Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I want to make a little clarification. Senator Udall has asked for 10 minutes. If we could use our time, allowing this Senator 10 minutes, and then after Senator Vitter's time, we would go to Senator Udall for 10 minutes and then back to the other side. Then Senator Markey wanted 5 minutes and Senator Whitehouse wanted 5 minutes as well--if it would go in that order as stated, with 10 for myself, 10 for Senator Udall, 5 for Senator Markey, and 5 for Senator Whitehouse.

Mrs. BOXER. There would be 5 minutes left, if that is all right.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to start off by thanking my dear friend, Senator Inhofe. We have had a wonderful relationship when it comes to the infrastructure issues. We have not worked terribly well together on environmental issues, but because of both of our staffs and the Members of our committee on both sides of the aisle, we were able to tough it out and come up with a bill that I absolutely believe is better than current law. I will be entering into the Record additional views by four leading Democratic negotiators--myself, Senator Udall, Senator Merkley, and Senator Markey. I rise in support of H.R. 2576, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. I spoke at length about this before, so I won't go on for a long time. But I do want to reiterate that the journey to this moment has been the most complicated journey I have ever had to take on any piece of legislation, and I have been around here for a long time. It was a critical journey. When naming a bill after Senator Lautenberg, who fought for the environment all his life, the bill must be worthy of his name, and, finally, this bill is. It didn't start out that way. I used every prerogative I had, every tool in my arsenal to bring it down until it got better, and it is better. It is better than current law. Asbestos, for example, is one of the most harmful chemicals known to humankind, and it takes 15,000 lives a year. It is linked to a deadly form of lung cancer called mesothelioma. People can breathe in these fibers deep into their lungs where they cause serious damage. We have addressed asbestos in this bill. We didn't ban it on this bill, which I support--and I have stand-alone legislation to do that--but we have made asbestos a priority in this bill. Flame retardants are another category of dangerous chemicals. They have been linked to a wide array of serious health problems, including cancer, reduced IQ, developmental delays, obesity, and reproductive difficulties. These harmful chemicals have been added to dozens of everyday items such as furniture and baby products. So when we are talking about TSCA reforming the toxic laws, we are not just talking about a conversation, we are not just talking about a theory, we are not talking about something you would address in a classroom. We are talking about our families. Now, the negotiations have been challenging. Many organizations in many States stood strong despite the pressure to step back, and I am so grateful to them for their persistence. I especially want to thank the 450 organizations that were part of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition that worked with me, as well as the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization for their efforts. Without them, I would not have had the ability to negotiate important improvements. Let me highlight briefly a few of the most important changes in the final bill. I can't go one more minute without thanking the two people who are sitting right behind me, Bettina Poirier, who is my chief of staff on the committee and chief counsel, and Jason Albritton, who is my senior adviser. They worked tirelessly--through the night sometimes--with Senator Inhofe's staff. Without their work, we never would have gotten to this point, and we never would have gotten to a bill worthy of Frank's name, and it means a great deal to me. The first major area of improvement is the preemption of State restrictions on toxic chemicals. In the final bill, we were able to make important exceptions to the preemption provisions. First, the States are free to take whatever action they want on any chemical until EPA has taken a series of steps to study a particular chemical. Second, when EPA announces the chemicals they are studying, the States still have up to a year and a half to take action on these particular chemicals to avoid preemption until the EPA takes final action. Third, even after EPA announces its regulation, the States have the ability to get a waiver so they can still regulate the chemical, and we have made improvements to that waiver to make it easier for States to act. For chemicals that industry has asked EPA to study, we made sure that States are not preempted until EPA issues a final restriction on the chemical, and for that I really want to thank our friends in the House. They put a lot of effort into that. The first 10 chemicals EPA evaluates under the bill are also exempted from preemption until the final rule is issued. Also, State or local restrictions on a chemical that were in place before April 22, 2016, will not be preempted. So I want to say, as someone who comes from the great State of California--home to almost 40 million people and which has a good strong program--we protected you. Would I rather have written this provision myself? Of course, and if I had written it myself I would have set a floor in terms of this standard and allowed the States to take whatever action they wanted to make it tougher. But this was not to be. This was not to be. So because I couldn't get that done, what we were able to get done were those four or five improvements that I cited. The States that may be watching this debate can really gear up and move forward right now. There is time. You can continue the work on regulations you passed before April. You can also have a year and a half once EPA announces the chemical, and if they don't announce anything, you can go back to doing what you did before. An EPA that is not funded right, I say to my dearest friend on the floor today, is not going to do anything. So the States will have the ability to do it. I would hope we would fund the EPA so we have a strong Federal program and strong State programs as well. But we will have to make sure that the EPA doesn't continually get cut. The second area of improvement concerns asbestos. I think I have talked about that before. It is covered in this bill. The third area of improvement concerns cancer clusters. This one is so dear to my heart and to the heart of my Republican colleague, Senator Crapo. We wrote a bill together called the Community Disease Cluster Assistance Act, or ``Trevor's Law.'' Trevor's Law provides localities that ask for it a coordinated response to cancer clusters in their communities. What Trevor taught us from his experience with a horrible cancer is that sometimes these outbreaks occur and no one knows why. Yet it is considered a local issue. Now, if the local community requests it--if they request it--they will get help. Fourth, we have something called persistent chemicals. Those are chemicals that build up in your body. You just don't get rid of them. They are a priority in this legislation. Fifth, another one that is dear to my heart and dear to the heart of Senator Manchin and Senator Capito is this provision that ensures that toxic chemicals stored neared drinking water are prioritized. This provision was prompted by the serious spill that contaminated the drinking water supplies in West Virginia in 2014, causing havoc and disruption. They didn't know what the chemical was. It got into the water. They didn't know what to do. As we all remember, it was a nightmare for the people there--no more. Now we are going to make sure that the EPA knows what is stored near drinking water supplies. The sixth is very important and is something that got negotiated in the dead of night. I want to thank Senator Inhofe's staff for working with my staff on this. The bill enables EPA to order independent testing if there are safety concerns about a chemical, and these tests will be paid for by the chemical manufacturer. I also want to thank Members of the House who really brought this to us. Finally, even the standard for evaluating whether a chemical is dangerous is far better than in the old TSCA. The bill requires EPA to evaluate chemicals based on risks, not costs, and considers the impact on vulnerable populations. This is really critical. The old law was useless. So all of these fixes make this bill better than current Federal law. Looking forward, I want to make a point. This new TSCA law will only be as good as the EPA is good. With a good EPA, we can deliver a much safer environment for the American people--safer products, less exposure to harmful toxics, and better health for our people. With a bad EPA that does not value these goals, not much will get done. But, again, if a bad EPA takes no action, States will be free to act. Mr. President, I ask for 30 additional seconds, and I will wrap this up.