senators work very hard. I would say Mary Landrieu took the lead on this. Senator Vitter was on the conference. I want to say that Mary Landrieu--you know her well--is unrelenting, and she was very clear with us. I want to say to my friend in the chair, from Alaska, how helpful he was to us, pointing out some of the great unmet needs he is dealing with in his State, a beautiful State, a very interesting State that has unique needs. I want him to know how much I appreciated his working with us, giving us the facts as we needed them. I also thank Senator Murkowski, but I particularly want to say to Senator Begich, thank you. You happen to be in the chair, and I believe you were mentally effective for your State. Really, you made the case for fairness. I hope you are comfortable with how this bill turned out. I have never met a team of more dedicated staff--never. Again, they are not resting because we are not done. Until we are done, they are not resting. But we are talking seriously about this staff getting 3 or 4 hours of sleep over the last 2 or 3 days. The issues were still coming at us in ways we could not believe at noon today. Last night we had to work out some issues. It has been, in many ways, a very difficult negotiation but certainly, if and when this bill comes before us and it is passed, a very satisfying one. I have to mention Bettina Poirier, who is my chief of staff and chief counsel. I have never seen anyone more professional, more energetic, more persuasive. I have to thank her counterparts: David, Grant, Andrew, Jason, Tyler, Mary, Kate, and Paul, all of whom were just amazing. If I left anyone out, forgive me; I will correct it in the Record if I did. I have to say to the staff of Senator Inhofe that you were amazing-- part of the team. You worked together. If we had disagreements, we talked them out, but for the most part we were on the same page. So Ruth and James, you know who you are. You also have had a very rough few days, working very hard on this. Congressman Mica's staff also worked very hard, and they are very tough negotiators, but we were able to talk out our differences. It was not always pleasant to deal with it because people see things in different ways, but we got it done. We are not out of the woods yet in the sense that we do not have the bill before us. We are awaiting a decision made by the leaders as to when we will have this vote. But I would like to say that I believe, as I stand tonight, that really the work of the conference is completed, and that is very rewarding. The last thing I want to say is a huge thank you to the outside groups that have stood by my side this entire time. I tell you, I have had conference calls with them for months and months, sometimes four times a week, sometimes three times a week, sometimes six times a week, seriously, sometimes on Saturday, Fridays, Mondays--whenever we needed to touch base. This is an amazing coalition of people--workers from organized labor, people from the construction trades. The chamber of commerce and AFL/CIO worked together. That is a rarity, you know, in today's very difficult atmosphere where everyone is arguing over everything--the granite people, the cement people. I want to say something to a gentleman--I will not identify his name--who brought a couple of cement trucks. We had a rally. I think Senator Begich was there. After the rally, we were saying: Pass the bill, get the bill done. I talked to this gentleman. He identified himself as a conservative Republican who is so much for this bill. One of the most touching things that happened was that he introduced me to two of his drivers who came over to meet me. As I stood there with these two gentlemen and the owner of the business, I realized how much they were counting on us. What we do here matters. What we do here should matter. What we do here is literally life and death for the construction industry, for the business end and for the workers. We know--our President and all of us--we all know this economic recovery is too slow. One of the things that is weighing us down is the construction industry. One of the things that is weighing it down is the transportation sector. We know that if we do not do our job and we pass another extension here, that is a signal that the construction industry is going to suffer and suffer mightily. We cannot have that. We are on the brink of getting this done. I know I have left out a lot of people I want to thank. I do not have really a written speech here in front of me. I will go back and I will correct the record if I left anyone out. But we are close to getting this done. Whether it is in the next few hours or more than a few hours, I believe we will get it done. All the people who brought us to this day--I should mention Senator Reid, our majority leader, who never gave up even though I was--at one point, I am sure he was ducking me as I walked around because I would always say: Let's keep going, Mr. Leader. And he did. He kept on going. When we went over to meet with Speaker Boehner was a very important moment, with Chairman Mica. It was important. I think it helped us at that point to realize that everyone did want to have a bill. I have to say that the Democrats in the House--I am sure it has been very difficult for them because they had so many priorities as well. But they were very clear, day after day, pushing hard for a bill, until finally everybody came together and passed some messages to the conferees that said: Get the job done. And everybody came together on that one--get the job done. For me personally, this has been a very important day. This is a day when I think we are very close to getting a transportation bill done. It is also a day that President Obama will forever remember, where the centerpiece of his work was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. We all know we cannot go back to the days when people with preexisting conditions suffered and could not get insurance. We just cannot go back to the days when being a woman was considered a preexisting condition. It was impossible for her to get insurance. We cannot go back to the days when kids were thrown off their parents' health insurance at 18. We can't go back to the days that seniors were going broke, having to choose between a drug that was lifesaving or having dinner that night. In my State, 6 million Californians are getting preventive services. They are getting mammograms, cancer screenings, and everything they need now because of this health care bill. There are 300,000-plus senior citizens who are getting help paying for their prescription drugs and 300,000 more students who are now on their parents' insurance. We are going to hear a lot of outrage about how this was bad for America. Let me just say that