Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Blocking the cross-air pollution rule, cross-State pollution rule would force people living in downwind States to continue to suffer from high levels of unhealthy pollution from out-of-State powerplants. They say they express their strong opposition. They say ozone and particulate matter are associated with numerous adverse health effects, including lung disease, irreversible reductions in lung function--irreversible. So it is not as though you have a bad day and you are gasping for air, and suddenly the next day it comes back. Irreversible reduction in lung function. Asthma attacks. And, by the way, we are told there will be 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks if we go back on this rule. Aggravation of other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. And, I would say to the Senator, they add premature death. Here they are saying 34,000 cases of premature death. I will give you a few of the names of the people who signed this. I am so glad the Senator came down here. He has been such a great leader on these issues and, I want to say for the record, led me and so many others, the majority of the House, in saying no more smoking on airplanes. And, boy, we remembered how it was in those days, and I know the Senator's personal experience with lack of lung function and his own dad. So the Senator coming over here today is very appreciated. I will give you the names of some of these organizations.

Mrs. BOXER. I will.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. Well, first of all, I want people to know that since the Clean Air Act passed and there were all these predictions of a horrible recession, there has been a huge number of jobs created and it is all documented on one of these charts here. I can tell you, our GDP rose more than any other industrialized nation in the world as we cleaned up the air. The Senator and I were on a trip to China. We did not see the Sun for days and days and days. I don't know if you missed this or caught this story in the New York Times. The Chinese elites in the government--many of whom we met with there to try to push our agenda, which is trade with China and all the other things we want and making sure their currency is floating--this is what we learned: Chinese leaders are largely insulated from Beijing's famously foul air. In the Great Hall there they have all these fabulous clean air devices. In their homes they are protected, in their cars they are protected. But guess what. The people are suffering and struggling. They don't even get to see the Sun shine there. If I could say, I don't want to see elitism here. Every single person in our country deserves to have a chance to breathe clean air. To get specifically to the point, to talk about the economy--because I think that is critical--Senator Paul's resolution is bad for this economy. It is bad for jobs. It is bad for our families. That is why it is opposed by every health professional. Let me say this. We are talking about 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks if this resolution passes. We are talking about 34,000 cases of premature death. I want to make a point here. If you are the head of household and you die prematurely because of filthy, polluted, poisonous air that is floating in from another State, you can't work and your family is in deep trouble. I will tell you this, the annual benefits by 2014-- annual, of this rule--are estimated to be $280 billion a year. So if anyone stands up here and says we are fighting for jobs, we are fighting for the people, we are fighting for the economy by rolling back clean air rules, don't believe it for a minute. If you don't want to listen to me or Senator Durbin, listen to the people I know you respect, from the American Association of Cardiovascular Rehabilitation, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Lung Association, the American Nurses Association. Those nurses have held those babies. How much time remains on our side?