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds. I am just going to end with 30 seconds, and I will add 30 seconds to your side.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to the States: You are free to act with a bad EPA. Compared to where we started, we have a much better balance between the States and the Federal Government. It is not perfect. The bills I worked on with Frank did not do this. They did not preempt the States. But because of this challenging journey, we respected each other on both sides, we listened to each other on both sides, and today is a day we can feel good about. We have a decent bill, a Federal program, and the States will have a lot of latitude to act. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are working behind the scenes to allow a vote on H.R. 2576, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. My understanding of the status of this vote is that we are fine on the Democratic side, but there is an objection to moving to it on the Republican side. I am hopeful this can be resolved because this bill has been the most complicated, difficult, and emotional journey that I have ever had in the Senate. The fact that we have reached agreement--the vast, vast majority of us--showed in the House vote, where I think there were only about 1 dozen ``no'' votes. I think it is ripe for a vote. When you talk about regulating chemicals--toxic chemicals--it is not just an academic discussion. It has real-life consequences. When you name a bill after Senator Frank Lautenberg, who fought for the environment all of his life, it better be a bill worthy of his name. The cost of toxic chemicals to society is enormous. It is not only in terms of dollars but in terms of pain and suffering. They have extracted a very, very high cost on our people. Let me give you a few examples, because sometimes we talk in technicalities. I want to talk in realities. Asbestos is one of the most harmful chemicals known to humankind. It takes 15,000 lives a year. It is linked to a deadly form of lung cancer called mesothelioma. That is when microscopic asbestos fibers, which are invisible and stay suspended in the air, get deep into the lungs of so many people, including children. They breathe these fibers deep into the lungs, where those fibers cause serious damage. Another example brought to me by my brave firefighters in San Francisco is flame retardants. That is another category of dangerous chemicals that has been linked to a wide array of serious health problems, including cancer, reduced IQ, developmental delays, obesity, and reproductive difficulties. These harmful chemicals have been added to dozens of everyday items such as furniture and baby products. Now, we know there are flame retardants that are way safer. We know we can do better than we have done so far. Again, I want to say that the San Francisco firefighters who gave testimony in my EPW Committee when I was chairman about the cancer rates they are experiencing believe it is directly related to flame retardants. So, again, reforming TSCA, which is the Toxic Substances Control Act, is not about a theory. It is about our families. It is about being a part of a cancer epidemic that we have to get under control. Now, we know that the TSCA bill, as it was written so many years ago--in the 1970s--was very weak. It was impossible for the EPA really to regulate any chemical because the standard was so weak. They could not prove that it needed to be regulated. Therefore, that bill has needed to be reformed for so many years. When the Federal Government, in essence, had no program or very little program, the States stepped in to fill the void. My State, thankfully, was one of the States that stepped in to fill the void. Several States did so. About a dozen States, roughly, had strong programs to regulate these chemicals. So I knew that these States were doing a good job. I knew if we were to pass a Federal bill, we had to allow the States to continue their good work. But when the Lautenberg-Vitter TSCA bill was first introduced, shortly before Frank Lautenberg passed away in 2013, something was terribly wrong. There was total preemption of State action. The standard for the Federal bill was so weak that we would just have nothing going on. We would have a bill in name only, a law in name only. Nothing would be able to be regulated. Now, I had worked previously with Frank Lautenberg on four TSCA bills dating back to 2005. Every one of those bills before that 2013 Lautenberg-Vitter bill was strong and took the side of the American people, not the chemical companies. It never preempted the States. What it basically said is that we will set a floor, as we do in most environmental laws. If the States want to do more to protect their people--whether your State is California, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Massachusetts, or New York; it does not matter--the States would be free to do more if they felt a particular chemical was harming their population. I always thought that States' rights were big around here. Well, when you read that bill, in 2013, I will tell you, it looked like it was written by the chemical companies. I could never support it. That bill was a travesty. It was a disaster. I fought it every step of the way. Again, there was sweeping preemption of my State's ability and every State's ability to protect citizens from harmful chemicals. Again, it was a very weak standard for evaluating chemicals. The way it worked was really incredible. If a chemical was just being looked at by the EPA, States were out of the picture--out of the picture. So, S. 1009, in my opinion and in the opinion of many experts who helped me throughout all this--the nurses and doctors who cared, all kinds of wonderful environmental groups, and the Breast Cancer Fund; and I will list those later--they helped me. I realized again that that bill--that original bill--would have had no controls whatsoever and given the chemical companies the green light to do whatever they wanted regardless of its impact on the health of our people. Again, the States were left completely out of the picture the minute the EPA announced they were looking at a chemical. That situation, I could never have allowed to continue. I stopped the bill from moving forward while I negotiated to get rid of its flaws. Now, this is the first time I have ever stood here and said I stopped a bill. I am known as a legislator. I want to find the sweet spot. But we didn't find the sweet spot until just recently, I am happy to say. But it was a very lonely battle at times--just a couple of people working with me here. One person even said I was the most unpopular person because I was not getting out of the way. But that is not why I am here. I can't get out of the way of a bad bill. Now, when the Republicans took the gavel of EPW, the Environment and Public Works Committee, a new bill, S. 697, was introduced by Senators Udall and Vitter. I looked at that bill. I swear, I said it looked like it was written by the chemical companies. Again, I was heartbroken. Sure enough, a story broke in the Hearst newspapers entitled: ``Questions raised on authorship of chemicals bill.'' I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. According to this story: [T]he draft bill, obtained by Hearst Newspapers, is in the form of a Microsoft Word document. Rudimentary digital forensics . . . shows the ``company'' of origin to be the American Chemistry Council. Imagine: The bill that was being circulated came right out of the computer of the American Chemistry Council. How could anyone believe it was a fair and just bill that protected the public? That document was not simply a set of comments by the chemical industry. It was circulated as the most current draft of the bill at the time. Everyone will see the story, and I commend the reporter for doing this deep investigation. But I never gave up on the bill. I continued to negotiate with my colleagues. I commend Senators Whitehouse, Merkley, and Booker. They went forward and negotiated some significant fixes to that disastrous bill as it moved through the EPW Committee. Their improvements were very important but still many serious flaws remained. My State of California and other States that had programs to regulate chemicals and all these public interests--probably 450 public organizations that protect the health of our children, of our families, of our elderly, of our disabled--were all strongly against it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of letters from States and many organizations demonstrating the opposition to and concern with the bill. You can see what the opposition was, and still colleagues said: No, no, no, Senator Boxer, you are unreasonable. Well, really, was I unreasonable when we had letters against the bill and letters expressing concern from the Massachusetts attorney general; letters from the attorneys general of New York, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington; a letter from the Office of the Attorney General of California; the California Environmental Protection Agency; the Washington State Department of Ecology; the Vermont attorney general; a letter from Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families; the American Association for Justice; the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization; a letter from the Breast Cancer Fund; the American Sustainable Business Council Action Fund; the Environmental Working Group, which opposed it; 25 law professors; health care organizations; the Union of Concerned Scientists; the Environmental Health Strategy Center; Safer States; Earthjustice; Seventh Generation; a reproductive health letter; and a letter from the Center for Environmental Health? They are all in here.