I thought today was a critical day for America. No piece of legislation is perfect. We will have to fix this, that, or the other in everything we do whether it is in a transportation bill or health care bill, but I think we need to move forward. We need to not go backward. We need to make sure that health care in America doesn't become such an expensive burden for all of our people because it just drags down our families and it doesn't enable them to do for their kids and for their moms and dads. So I think today was quite a day for the history books, and I look forward to working across the aisle in everything we do here, whether it is transportation or health care or anything else, to make life better for people, not to make it worse. I think if we all do that and if we listen to each other, we can get things done. I thank the Chair. I notice there is no one on the floor at this time, so I would note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Prostate Cancer Detection Research and Education Act. This important legislation addresses the urgent need for the development of new technologies to detect and diagnose prostate cancer, and for the education of our fathers, brothers, and sons about the dangers of this deadly disease. Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men, and is the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in men, with 240,000 new cases and 28,000 prostate cancer related deaths predicted in 2012. Unfortunately, current screening techniques for prostate cancer result in some false-negative reassurances and false-positive alarms. In addition, the prostate is one of the last organs in a human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer even when multiple samples are taken. Prostate Cancer Detection Research and Education Act brings together a Advisory Council of experts to evaluate the current science and outline a path forward to the ultimate goal--developing a reliable test or tests that can detect prostate cancer and diagnose how severe the cancer is. The Prostate Cancer Detection Research and Education Act will mirror the investment the Federal government made in advanced imaging technologies, which led to life-saving breakthroughs in detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to use the plan developed by the Advisory Council to coordinate and intensify federal research to develop and validate an accurate test for prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Detection Research and Education Act would also create a national campaign conducted through HHS to increase awareness about the need for prostate cancer screening, and the development of better screening techniques. Since African American men are 56 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer compared with Caucasian men and nearly 2.5 times as likely to die from the disease, this campaign will work with the Offices of Minority Health at HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure that this effort will reach the men most at risk from this disease. Government investment in coordinating research and education could be key to diagnosing prostate cancer earlier and more accurately. We need to strengthen our efforts to bring the tools doctors use to fight this disease into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort, and cosponsoring this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Prostate Cancer Detection Research and Education Act. This important legislation addresses the urgent need for the development of new technologies to detect and diagnose prostate cancer, and for the education of our fathers, brothers, and sons about the dangers of this deadly disease. Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men, and is the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in men, with 240,000 new cases and 28,000 prostate cancer related deaths predicted in 2012. Unfortunately, current screening techniques for prostate cancer result in some false-negative reassurances and false-positive alarms. In addition, the prostate is one of the last organs in a human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer even when multiple samples are taken. Prostate Cancer Detection Research and Education Act brings together a Advisory Council of experts to evaluate the current science and outline a path forward to the ultimate goal--developing a reliable test or tests that can detect prostate cancer and diagnose how severe the cancer is. The Prostate Cancer Detection Research and Education Act will mirror the investment the Federal government made in advanced imaging technologies, which led to life-saving breakthroughs in detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to use the plan developed by the Advisory Council to coordinate and intensify federal research to develop and validate an accurate test for prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Detection Research and Education Act would also create a national campaign conducted through HHS to increase awareness about the need for prostate cancer screening, and the development of better screening techniques. Since African American men are 56 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer compared with Caucasian men and nearly 2.5 times as likely to die from the disease, this campaign will work with the Offices of Minority Health at HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure that this effort will reach the men most at risk from this disease. Government investment in coordinating research and education could be key to diagnosing prostate cancer earlier and more accurately. We need to strengthen our efforts to bring the tools doctors use to fight this disease into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort, and cosponsoring this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2456.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Johanns has an amendment which would stop the EPA from ever using any kind of airplanes--including manned small planes, which is all they do use--to check on serious pollution spills. I wish to say this is about life and death. I hope the Senate will support the Boxer amendment and vote no on the Johanns amendment because the Boxer amendment says the EPA can only use these overflights if it has to do it to protect the health and safety and if it has been approved by the State. This pollution could cause serious illness, and they want to make sure they can track the plume. We have heard of cryptosporidium, E. coli, and giardia. That is what we are talking about--terrible bacteria that sometimes comes from animals. In 1993, at least 50 people died from the bacteria cryptosporidium in Milwaukee, and it came from animal waste. The EPA has never used a drone, and they don't plan to, but don't stop them from using small aerial oversight.