Mrs. BOXER. I hope we vote down this resolution.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that from Thursday, November 10, through Monday, November 14, the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 1:30 p.m. with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I hope colleagues will take a moment to look at this picture, because this is what we are talking about: exhaling toxic air, and little kids and members of our families who have to use this kind of inhaler. Exhale pollutants, inhale with an inhaler. This is a poster done by the American Lung Association. Every respected public health group opposes the Paul resolution. If your neighbor dumped toxic garbage on your front lawn, that would harm your family. You would do two things. No. 1, you would say clean it up and, No. 2, you would say never do it again. That is all the rule does that Senator Paul is trying to eviscerate here. Vote no for jobs, for clean air, for our families. Sixty-seven percent of the American people, including 68 percent of Independents, oppose the Paul resolution. Please vote no.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, first of all, I want to say a big thank- you to colleagues for voting to defeat the Paul joint resolution, which was a real attack on the health of our families.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise in memory of Dorothy Howell Rodham, a truly extraordinary woman who died last week at the age of 92. Many Americans knew Dorothy Rodham through her daughter, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who credits her mother with giving her the strength, self-confidence, perseverance, and faith she needed to thrive in politics and diplomacy. Millions of Americans had the opportunity to get to know Dorothy on the campaign trail for her son-in-law, William Jefferson Clinton, and her daughter Hillary. They saw a bright, sincere, and highly intelligent woman who was so proud of her family and would do anything for them. Some of us had known that Dorothy weathered a difficult childhood, but it was only with her passing that many Americans learned just how harrowing it was. Abandoned by her parents at age 8, she took her 3- year-old sister on a cross-country train trip to live with their unwelcoming grandparents in California. By her early teens, she had to leave their home and begin working as a nanny. Dorothy worked as a secretary in Chicago before marrying Hugh Rodham and raising their three children: Hillary, Hugh, and Tony. Throughout her life, Mrs. Rodham worked hard to ensure that her children and grandchildren had the opportunities she had been denied. Dorothy and I shared a great joy--our grandson Zachary. I saw first- hand what a wonderful influence she was for Zach, always there for him in every way. She was that way for all her grandchildren, including her first remarkable grandchild--Chelsea. When Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked who inspired her to succeed in public life, she credited the women's movement and Dorothy Rodham, ``who never got a chance to go to college, who had a very difficult childhood, but who gave me a belief that I could do whatever I set my mind to.'' Dorothy Rodham was an extraordinary woman--strong, compassionate and loving. She will be sorely missed by her loved ones, by her friends, and by the American people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I want to spotlight a generous act that will help a school and a community recover from a terrible natural disaster. Joplin, MO, was devastated this past May by the worst tornado to strike the United States in 60 years. This horrific storm cut a 6-mile swath through Joplin, killing 162 people and destroying more than 8,000 buildings, including thousands of homes and many of the city's schools. The people of Joplin have worked heroically to rebuild their community. At the end of August, students returned to school. Thanks to donations from people across America and around the world, every student received a backpack with school supplies and a new laptop computer. Barry Manilow saw one need that had not been met: Among the countless losses in the tornado were all the musical instruments used by students in the band at Joplin High School and other city schools. Last month, Barry arrived in Joplin with three truckloads of instruments, worth about $300,000. He presented the donation personally on the football field at Joplin High. Barry noted that his own high school music program in Brooklyn, NY, had nurtured his talent and opened the way for his amazing musical career. Barry Manilow's gift to Joplin was tremendous but not unique for him. Through his nonprofit Manilow Music Project, Barry has helped public schools across the country to survive despite drastic cuts to school funding for the arts. He not only writes the songs; he also writes checks that enable school music programs to keep bringing the gift of music to our students, schools, and communities. I salute Barry Manilow today and am deeply moved by his act of kindness. It brings me great pride to call him not only a Californian, but also a friend.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 10, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on November 10, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 10, 2011, at 2:15 p.m., in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 10, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 10, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Opportunities and Challenges for Economic Development in Indian Country.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 10, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 10, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Unemployment Insurance: The Path Back to Work.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving Quality, Lowering Costs: The Role of Health Care Delivery System Reform'' on November 10, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the Senator's explanation of the cross-air rule. I would just say he is off the mark, because if you produce deadly pollution in your State--deadly--you have an obligation to clean it up before it goes into another State. It is like taking your garbage and dumping it in your neighbor's front lawn. We don't do that in America. So we are going to have a robust debate next week on the cross-State air rule. I hope people keep in mind that we are talking about deadly pollution produced in one State and moving over to a series of other States which have no defense. So anyone who wants to come and claim that is the right thing to do morally--just walk away from that rule--I think they are going to have a hard time explaining it back home. I would not dump garbage on the front lawn of my neighbor's house. I think that patina is the best explanation of what this is about. More on that later. Today we are going to be facing a very interesting choice. As we know, President Obama has put together a major jobs package, and he pays for it by going to the millionaires and saying that once they make $1 million, after that we think they could pay a little bit more to help us get out of this recession. My Republican friends voted that down. They were appalled we would even suggest there would be even a few dollars of increased taxes on people who make over $1 million. They would rather not do any job creation and protect the people who earn over $1 million. (Mr. MANCHIN assumed the Chair.)