Mrs. BOXER. The history of this bill must be made permanent in the record. It started out as a disaster, and it got to a point where it is better than current law. That makes me very happy. The negotiations on the bill continued. Again, several Members helped us, and we still had problems with the bill. We tripled our efforts to improve it. I want to say that the 450 organizations that were part of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition worked with me. They were the wind at my back. My staff, the EPW staff director and chief counsel, Bettina Poirier, and my senior policy adviser, Jason Albritton, were incredible. I also thank the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. As I said before, asbestos is one of the most dangerous chemicals in existence today. It is the poster child for the failure of the old TSCA law that we are reforming. These organizations and States stood strong despite enormous pressure. They took a lot of heat. I am so grateful to them for their persistence because--let's be clear--without their persistence, without just a few lawmakers who had the courage to stand up to the special interests, we never ever would have been able to negotiate improvements to this bill--so many improvements to this bill. I want to be clear that a lot of these organizations still think the bill is too weak and still would like to see it stronger, and so would I. If I could write this bill myself, I would use the usual formula we have for environmental laws. We set a standard. We set a floor. People have to abide by it. But if the States feel they can do more, they should be able to. In this bill, although the States now have a tremendous amount of leeway, they don't have 100-percent leeway. That is why there is still opposition--not so much in the Senate but with some of the organizations. But I have to say to them that this is a bill that I believe is better than current law. There was a 24/7 commitment from my staff. They worked Friday nights, Saturdays, Sundays--constantly. They constantly worked well with Senator Inhofe's staff to get the best bill we could. My staff, as do all of us, have strong family obligations and responsibilities. So I just wish to take a minute to thank their families for sharing them with us, because they missed family time. They did it for the good of all of the children in the country, because when we control these toxic chemicals and we protect our children, it is going to help everybody. I am for this bill because we made amazing improvements to it, and I am going to highlight these improvements. No. 1, the first major area of improvement is in the preemption of States. I said before that if I had written the bill, I would have no preemption. I would set the floor and let the States make it even better. We were unable to get that. But here is what the facts are. The States are free to take whatever action they want on any chemical, and there are many--thousands, tens of thousands. The States are free to take whatever action they want on any chemical until the EPA has taken a series of steps to consider a particular chemical. That is the first thing. They are free on any chemical they want until the Federal Government announces that they are studying certain chemicals. No. 2, when EPA announces the chemicals they are studying, the States are still not shut out. They have up to a year and a half to take action on these particular chemicals to avoid preemption until EPA takes final action. So if there is no chemical being studied, they can study any chemical in the States, and they can control any chemical. When EPA announces steps, they still have a year and a half to ban that chemical until we see the results of the Federal Government. No. 3, even after EPA announces its regulation, the States can still have a waiver so they can still regulate the chemical. They will have to make the case. For example, if the EPA decides to do very little regulation of a chemical that is very present in one of our States because of perhaps the oil industry or fracking or something and if the State has a reason to do more, it can go get a waiver. We made that waiver a lot easier for States than when it originally came to us. The first 10 chemicals that EPA evaluates under the bill are also exempted from preemption until the final rule is issued. This is very important because the EPA is already studying about 10 chemicals. State or local restrictions on a chemical that were in place before April 22, 2016, will not be preempted. So if any one of your States took action on a chemical before April 22, 2016, they will not be preempted. The second area of improvement concerns asbestos. I fought hard to ensure that dangerous substances like asbestos are prioritized to get the attention they deserve from regulators. I talked about asbestos as one of the most harmful substances known to humankind. I believe it should have been banned a long time ago. I support an immediate ban and will introduce a standalone bill to do just that. But the prioritization in this bill is a start. The third area of improvement includes cancer clusters. We added a provision--which was based on my bill with Senator Crapo, the Community Disease Cluster Assistance Act, or Trevor's Law--that provides localities that ask for it a coordinated response to cancer clusters in their communities. I wish to say to Trevor, who may be listening: Thank you, Trevor. He came forward and he told his story. Fourth, persistent chemicals that build up in the body are a priority in this legislation. Fifth, the bill ensures that toxic chemicals that are stored near drinking water are prioritized. Remember that in 2014 West Virginia lost their drinking water supply because there were chemicals stored right near that drinking water supply, causing havoc and disruption. I thank the two Senators from West Virginia for supporting me on that. Sixth, the bill enables EPA to order independent testing if there are safety concerns about a chemical, and those tests will be paid for by the chemical manufacturer. The EPA, if they have concerns, regardless of their program, can go into a chemical company and say: We see that you have been using this chemical more, and we are worried about it. We order you to provide for us a very unbiased, independent analysis of whether it is safe. I thank Members in the House for working hard with us on this important improvement, and that is Members on both sides of the aisle. Finally, even the standard for evaluating whether a chemical is dangerous is better. The bill requires EPA to evaluate chemicals based on risk--not cost, risk--and considers the impact on vulnerable populations. This is very critical because the old law was useless. It was thrown out in court. All of these fixes make the bill better than current law. Looking forward, I think it is important to note that the new TSCA law--which I am so hopeful will pass today, if we can--will only be as good as the EPA is good. With a good EPA we can deliver a much safer environment for the American people, safer products, less exposure to harmful toxics, and better health for our people. With a bad EPA that does not value these goals, not much will get done. But if there is no action--I want to underscore this--States will be free to act and that is a very important point. My message to the States is this: Do not dismantle what you have going. Rev it up because you still have the ability to be leaders on protecting your citizens from toxic chemicals. Compared to where we started, the improvements in this bill provide a much better balance between the States and the Federal Government. But let me be clear again, in case I wasn't clear enough. If I had written this bill on my own, I would have modeled it after other environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, where the Federal Government sets a floor and the States are free to set a higher bar. The bills that I worked on with Frank Lautenberg did not put an unprecedented ceiling on how much we could protect the people. Having said all of that, there are so many chemicals out there that are not being looked at or studied. I believe a good EPA, working with the States, can make a major improvement if this bill is carried out with a sense of purpose and commitment. The journey to this moment has been the most difficult journey I have ever had to take on any piece of legislation. I see the majority leader on the floor. He and I worked hard on the transportation bill, and that was a long and winding road. This one was much more difficult. But I can honestly