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I be recognzied?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this amendment is very serious. It is about life and death. It is true that on occasion EPA will use small manned aircraft to inspect a bacteria spill. Let me recall for you: Wisconsin, 1993, at least 50 people lost their lives from the bacteria cryptosporidium from animal waste. When you are following a plume, the way to do it is from the air. It is much more expensive in many cases to do ground inspection. EPA estimates that on- the-ground inspection may cost $10,000, but it could cost $2,500 to survey the same area by air. This is life and death. We are talking about E. coli. We are talking about giardia and cryptosporidium. We are talking about the health and safety of the American people that is compromised from these kinds of animal waste.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today our families receive in the mail just once a year a report about the safety of the water their kids drink every single day. The Toomey amendment repeals that important right to know. There are 70 regulated dangerous contaminants in our water. For example: arsenic, benzene, vinyl chloride, asbestos, cadmium, mercury, radium, and uranium. Some of these dangerous toxins are deemed unsafe at any level. Yet under Toomey you would no longer receive that information. Senator Toomey says go to the Web site. One thousand water districts have no Web site. And right now, under the current right-to-know law, the Governor can say he waives this requirement for the small rural districts. Please vote no. Our people have a right to know what their kids are drinking.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mrs. BOXER. I would take 6 minutes and retain the balance.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, we are faced with a resolution today to essentially repeal something that has been 20 years in the making and is about to go into effect. It would stop the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, from implementing the first-ever national mercury and air toxics standards for powerplants. A little bit later I will talk about what mercury does to people. Let me assure you, it is not good. I will also talk about the other toxics that are emitted from these dirty plants. They are not good either. When I mention them, just the names will scare us because they are names such as arsenic and formaldehyde--not good. They are going into our lungs. The mercury is getting into fish. People are getting sick. That is why this is such a dangerous moment if we were to pass this and stop the EPA from doing this. We know that for every $3 we invest--every $1 to $3--we are going to get back $9 in health benefits. If we do the math and we follow the math, it is clear this is cost-effective and critically important. Ask a parent who has a child who is rushed to the emergency room with asthma whether they want this done. Ask a coal-fired utility that has made these improvements already--half of them have--and they will tell us there has been hardly any impact on electricity prices, and they are happy with them. If this resolution were to pass and the policy behind it were to pass, it means that instead of rewarding those coal-fired utilities that are doing the right thing, we are rewarding those that haven't done the right thing and continue to spew forth these toxins. What is at stake? I ask rhetorically of people who may be listening to this: Whom do we trust more, Senators and politicians or physicians and nurses? I think we should trust these numbers from the professionals who have looked at this issue. If this resolution were to pass and EPA is blocked from implementing this new clean air standard, we will see up to 11,000 additional premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 cases of childhood asthma, 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis among children, 5,700 emergency room visits, and 540,000 days of missed work. Again, the rule provides $3 to $9 in benefits for every $1 that is invested. We are going to hear other arguments from the opponents of the Environmental Protection Agency, but the people of America are smart. They were asked just 2 months ago if they want us to interfere with the Environmental Protection Agency as they clean up the air, clean up the mercury, clean up the toxic soot, and 78 percent said: Stay out of it, politicians, and let the Environmental Protection Agency do its job. We should thank the coal companies that have already cleaned up their act and not reward those that have delayed cleaning up their act. Again, we will hear all kinds of horror stories. Ask the utilities that have made these improvements. We have a list of them somewhere. We will also hear there will be lost jobs from this rule. We know there will be 46,000 short-term construction jobs as these plants become clean and 8,000 long-term jobs. Now look at the utilities that oppose the Inhofe CRA. They include Austin Energy, Avista Corporation, Calpine Corporation, Constellation Energy, Exelon, National Grid, NextEra Energy, NYPA, Public Service Enterprise Group, and Seattle City Light. Some of these have coal-fired powerplants. They say: What are we doing? Let's keep moving toward clean energy. I asked if we trust politicians or do we trust those who, I believe, are unquestionably character witnesses in this debate. Let's look at some of them that oppose what Senator Inhofe is trying to do today. The Catholic Health Association of the United States, Evangelical Environmental Network, Franciscan Action Network, General Baptist Convention, General Conference of American Rabbis, National Council of Churches, United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, United Methodist Church, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. They oppose what my friends on the other side are leading us to today, a repeal of clean air rules. Whom do we trust, the politicians or some of these groups that strongly oppose this resolution--the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Respiratory Care, the American Heart Association, the Lung Association, the Nurses Association, the Public Health Association, the March of Dimes, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Trust for America's Health.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before Senator Rockefeller leaves, I wish to take 30 seconds to say something. I believe that when the next historians write the book about leadership, courage, and integrity in the Senate, this speech will be featured in that book. I am so proud of the Senator from West Virginia. How much time remains between the two sides?