Mrs. BOXER. We have a very stark choice today. We have a small version of the jobs bill--this one focuses on infrastructure, mostly transportation investments--paid for by a seven-tenths-of-1-percent tax on people who earn over $1 million, and it would not go into effect on any of those funds until they pass the million. So it would be taxed seven-tenths of 1 percent on income over $1 million. I make that point because it is not going to hurt anybody. A person making $1.5 million would pay an additional $3,000. This is not anything that will hurt the millionaires and billionaires. It is going to make this country stronger. It is going to grow this economy. Here is what we have: We have a Democratic jobs bill. It is $60 billion--$50 billion for roads and bridges and $10 billion for an infrastructure bank. To put that into the context of why this is such a good bill and why it would create 650,000 jobs, let me tell you what it is doing in essence. It is taking an extra year of transportation funding--we spend about $50 billion a year, approximately, through the highway trust fund--and it would inject essentially another year of spending over the next 12 months, creating well over 650,000 new jobs. The Republican alternative actually loses jobs. They say they will continue the highway trust fund for 2 years. So they are just continuing what we are already doing. That is great. But then they cut the equivalent amount from police, fire, food inspection, and the FBI, and it will result in a loss of many jobs--200,000 jobs. So we have one bill, the Democratic bill, that creates a minimum of 650,000 jobs, and we have the Republican bill that cuts 200,000 jobs. What are they thinking, Mr. President? What are they thinking? This is not the time to cut 200,000 jobs. Then they end health care reform which we all know, while not perfect, is going to help reduce our deficit. What they have done is continue the highway spending at current levels--it doesn't add one job--and then they cut all those other jobs to pay for it--200,000 jobs--and then they repeal health care reform, which will add to the deficit. They cannot stand the thought of a millionaire paying a little bit more to help us at this time even though everybody knows we are at a point in time where the gap between the wealthiest and the middle class has never been bigger. Four hundred families earn more than 50 percent of all the rest of us; 400 families earn more than 50 percent of all the rest of us. It is unbelievable. My State has many wealthy people in it, many poor people in it, and has a good middle class. But it is getting tougher to be part of that middle class. The middle class is hit hard with health costs, with college costs that keep going up, and with gas prices going up. They are hit hard with mortgages they can't refinance because their mortgage is now higher than their home is worth. So we have to act on these issues. We have the ability to do it. If we just read the Preamble of our Constitution, it tells us what we are supposed to do: work for a more perfect union, establish justice, domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare. We have to do these things today because we are losing the middle class. This bill before us, the Democratic jobs bill, is an excellent place to start this very day by infusing $60 billion into spending that will go mostly to private sector contractors, people who build roads and bridges. Do you know that 70,000 bridges in America are deficient? My colleague, Senator Inhofe, and I are working closely on a highway bill. We are going to have one soon. He tells the story of a woman walking in Oklahoma. She is simply taking a walk, and the bridge starts to fall apart; it falls down and traps her and kills her. He said she was a young mother. This is America in the 21st century. That is not acceptable. We can't have a country like ours neglect its infrastructure. It is wrong. But our Republican friends will not work with us because they don't want to ask people earning over $1 million to pay just a little bit more. For example, if someone makes $1.1 million, they will have to pay $700 more in their taxes. That is it. But they don't even want to go there. What they want to do is say: Oh, yes, we will just renew the highway bill, but we will slash across the board everything but defense. That is how we are going to pay for their jobs bill, which actually will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is unbelievable to me. I don't think this is the time to say we will turn our backs on jobs. As a matter of fact, in order to extend the highway trust fund we are going to fire cops, firefighters, food safety inspectors, FBI agents, and Border Patrol agents. That is their alternative. So don't vote for it unless you think it is the time to put all those people out of work. What Republicans also do in this so-called jobs bill--which is a no jobs bill; it is a jobs loss bill--is they decide they want to block implementation of very important health and safety rules. I want to go through what those rules are. We are going to talk about the Clean Air Act right now. The Republicans are repealing two rules that deal with clean