say to you today that there were so many committed people in the Senate and House--Members of both parties. I really do have to give a shout out to Leader Pelosi, the Democratic leader, to Steny Hoyer, to Frank Pallone, and to all of those on the House side who worked so hard, and to their counterparts in the Republican Party. In the Senate, there is Senator Inhofe, and there are Senators from my committee from both sides of the aisle without which we would not be here. To the staffs, to the public interest organizations, and to the States, we have scored a significant step forward for the American people. I hope this bill will come before us today. If it does, I will vote yes. If it comes to us after recess, I will vote yes. But I really wanted to make this statement because I think the history of this bill is clear to me. I think that history is being rewritten by some about this bill. And I wanted to make sure I put into the Record all the problems we had at the beginning and all the improvements we obtained at the end. I thank the Chair for his patience, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I wish to speak in opposition to Senator Cornyn's amendment. This amendment eliminates protections under the Clean Water Act related to spraying pesticides into the Nation's rivers, streams, and lakes to control mosquitoes. Pesticide pollution is a significant problem and a major contributor to poor water quality in our Nation's water bodies. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, more than 1,800 waterways in the U.S. are known to be polluted by pesticides, and many more may be polluted but are not monitored. We know that pesticides harm fish and wildlife and are linked to a wide range of damaging human health impacts, including cancer and harm to pregnant women, infants, and children. Exempting pesticide spraying from the Clean Water Act is completely unnecessary to control the spread of mosquitoes to address the Zika virus. In 2011, EPA issued a streamlined Clean Water Act general permit, which allows operators to get one permit for up to 5 years. The permit requires simple management techniques and reporting to protect water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, swimming, and recreational uses. Most mosquito control districts around the country already have authorization to spray pesticides to control mosquitoes under this existing pesticide permit. In addition, EPA's permit includes provisions to allow immediate spraying to address public health emergencies. If a local government is not currently authorized to spray under EPA's permit and a pest emergency is declared at the local, State, or Federal level, pesticides can be immediately sprayed to address the health concerns without approval by EPA or a State. In the case of Zika, States or local governments can declare a pest emergency under the general permit in areas where they believe Zika- carrying mosquitos may be a problem, and they can immediately begin spraying pesticides to control the spread of the virus. These requirements are a commonsense approach to ensure gallons of excess pesticides are not dumped into our waters, and they provide sufficient flexibility to address public health threats, such as Zika. The Cornyn amendment is not about improving the response to Zika. It is a backdoor attempt to gut the Clean Water Act, one of our Nation's bedrock environmental laws. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Cornyn amendment and help keep our waterways clean.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about a very important responsibility that the Senate has to deal with in an expeditious manner--a Supreme Court nomination. In a practice consistent with every single Supreme Court nominee before him, President Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy, Judge Merrick Garland, submitted his completed questionnaire yesterday to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Inside 6 boxes were 141 pages--with 2,066 pages of appendices--in which Judge Garland provided incredibly thorough answers to the standard questions asked of every Supreme Court candidate. He detailed the highlights of his career, his published writings, the many honors and awards he received, the cases he litigated, the judicial opinions he gave, as well as his speeches and his interviews. Despite the fact that Senate Republicans have forced Judge Garland into an unprecedented limbo, he remains focused on the task before him. He has acted with the greatest decency, thoughtfulness, and bipartisanship while agreeing to meet with 46 Senators, including 14 Republicans. Judge Garland respects the process. Why can't Senate Republicans? President Obama clearly respected the process when he picked Judge Garland, who--as Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the second most important court in the country-- has more Federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history. Let me repeat that. Judge Garland, the nominee from our President, who was duly elected not once but twice, has more Federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history. Judge Garland has committed much of his life to public service, from his days leading the successful prosecutions of the Oklahoma City bombers and the Unabomber, to his nearly two decades as a Federal appellate judge. He is brilliant and he is evenhanded. The Congressional Research Service called him ``pragmatic'' and ``meticulous,'' a nominee who prioritizes ``collaboration over ideological rigidity.'' Let me repeat that. He is a nominee who prioritizes ``collaboration over ideological rigidity.'' He has also received high praise from some Republican Senators, and that praise deserves repeating. Senator Lindsey Graham said: ``He's honest and capable, and his reputation is beyond reproach.'' Senator Jim Inhofe, the chairman of the committee on which I serve as ranking member said: ``I think a lot of him.'' Senator Rob Portman: ``He's an impressive guy.'' Senator Jeff Flake said: ``Nobody has a bad thing to say about him.'' Yet in the same breath, these are some of the very same Republicans who refuse to hold a hearing and schedule a vote on Judge Garland's nomination, even though article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution says that it is the Senate's job to provide ``advice and consent'' on the President's Supreme Court nominees. This is what gets me--that my Republican friends say they care about the Constitution. They love the Constitution. They abide by the Constitution. They want a literal reading of the Constitution. Well, let's read it together--article II, section 2, clause 2: The President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court.'' It doesn't say the President ``may nominate''; it says the President ``shall nominate.'' It doesn't say the Senate ``may give advice and consent''; it says they ``shall.'' The President shall, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. They also shall appoint Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and judges of the Supreme Court. So here it is. This clause wasn't put in some bottle and miraculously washed up on the shore and read--this is what our Founding Fathers wanted. It is in the Constitution. It doesn't say ``may.'' It doesn't say to the Senate: ``And by the way, p.s., if you don't like the President, forget it.'' No, no, no. It is not in there. I looked. It doesn't say: ``Well, if you think that a President isn't a good President and that you are going to get a better one, you can put it off.'' No, it doesn't say that. The American people have three words for the Republicans who are disrespecting this process, disrespecting our Constitution, disrespecting our President, and threatening to create a man-made crisis at the Supreme Court. And it is a crisis. If they deadlock, it is a crisis. We will have one set of laws in one part of the country and one set of laws in the other part of the country, or we are not going to have a ruling on a very important issue. It doesn't matter what your ideology is, you are setting up deadlocks. It is bad enough that there is obstruction here. I know my friend, the Senator from Illinois, will talk about the obstruction when it comes to judges and Ambassadors and the like because we face it every day. That is bad enough. But the highest Court in the land, governed by this Constitution--it doesn't say: ``Look at the other side of the paper. You really don't have to act.'' No. Across party lines, the American people are saying three words to my Republican friends: Do your job. Do your job. Since 1916, when the Senate Judiciary Committee began holding public confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees, the Senate has never denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote. Let me say that again. Since 1916, the Senate has never denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote. The Democrats never did it, and the Republicans never did it--until now. And this is from the very people who say: ``Oh, I carry the Constitution in my heart. I am a strict constructionist.'' If you are such a strict constructionist, read