Mrs. BOXER. The Chair just said there is 39 minutes for the Republicans and 36 for us.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield myself 1 minute, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following--an editorial written by the very type of companies my friend Senator Barrasso mentioned who have said they are just fine with the EPA's new air quality regulations. Do you know why? Half of the coal-fired utilities have already made these adjustments. They are clean. And if it is up to Senator Barrasso, the other dirty plants will keep on spewing forth the most toxic and dangerous pollutants. The other is a new poll taken in March of this year which shows that 78 percent of likely voters have asked us to get out of the way and let the EPA do its job in controlling industrial and power-sector mercury and toxic air pollution.

Mrs. BOXER. I won't yield because Senator Cardin is waiting. I yield to Senator Cardin 6 minutes, and then I will yield to the Senator on his time.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I think when the Senator talks about balance, he ought to recognize that one-half of the coal-fired utilities have already made these adjustments, they have reported to us, with very little impact to electricity rates. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Sanders.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Senator Carper.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes, and then I will yield and retain the balance. Here is the chart I wished to show on utility prices. We have heard doom and gloom. Here are the facts. There was hardly any fluctuation in utility rates when half the coal-fired plants made these improvements. Do not fall for scare tactics because we know upgrading a utility is something that has to be done. It is built into the long-term plans of these utilities. What poisonous emissions does this clean air rule address? I talked about it before. In the balance of my time I will go through it again, but I am going to just name these toxins: mercury and lead, arsenic, selenium, cadmium, chromium, benzene, formaldehyde, acid gases, and toxic soot. All we need do is listen to what I said and we know we don't want to breathe them in and we don't want to have fish that contain too much mercury because it damages the nervous system in children and harms the brains of infants. We know how dangerous it is for pregnant women and children to eat this type of fish. Last night, we had Senator Whitehouse here from Rhode Island, and he was eloquent on the point. He had a picture, which was actually a Norman Rockwell painting--it wasn't a real painting, it was a wonderful poster. He said: Here is a perfect American scene of a grandpa taking a grandson fishing. He said that today, in his State, they can't eat the fish. Maybe they can once a month eat one fish, and in some of their lakes, they can't even eat any. This is wrong. This is pollution blowing from other places into the Northeast. Let's defeat this resolution. It is bad for the people of this country. I yield the floor and retain the balance of my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Am I correct that there is 4 minutes remaining on my side?

Mrs. BOXER. I yield 1 of those minutes to Senator Pryor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma said I asked: Whom do we trust more, politicians or bureaucrats? No; that is not what I said. I said: Whom do we trust more, politicians or groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Respiratory Care, the American Heart Association, the Lung Association, the nurses, the March of Dimes, et cetera. I believe that when it comes to the trust of the public, these groups have one concern and that concern is the health of our people. That is why we have to defeat this resolution and allow the Environmental Protection Agency, after 20 years, to finally promulgate a rule that will go after the worst toxins that are coming out of coal-fired plants. I will go through a few of these. Mercury is a heavy metal that can damage the nervous system in children and harm the brain of infants, causing slower mental development and lower intelligence. Why do we want to take a stand against the children and their brain development? Mercury can accumulate in the food chain. We know this. What happens is people--especially pregnant women and children--can't eat fish because of the high content of mercury. Then there is lead. These are the things we are talking about getting out of the air. Lead can damage the nervous system of children and harm the brains of infants, causing slower mental development and lower intelligence. There is no known safe level of lead in the blood of children. This is indisputable fact. It can harm the kidneys and cause high blood pressure, damage reproduction, cause muscle and joint pain, nerve disorders. Why would anyone--why would anyone stand on this floor and say it is OK to allow these toxins to be polluting our environment? Arsenic is a heavy metal that causes cancer, damages the nervous system, kidneys, and liver. Powerplants account for 62 percent of all the arsenic pollution we are fighting against. Why would anyone who cares about the people they represent vote for this resolution and stop the EPA from cleaning up our air? Vote no. There is no reason to risk the health of the American people by voting for the utility CRA resolution. If the resolution passes and if that resolution were to become the policy of this country, thousands--hundreds of thousands of Americans every year would be harmed. This is not rhetoric, this is fact. Scientists have told us this. The health groups have told us this. I urge a strong ``no'' vote. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate this evening on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 37 be in order, even though the motion to proceed will not be made until Wednesday's session.