air. Here is the thing. It is going to make people sicker. It is going to mean lots of jobs in clean tech. It is the last thing the country needs. It flies in the face of the views of the people. Let's talk about one of the rules they want to cut back: industrial boilers and incinerators. This bill, called a jobs bill, would halt an EPA rule issued in February 2011 to reduce toxic air pollution. What do I mean? Toxic means it is toxic to our health; it will hurt us. People will die from toxic air pollution. People do die from toxic air pollution. The toxins the boilers and incinerators rule would reduce include mercury, lead, and other hazardous air pollution released by boilers and incinerators. They can write it the way they want it, but here is what happens when we go back to those days when we allowed these toxins to be emitted. We saw developmental disabilities in our children. We saw more cases of cancer, more cases of heart disease, aggravated asthma, and premature death. These are not just words. Congress commissioned a study, and we now know exactly what we are doing, how many lives it saves, and how many visits to the hospital it saves. Let me remind my friends who think that it is good for the economy to have toxic air pollution, if we cannot breathe we cannot work. If someone has to rush to the hospital or their child is rushed there because of an asthma attack, they lose a day's work. If a pregnant woman now has a problem with the child, and the child is disabled or has problems mentally from too much mercury, this is a tragedy. Some people say: Oh, the EPA is regulating too much and it costs too much. Let me tell you the price of the Republican agenda: sick people, loss of jobs in the clean tech industry, lost days of work, loss of kids' schooldays. I urge my colleagues in the Senate, when they have their next meeting with a large group of people--whether it is 100 or 50 or just a couple--ask them how many of them have asthma. Ask them how many know someone close to them with asthma. I guarantee the hands of one-third to one-half of those in the room will go up. That doesn't just happen-- asthma--because a person just woke up on the wrong side of the bed. It happens because of the air they are breathing. It is toxic. But in the Republicans' so-called jobs bill--which I already told you loses jobs--they not only do that, but to add insult to injury they repeal all of these rules. Let me put it into context for you, since I have now spoken emotionally about what it does to people when they breathe in toxins. Let me cite the numbers. Congress demanded a study. We said, give us the numbers, and so a study was done. We believe the protections from this industrial boiler rule will annually prevent up to 6,500 premature deaths, 4,000 heart attacks, 4,300 hospital emergency room visits, 310,000 days when people miss work or school, and 41,000 cases of aggravated asthma. The benefits from these safeguards are expected to be $54 billion annually by 2014. That is the rule my Republican colleagues want us to set aside. If you went to your constituents and said to them: You know, we have a rule here that says industry is going to have to use the best available technology and clean up their pollution, and here is what it is going to do--it is going to prevent 6,500 premature deaths, 4,000 heart attacks, 4,300 hospital visits, 310,000 days when people miss school or work, and 41,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and it is going to deliver $54 billion a year in health benefits--I think your constituents would say, go for it, Senator; that makes sense. Let me talk about a poll that just came out that reflects how people feel about this. Listen to this. We have our Republican friends offering what they call a jobs bill, which I have proven contains job cuts because they simply continue the highway trust fund. They do not add anything new, but they cut a couple hundred thousand jobs to pay for it. That is their so-called jobs bill. They then want to repeal two rules that fall under the Clean Air Act, and I just talked about the boiler rule. But let me tell you what the people think, since we are supposed to represent the people. There was a bipartisan poll done in October, a few days ago, reflecting 88 percent of Democrats, 85 percent of Independents, and 58 percent of Republicans opposed Congress stopping the EPA from enacting new limits on air pollution from electric powerplants. Who is speaking for the people? We need to vote down the Republican alternative because 88 percent of Democrats want us to, 85 percent of Independents want us to, and 58 percent of Republicans want us to. They do not want Congress stepping in. On Tuesday, Senator Paul is going to have a motion to repeal the cross-state air pollution rule, which is a rule that says to the States if they are creating toxic air pollution and it is flowing to another State, it has to be cleaned up. Now, 67 percent of voters support the cross-state air pollution rule and 77 percent of voters support the mercury air toxics rule. So 65 percent of voters surveyed are confident the health and environmental benefits of air pollution standards outweigh the costs, and 75 percent of voters believe a compelling reason to implement these air rules is the boost to local economies and thousands of new jobs that are created from investments in new technologies. If we are representing the people of these great United States, we better listen to what they are saying in a bipartisan way. They are telling us to leave the EPA alone. When people come to this floor and demonize the EPA, they are going against the beliefs of the American people. There are some incredible quotes I want to read, because, to me, it is amazing what is happening around here. When I get to the place here I want, I am going to cite some quotes from unlikely sources. Mr. President, how many minutes remains on our side?