this and follow the Constitution. I am not sure about this. I think I read that somebody is either thinking about filing a lawsuit or they have filed a lawsuit because of inaction. I tell you, if I wasn't here, I would truly think about that. You can't read this Constitution and come up with any conclusion other than that what they are doing is unconstitutional--the very same people who say: ``Follow the Constitution.'' So in closing, which are the words my friend is waiting for, here is what I want to say. Our Republican friends have to rethink their obstructionist approach because they are going to do lasting damage to two of our country's most important institutions--the Senate and the Supreme Court. I know they love their country. I know they may not like this nominee, even though a lot of them seem to like him quite a bit. Maybe they are waiting for Donald Trump to put someone up. I hope that never happens. But I am going to tell you now that you are obstructing. You are obstructing the will of the people. You are obstructing a President who was elected twice. You are obstructing justice for the American people, and they all hate what you are doing, including the Republicans who have been polled. My Republican colleagues have to end these political games. It is time to give Judge Garland the same consideration as every other nominee before him. It is time to bring some respect back to the Senate and to the Supreme Court nomination process. The American people are going to hold my Republican colleagues accountable for this because you cannot do this. This is not right. If you want to vote against a nominee, fine. I have done it. Of course, vote against the nominee. But as much as I have opposed nominees before--and I have--I have never suggested, nor has any other Democrat I know of ever suggested, that you don't go forward with the process. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor, noting that my friend from Illinois is going to address us.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join Senator Feinstein and me in recognizing the centennial of the San Diego Zoo Global, a world-class facility dedicated to providing expert animal care and promoting wildlife conservation. Founded in 1916, the San Diego Zoo Global began as a sanctuary for abandoned animals left behind after the Panama-California Exposition held in San Diego. The zoo expanded quickly, opening its doors to rare and exotic animals donated by private owners, purchased from circuses and other zoos, and rescued from the wild. In the 1950s, zoo director Dr. Charles Schroeder had the idea of exhibiting animals in a large, free-range habitat that provided space for breeding and conservation research. His dream became a reality in 1972 with the opening of the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, a one-of-a-kind 1,800-acre habitat that is now home to more than 3,200 animals. Over half of the park has been set aside as protected native species habitat. Throughout the years, the San Diego Zoo Global has played a critical role in preserving rare wildlife and habitats through its Institute for Conservation Research, housed in the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center for Conservation Research. Founded in 1975, the institute is one of the largest zoo-based research centers in the world and has led several successful efforts to protect some of the world's most endangered species, including the magnificent California condor. The zoo led the effort to save the condor by designing and implementing a successful 25-year captive-breeding process that reintroduced the species to its native habitat. At the start of the program, the California condor was near extinction; today the current condor population is more than 420, with approximately 200 living in the wild in California, Arizona, Utah, and Mexico. The San Diego Zoo Global is also making an immediate and lasting impact in our Nation's classrooms. Each year, the San Diego Zoo and the Institute for Conservation Research hosts a workshop for middle and high school teachers from across the United States. This hands-on experience allows educators to develop innovative lessons in conservation to bring back to their students. Over the past 100 years, the San Diego Zoo Global has opened its doors to millions of visitors from around the globe, setting a new standard for zoological institutions worldwide. Senator Feinstein and I want to congratulate the staff, volunteers, and supporters of this extraordinary organization for the important role they play in the care and preservation of our earth's most beautiful creatures and habitats. We know their work will continue to make a profound difference for generations to come.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that my Republican colleagues continue to play politics with our judicial system. There are currently 79 judicial vacancies in this country--28 of which are judicial emergency vacancies. In each of these districts across the country, Americans are waiting for their cases to be heard, but instead of justice, they are left hanging in the lurch. I have said it before, and I will say it again: Justice delayed is justice denied. Senate Republicans refuse to act to confirm Judge Merrick Garland-- who has more Federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court candidate in history--to the Supreme Court, and they refuse to act on the 20 judicial nominees who were reported out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. It is outrageous that Senate Republicans stubbornly refuse to move these nominations forward, letting these accomplished and qualified nominees languish. One of those judges is Mark Young, an excellent nominee for the Central District Court of California, which is ranked 11th in the Nation in weighted case filings per judgeship. We need to fill this seat as soon as possible, and Judge Young is an extraordinary candidate. I was honored to introduce him at his nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last October and go over his impeccable resume. He has served as a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge since 2008 and has 10 years of experience as a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles. He holds degrees from the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Southern California Gould School of Law; and he has won numerous awards from organizations including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award--one of the Department of Justice's highest honors. The people of the Central District of California need his leadership, and the overworked judges of the Central District need his help. We also have two additional candidates from California who are awaiting Judiciary Committee hearings. Judge Paul L. Abrams was nominated by President Obama in December 2015 to serve as the U.S. District Court Judge for the Central District. Judge Abrams is currently a U.S. magistrate judge for the Central District, a post he has held since 2002. He began his career in private practice and then worked as a legal aid lawyer before serving in the Federal public defender's office, eventually becoming a supervising deputy Federal public defender. He holds degrees from the University of California, Berkeley, and Boalt Hall School of Law. Judge Lucy Koh, currently serving in the Northern District, was nominated by President Obama for the Ninth Circuit Court in February of this year. The daughter of Korean immigrants and a Harvard graduate, Judge Koh began her legal career as a Women's Law and Public Policy Fellow for the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the U.S. Department of Justice, she served as a special assistant to the Deputy Attorney General before spending 3 years as a Federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, where she was awarded the Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Louis J. Freeh Award for Demonstrated Excellence in Prosecuting a Major Criminal Case. She then spent 9 years in private practice. She served on the Superior Court for Santa Clara County until 2010, when she was appointed to the Northern District, becoming the first Korean American woman to serve as a Federal district court judge. Each of these excellent candidates has flawless credentials, broad support, and they are ready to serve. So what are we waiting for? The American people cannot wait for justice--and they shouldn't have to. Let's move forward with giving each of these excellent judicial candidates the consideration and vote that they deserve.