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. Here is a quote from General Motors: General Motors company recognizes the benefit of the country continuing the historic national program to address fuel economy and greenhouse gases that the EPA began. That is signed by the chairman and CEO of General Motors. Here is a quote from a letter from a whole group of electricity- producing companies: PG&E, Calpine Corp., NextEra Energy, Inc., Public Service Enterprise Group, National Grid USA, Exelon Corp., Constellation Energy, and Austin Energy. This is a quote from their letter to the Wall Street Journal: Our companies' experience complying with air quality regulations demonstrates regulations can yield important economic benefits, including job creation, while maintaining reliability. Kind of amazing, isn't it? And there is Gerald Ford, the Republican President who signed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974--also under attack, by the way--who said: Nothing is more essential to the life of every single American than clean air, pure food, and safe drinking water. Yet if you look at the Republican plan, they roll back clean air regulations and they roll back food safety. Even after we had people die from contaminated cantaloupe, my friends on the other side think now is the time to cut back on food safety inspection. Give me a break. Who are we here representing? This is why people across the country are upset. They see things such as this and they say, is this Alice in Wonderland? Listen to what Christine Todd Whitman and William Ruckelshaus wrote-- two Republicans who were former EPA Administrators under Republican Presidents. They said: It is easy to forget how far we have come in the past 40 years. We should take heart from all this progress and not, as some in Congress have suggested, seek to tear down the agency that the President and Congress created to protect America's health and environment. They wrote that letter in March of this year. They understand. This isn't a partisan issue. Republicans breathe the same air that Democrats and Independents breathe. That is why it is so frustrating to see, in a so-called jobs bill from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, an actual loss of jobs and loss of clean air regulations and loss of food safety inspectors. I have to say I find myself quoting Richard Nixon more and more these days. He signed the Clean Air Act. Listen to what he said at a State of the Union speech. He said: Clean air, clean water, open spaces--these should once again be the birthright of every American. I have cited these quotes from Republican Presidents and former Administrators of the EPA under Republican Presidents, so I am stunned at this so-called jobs bill. I have talked about the industrial boiler rule, but they also roll back the cement manufacturing facilities rule that would indefinitely delay standards to address smog and toxic soot pollution from over 150 cement kilns nationwide. These facilities contain hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals. Remember the movie ``Arsenic and Old Lace''? Arsenic kills you. Too much of it does that. Come on. We need to clean up the air, and we need to be sure we do it in a reasonable way. I am on that side--the side of doing it in a reasonable way. And no one could be more reasonable than Lisa Jackson. I tell you, the woman has the patience of a saint. She is not going to go out and hit people over the head with this. She is going to phase in these regulations, and she is going to listen carefully. And you have to listen. Mercury, arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals are the third largest mercury source in the country. These relate to cement manufacturing facilities. Let me tell you what these pollutants do. They cause cancer and they harm the reproductive system and the developmental system. Pregnant women and children are at risk. We hear a lot of talk about life--when does life begin? That is up to each individual and their God to decide that. But one thing I hope we can agree on is that a pregnant woman shouldn't be subjected to too much mercury or too much arsenic in the air. We have a rule here, a reduction of mercury and toxic soot emissions. We know that rule will prevent 2,500 premature deaths, 1,500 heart attacks, more than 1,700 emergency room and hospital visits, that it will prevent 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks, 130,000 days