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 101st anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Between 1915 and 1923, the Ottoman Empire executed a deliberate massacre of more than 1.5 million Armenians. Over the course of 8 years, Armenians were marched to their deaths in the deserts of the Middle East, murdered in concentration camps, drowned at sea, and forced to endure unimaginable acts of brutality. These barbaric acts were systematic, methodical, and intentional. More than 100 years have passed since the start of that horrific massacre, which an overwhelming number of academics and institutions have recognized as genocide, and there are countless testimonies from victims who lived to tell of their harrowing experiences. Pope Francis called the massacre against the Armenians ``the first genocide of the 20th century,'' declaring that ``concealing or denying evil is like allowing a wound to keep bleeding without bandaging it.'' However, despite an irrefutable body of evidence, the U.S. Government has refused to call the deliberate massacre of the Armenians by its rightful name: genocide. For years, I have urged both Democratic and Republican administrations to acknowledge the truth of the Armenian genocide. Today I reiterate my call, and I hope that, this year, the United States will finally correct this century-old injustice. By affirming the Armenian genocide, the United States would join more than 20 countries across the globe--including Russia, France, and Germany--as well as the Vatican and 43 U.S. States standing on the right side of history. Recognizing the Armenian genocide is much more than a symbolic gesture. It will provide solace and relief to the descendants of the victims, particularly the hundreds of thousands of Armenian American citizens and residents. It will support a more equitable reconciliation between the Turkish and Armenian people. And most importantly, it will reaffirm U.S. leadership in preventing and responding to similar atrocities and in advancing the rights of vulnerable populations around the world. This year, as we take time to remember and honor the victims of the Armenian genocide, I hope the United States will finally stand on the right side of history and affirm the incontestable fact of the Armenian genocide.

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 going to vote on the Hoeven amendment shortly. I rise to speak against that amendment, which would undermine one of our Nation's landmark environmental laws, the Clean Water Act. It is very difficult for me to understand how we could be at this point in time attacking a clean water rule--a clean water rule in light of what has happened in Flint, MI. This is what the water looked like as it came out of the tap in Flint at the height of the crisis. By the way, people were told this was safe. Why on Earth would we be going against the clean water rule at a time when we are fighting against this kind of problem? This is what the pipes looked like in Flint: the corrosion, the obvious problems with lead. This was all getting right into the drinking water. While we look for ways to help the people of Flint--and I would love do it on this bill. If we can't do it on this bill, I would love do it on the WRDA bill. If we can't do it on the WRDA bill, I will do it on any bill. We need to take care of what happened there, and we also need to help other communities from the east coast to the middle of our Nation, to the west coast and help us help our families. Here we have in the face of Flint an attack on the clean water rule. Let's see what else we have to say and what else we learned about what happened in Flint. Pregnant women, kids cautioned over Jackson water. This is in Mississippi. Jackson, MS, also has a problem with lead. What is our response to that today? To stop a clean water rule. What are my Republican friends thinking? It doesn't make sense. The Associated Press wrote this: ``Elevated lead levels found in Newark schools' drinking water.'' Here we are talking about elevated levels of lead in Newark. We have places in California where the kids can't drink the water out of a water fountain. So what is the response of the Republican Senate? Turn back a clean water rule. It makes absolutely no sense. What we have going on, on the Senate floor, is a very heated debate, as I speak, about how to handle the issue in Flint. Let me tell you this. The first thing to do in the light of Flint is not to weaken environmental law, is not to stop a clean water rule. It is completely ridiculous. My friends will say: All we are doing is delaying implementation for a year while the court looks at it. We shouldn't be doing anything that plays into the hands of those special interests that simply don't want to clean up the water in our Nation. The clean water standards that are a target of this amendment are designed to safeguard drinking water for America's families and businesses. This dangerous amendment rolls back protections of small streams and wetlands that provide drinking water to one in three Americans. That is 117 million people put at risk because this U.S. Senate, run by the Republicans, thinks the best thing to do in the light of Flint is to roll back the Clean Water Act. Come on. Get a life. Read the paper. Look at what happened to those people. This is the time to provide reliable drinking water to all Americans and to clean up our waterways. Now is not the time--and it should not be the time--to attack the Clean Water Act, which is vital to the health and safety of our families. I want to mention that I have received opposition to the Hoeven amendment from numerous sportsmen's groups, including Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, International Federation of Fly Fishers, National Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited. These groups understand the important link between clean water and the outdoor recreation economy. When you go right after the clean water rule, you are going after the people who enjoy outdoor recreation, and they are against the Hoeven amendment. Leading environmental and conservation groups oppose the amendment, including American Rivers, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Earthworks, Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Prairie Rivers Network, Sierra Club, and Southern Environmental Law Center. These are some of the most popular groups in the country. Does anyone know what the rating of this Republican Congress was in the last polls I saw? It was 14 percent. Do you know what the rating of the President was in the last poll I saw? Over 50. So what does the Republican Senate do today? They are going after the President with their 14-percent rating in the polls. I say to my friends on the other side--and believe me, they are my friends: What are you doing? How do you expect people to support you when you, after seeing what happened in Flint, continue to go after landmark environmental clean water laws like you are doing today? In addition, public health groups, including the American Public Health Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Trust for America's Health, have opposed similar legislation to block this important rule, and 200,000 businesses represented by the American Sustainable Business Council have called on Senators to oppose efforts to block the clean water rule. These experts understand the importance of the clean water rule, and they know that our drinking water remains vulnerable to pollution. Just last month, EPA released a report showing that nearly half of U.S. waterways are in poor condition. In fact, one in four waterways have levels of bacteria that fail to meet human health standards, and our children go swimming in these very waterways. We have cities across the United States with sewer systems that discharge raw, untreated sewage in waterways--again, where our children swim. It is a disgrace. Despite enormous successes since passage of the Clean Water Act, we have more work to do. Nothing is more important than protecting the lives of the American people, whether it is through our military or through our public health laws. When we weaken the Clean Water Act, as the Hoeven amendment will do, we put our families and our children at risk. Why are we here? Flint has put a spotlight on the need to keep our families safe from toxins and pollutants in their drinking water. The first thing the Republicans do in light of Flint is to try to roll back the clean water rule. I have to say that one of my deepest regrets--and I have written about it--is how partisan this place has become over environmental laws. When I started a long time ago, Republicans were the ones leading the way on the environment. I remember there was a Republican State senator named Peter Behr, whom I supported because he understood how critical it was to protect and defend the environment, not only as a legacy to our children in terms of the beauty of our planet but also for the very health and safety of our families. I have been in office for 40 years. It is hard to believe that it has been 40 years. I guess time flies when you like your work. The fact is that no one has ever come up to me and said: Barbara, our water and air is too pure and way too clean. You need to do something about that. You need to dirty it up. Repeal the landmark laws, Barbara, that protect our water. They don't do that. They come up and say: We are worried about the fact that we are not sure what contaminants are in our water. I see my good friend is going to close out the debate, and I promised him that when he came to the floor, he wouldn't have to listen too long. I say again: Please vote against the Hoeven amendment. This is not smart legislation in light of what we face. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, of course I support my friend from Michigan, but we need to quickly move to a vote on the amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I voted no on final passage of the FAA reauthorization bill because I was unable to offer my amendment to ensure that cargo pilots have the same rest and duty rules as passenger pilots. Not only was I unable to secure a vote on my amendment, my offer to modify my amendment into a study by the National Transportation Safety Board was objected to by the other side. We should ensure that all pilots, whether they fly people or goods, have the same opportunities for rest. As this bill has many safety implications for our aviation system, I am very disappointed that my amendment did not receive consideration in the Senate. However, I would like to thank the Senate Commerce Committee for their hard work on this bill, which includes many safety improvements, helpful consumer protections, and enhancements to airport security. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes a provision to ban the use of electronic cigarettes on board aircraft that I had asked to be included in this bill.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, just a little while ago there was an overwhelming vote to proceed with the FAA bill, the Federal Aviation Administration bill, a very important bill. I know how hard the managers have worked on it--the chairman, the ranking member--and I have a tremendous amount of respect for them. I voted no. Only four of us voted no. It is rare that I do that, and I felt it was important to explain why. We have in our Nation an amazing system of transportation, and we always have to stay on top of it to make it safer and safer. There is one thing we know without a doubt. We know it intuitively, but we also know it because the National Transportation Safety Board has told us that the No. 1 problem they face in terms of safety is fatigue. We all know how it is. All of us, regardless of what we do for a living, know how it feels when we are utterly exhausted. We are not making the same decisions we would make. We can't carry them out the way we otherwise would. It is not rocket science. It is sleep science. We know about it because the experts have told us, and the NTSB has told us. I will show a picture of two planes. They look exactly alike. As our kids say, one of these things is not like the other. Here is a cargo plane and passenger jet. They are the same size. They fly over the same skies. They have pilots whom we trust, whom we count on. Today, because of special interest pressure, there is a different set of rest rules. The passenger plane pilot can only fly up to 9 hours a day because--rightly so, with all of that responsibility--that pilot has to get rest. The cargo plane pilot flies the same exact plane. That pilot can be on duty up to 16 hours a day before he or she is guaranteed adequate rest. I know the Presiding Officer has worked very hard in recent months, and I know the energy it took to go out and do what he did. I know what it was like when I was running for the Senate so many times--thank you, California--with almost 40 million people in the State, how hard it was, how much rest was needed to be sharp so we could think. In our work if we make a mistake, it only hurts us, but when a pilot makes a mistake, it can hurt a much larger community because the cargo plane is flying over the same homes as the passenger jet. How does it make sense to say one can be on duty up to 16 hours and the other cannot, especially when the National Transportation Safety Board has said pilot fatigue is one of the biggest problems we are facing today. Now one might ask: Can you prove that it is a problem? Yes, I am going to prove it to you. I am going to show a graphic of a conversation that took place between two cargo pilots, the pilot and copilot. This was 2013, and they were over Alabama. These are excerpts from the grave. This is dramatic. It isn't me trying to persuade the Presiding Officer. These are the pilots. Pilot 1: I mean I don't get that. You know it should be one level of safety for everybody. Pilot 2: It makes no sense at all. Pilot 1: No it doesn't at all. Pilot 2: And to be honest, it should be across the board. To be honest in my opinion whether you are flying passengers or cargo . . . if you're flying this time of day . . . the you know fatigue is definitely. . . . Pilot 1: Yeah . . . yeah . . . yeah. . . . Pilot 2: When my alarm went off I mean I'm thinkin', I'm so tired. Pilot 2: I know. Look what happened to that plane within hours of that conversation. Look what happened to that plane. This shows what happened, and the pilots are dead. After the flight recorder was released and this conversation was out, I thought for sure this administration would do the right thing. They did the wrong thing, and the Senate did the wrong thing. This isn't partisan. We have the Obama administration, which I agree with, and today I heard some amazing news on jobs. I am just saying on this they haven't been right. There ought to be no disparity between a pilot who is flying a passenger jet and a pilot who is flying a cargo jet. The pilots are telling us this. The pilots who are telling us this are not selfish. In fact, many of them are the pilots of passenger jets such as Southwest Airlines--8,000 of them. There are 8,000 of them supporting the Boxer-Klobuchar amendment. I can't get a vote. That is why I voted no along with three other colleagues who had their reasons. This was my reason. How do we do a bill like this and not address the No. 1 safety issue facing us? I don't get it. If you don't believe me, fair enough, because I am not a pilot. I admit it. I just trust pilots. What is your choice? You walk on a plane, the pilot is in charge of the aircraft, and you know that pilot wants to land safely. You know that pilot wants to go home to his or her family. You know that pilot has your best interests at heart. Sometimes I am in a rush, and I get on a plane and the pilot says: You know what. We are not going to take off right now because I know there is something wrong in one of the monitors here. It could be nothing, but I put safety first. Everyone in the plane says: Oh, no. We are going to be late. They get out their cell phones and they call their loved ones, but we know the pilots know what they are talking about. We trust them. I trust them so much I wrote with then-Senator Smith the guns-in-the-cockpit law for pilots. The NRA thinks I am the worst of the worst, but I said I trust pilots. They should have a chance if there is a terrorist on board. I trust them. Why doesn't this administration trust them? Because of special interests that make billions a year--billions. It is going to cost us a tiny bit more, and it is a tiny bit more. What price would we put on our kids? There is none, for goodness' sake. If it cost a few cents more to ship a package so a pilot doesn't have to fly 16 hours, isn't that the right thing to do? I will close with a quote from Sully Sullenberger. I think we all remember Sully. Before we show that, let's remind people who he is. We have another chart that shows him. Sully Sullenberger was the ``Hero of the Hudson.'' We remember how he landed his plane in the Hudson River, how he saved all the passengers on that plane and his crew. He is so famous now, he goes all over the world. He came to the press conference I had with Senator Klobuchar, because she and I are working on this amendment as well as Senator Cantwell. His words were inspiring because he did not kid around. He said: ``Fatigue is a killer.'' Fatigue is a killer. You don't have to say any more. If you know fatigue is a killer, then don't say passenger pilots can fly 9 hours but cargo pilots can fly 16. Here is what Sullenberger said when we first introduced our legislation, the Safe Skies Act: ``You wouldn't want your surgeon operating on you after only five hours sleep, or your passenger pilot flying the airplane after only five hours sleep, and you certainly wouldn't want a cargo pilot flying a large plane over your house at 3 a.m. on five hours sleep trying to find the airport and land.'' Sully said at the press conference that had he been suffering from fatigue on that fateful day that he safely landed that plane in the waters of the Hudson River, if he was suffering from fatigue, he said he never could have done it. So I can't get a vote on my amendment. It is so simple, even a 6- year-old can understand it. You don't have disparity when you have the same responsibility. You are traveling in the same skies, and a cargo plane can crash into a house or another plane carrying passengers. I am so disappointed in this administration that they have not done the right thing on this. I am so disappointed in the U.S. Senate that they blocked a vote on this because the special interests don't want to charge 2 or 3 or 4 cents more on their packages. If it is to save lives of our people, this is what I call a classic no-brainer. So I am here today to explain my vote to my constituents--why I voted no for