of lost work, and it will provide up to $18 billion of benefits annually by 2013, which is a benefits-to-cost ratio of 19 to 1. Yet my friends on the other side think it is a terrible idea and want to indefinitely delay it. Let me tell you something. If we had that kind of attitude in Congress years before, we wouldn't have a Clean Air Act. I can tell you what happened in Los Angeles. We used to have about 160 days in Los Angeles where people could not go out. They were warned to stay indoors. As a result of the Clean Air Act, we have had none of those days--none--in Los Angeles in 2010. So why on Earth does anyone want to delay these rules? If you want to sit with Lisa Jackson and sit with me, as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and sit with others and see if there is a way we can do this in a fair manner, of course. But the public wants us to act, and the action they want us to take is to support the EPA, not to put our noses in there and stop them from doing what the Clean Air Act requires them to do. Poll after poll shows that voters are on the side of clean air. They are on the side of protecting the public health. They are not on the side of polluters. So I wish to say, we know two things today: People want jobs, and they also want their health protected. We also know that when you protect the people's health, what happens is a huge economic boost is given to the clean tech sector, and that boost has resulted in many jobs. As many as 1.7 million jobs are created because of these clean air rules and clean water rules. The whole world wants these technologies. I had the amazing experience of visiting China, and I didn't see the Sun--I didn't see the Sun--for the 7 days or so I was there. The air is filthy, and people complain about it. One day we had the hint of sun--the hint of sun--breaking through the pollution, and the people there said, what a beautiful day. You must have brought the good weather. I said, you know what, come to California, I will show you a blue sky. We cannot go backward. We need to move this country forward. If the arc of history bends toward justice, it also bends toward health, public health, making sure our people get that health care, that they don't have those public health enemies out there--the soot, the arsenic, the lead, the mercury--and, yes, jobs. We have seen our GDP explode since we passed the Clean Air Act, and we grew more than any other industrialized nation while we had these laws in place, for two reasons. One, these laws create clean tech jobs. Two, if we can't breathe, we can't work. When we have a healthy society, we are far more productive. So we have the Democratic alternative that will create over 600,000 jobs in transportation. It doesn't go into these extraneous issues such as the air pollution laws, and it is paid for by seven-tenths of 1 percent of income over $1 million. Then we have the Republican alternative that just continues our transportation at the same levels and pays for it by cutting 200,000 jobs--police, fire, and the rest, FBI agents, food safety inspectors, Border Patrol agents. Just what we don't need. That is what they do. Plus, just for good measure, they repeal basically two Clean Air Act rules that I talked about from boilers and cement plants. Folks, if ever there was a difference between the parties in evidence, this is it. If one person comes up to me and asks if there is really a difference between Democrats and Republicans, I will point them to this debate. So I hope very much that we will get enough votes to take up the Democratic bill that is fully paid for and will create over 600,000 jobs, that will fix our deficient bridges and our deficient highways, that will say to the construction workers: We know you are out of work, and we are going to put you back to work--or the Republican alternative that would result in 200,000 jobs lost and overturn these clean air rules that are so important that the vast majority of people, including Republicans, who are asked about it would say: Congress, keep your hands off these rules because, you know what. We think they are working. I reserve the remainder for other speakers, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is before us now is supposed to be a jobs bill. Actually, all they do in this alternative, my Republican friends, is extend the highway trust fund at the current levels. That is something we intend to do, and Senator Inhofe and I are going to bring the bill to the floor that does that, but they decided they want to do it now. And how do they pay for it? They cut $40 billion out of such functions as firefighters, police, Border Patrol, food safety inspectors, and we will lose 200,000 jobs from that action. In addition, there are two rollbacks of environmental laws that deserve a heck of a lot more notice than putting them in this bill. That is going to hurt our people because if you can't breathe, you can't work. We have to get the mercury and the soot and the arsenic out of the air. I hope we will vote no on this. It is not a jobs bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. BOXER. I want to make sure I will have a minute to respond against the amendment.