an FAA bill that otherwise is a good bill. But I want just to make a statement that it is ridiculous not to give me an up-or-down vote. They tied it to other issues that are poison pills: immigration issues, gun issues. Come on. This is the biggest problem--fatigue. Can't we just get an up-or-down vote on it? I am going to try to do that at every chance I get. Now I am working on a modified amendment to see if we can get it into a package. I don't know whether we can or not. But I want to say to the pilots out there who may be listening to this debate: A lot of us here have your backs. We are not going to forget about this issue just because the FAA bill is moving forward. We are not going to forget about you. We are not going to forget about what it means when you are fatigued. We are not going to forget about the two pilots who, through the recorder, told us before they crashed that they were exhausted. They addressed the issue of the disparity. We are going to be fighting on this. If we can't get it done here, maybe some brave soul in the House will do it, and it will wind up in the bill. If we can't get it done legislatively, we are going to try to get it done through the FAA regular order of their rules. Where is the FAA on this? I want to say: FAA, you turned your back on too many safety measures that the NTSB, which is in charge of our safety, has recommended. It took years to get some simple things done. So while we are working to get a modified amendment--which is not going to be the be-all and the end-all; it just moves us a little bit forward--I just want to send a message that it is rare that I vote no--one of four. It does not happen often. I view this as a moral issue. I view this as a moral issue for those pilots that are on duty up to 16 hours straight in the middle of the night, where, as Sully Sullenberger said, their circadian rhythms are off, and they are not at the top of their game. They are flying over the airspace of the American people. I thank the presiding officer so much for his attention. I live to fight another day, another hour, another minute on this. I want the pilots to know and the flying public to know and everyone to know they should engage in this issue. There is no disparity between people who do the same work. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I so admire the managers of this bill. I really do. As a former chairman and ranking member now, I know how hard this is, but this is not a balanced request. I would just say that I have spoken on the safety of pilot fatigue so many times. I won't reiterate that here. I feel strongly that I want a vote. I know others on our side do as well. I don't think this is balanced. So, sadly, I object.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am trying to get a vote on an amendment that Senator Klobuchar and I have submitted. To explain it, I want to show you this graphic. These are two airplanes that are exactly the same size, they are flying across the same sky, and they are flying over the same homes. But there is a difference--a difference that I am trying to fix. This one is a passenger plane. Due to an FAA regulation that Senator Snowe and I were able to get in place through a vote in this Chamber several years ago, the pilots in the passenger plane can fly only up to 9 hours a day. After that, they have to rest because pilot fatigue is a very dangerous situation facing not only our pilots but their crews and everyone that is in their vicinity. What happened when Senator Snowe and I wrote our legislation? We assumed that the regulation that would be forthcoming from the FAA would cover both passenger and cargo planes because, again, these planes share the same skies, go over the same airspace, and go over the same homes. It is a straightforward point, and fatigue is fatigue. They are not less fatigued because they are carrying cargo rather than passengers. These pilots can fly up to 16 hours a day. We know from the pilots themselves--many pilots organizations have endorsed this--that this is a very dangerous disparity, and it needs to be fixed. I am asking the majority for an up-or-down vote on this amendment. It is real simple. It simply says the FAA should get rid of this disparity and make the cargo pilots have the same rules as the passenger pilots-- real simple. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the No. 1 safety issue is fatigue. This is what they cite as the No. 1 problem across the board. So we need to fix this. I have spoken to both of my friends, Senator Nelson, who supports this, and Senator Thune, who has been a little more subtle about how he feels about this. I asked them if I could have the up-or-down vote. I hope I can have the up-or-down vote. I am not asking for anything special. A 60-vote threshold is fine. If people want to vote against the amendment, fine; let them be held accountable. But it is a moral issue right now. The bottom line is, people are in jeopardy right now. I don't know exactly what is going to happen. The reason we are at a standstill is partly because I said I want a vote, and that promptly stopped things. I do it rarely, but I know if we pass this, we are going to save lives. It is written somewhere in the Old Testament that if you save one life, you save humanity. Saving lives is one thing we should do, and since we know about this disparity and we have proof that we need to fix it, we need to fix it. All I am asking for is an up-or-down vote. If people want to vote no, that is fine with me. Hopefully, most will vote yes, and hopefully we will get this done. We got it done before, and we should be able to get it done again. What could be happening is that we could get that vote. Of course, what I would love to death is if Senator Thune and Nelson just took our amendment and put it in the package. That would be wonderful. But if they don't want to do that, I want a vote. What I hope doesn't happen is that they will say: OK. We will give you a vote, but we are going to take two really poison pill amendments and force everybody to vote on those. This is not a game. I am not here to have a game. I am here to have a vote, up or down. This should not be tied to anything else. I want to read to you the incredible words that were spoken. These are excerpts from UPS Flight 1354. This is a cockpit conversation that took place minutes before a crash. These words are coming from the grave. Listen to these words and make up your own mind as to whether I am being unreasonable here in wanting to have a vote. Pilot 1: I mean I don't get it. It should be one level of safety for everybody. Pilot 2: It makes no sense at all. Pilot 1: No, it doesn't at all. Pilot 2: And to be honest, it should be across the board. To be honest, in my opinion, whether you are flying passengers or cargo, if you are flying this time of day, you know fatigue is definitely-- Pilot 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Pilot 2: When my alarm went off, I mean, I am thinking, I am so tired. Pilot 1: I know. ``When my alarm went off, I mean, I am thinking, I am so tired.'' This photograph shows what happened to that cargo jet. It happened over Alabama in 2013. This is what happened. The NTSB said it was definitely fatigue that played a role in this crash. So am I being unreasonable to say this is the FAA bill--this is the bill we do every couple years about air safety? Am I being unreasonable to ask my colleagues to vote up or down on whether there ought to be parity between passenger pilots and cargo pilots? I don't think so. Remember Captain Sullenberger, who was the hero? Captain Sullenberger was the hero who landed his plane in the water--the ``Hero of the Hudson.'' He is a superstar. He did this. He knows about safety. He knows it. A passenger on that flight said: I could feel the water running over the top of my feet, and that is what really scared me. ``I thought, I survived the impact and now I am going to drown.'' That was a passenger who said that--how the pilot saved them all. We all know who saved 155 people as he landed the jet in the frigid New York Hudson River. Let's see what Sully Sullenberger says about the situation of fatigue. If we cannot listen to this, who are we listening to? By the way, these comments are not aimed just at my colleagues; they are aimed at the administration that has not done this, which is wrong. They are wrong. Listen to what Captain ``Sully'' Sullenberger, the hero of Flight 1549, said: ``You wouldn't want your surgeon operating on you after only 5 hours of sleep, or your passenger pilot flying the airplane after only 5 hours sleep, and you certainly wouldn't want a cargo pilot flying a large plane over your house at 3 a.m. on 5 hours of sleep trying to find the airport and land.'' So the question is: Who do we listen to? Do we listen to the companies that are afraid it is going to cost them a few dollars? Do we listen to the pilots? Do we listen to Sully Sullenberger, who is telling us fatigue kills? It is a killer. That is what he said at the press conference yesterday. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two articles that appeared recently in the news.