Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 10 a.m., to hold a Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Global Narcotics subcommittee hearing entitled, ``A Shared Responsibility: Counternarcotics and Citizen Security in the Americas.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery and Intergovernmental Affairs of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Exploring Drug Gangs' Ever-Evolving Tactics to Penetrate the Border and the Federal Government's Ability to Stop Them.''

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 March 31, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in Dirksen 406.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if she will yield for a question.

Mrs. BOXER. I wanted to clarify that.

Mrs. BOXER. Because I have a pressing event after, I wanted be sure.

Mrs. BOXER. They say we ``strongly oppose Congress blocking EPA's effort to implement the Clean Air Act.'' That is one of the things they say in the letter. Then, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record--by the way, these are new letters, yesterday one of them--a letter from Business for Innovative Climate + Energy Policy.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I need to tell the American people and my colleagues who have not been following this important debate on a very good bill, I am so grateful to the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, for this bill. Unfortunately, there has been an amendment that was attached to this bill on the very first day which would stop the Environmental Protection Agency forever from enforcing the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon pollution. This is a first of a kind. It has never been done. It is essentially a repeal of the Clean Air Act as it involves one particular pollutant, carbon, which has been found to be an endangerment to our people. The EPA did not wake up one day and say: We think carbon is dangerous. No; the scientists in both the Bush administration and Obama administration found out carbon is a dangerous pollutant, dangerous to the health of our families. So EPA, in what is I think a very solid way, has started to prepare to regulate carbon. They have done it in a way that has said they are not going after farms, they are not going after small business, they are going after the biggest polluters in the country. Guess what. The friends of those polluters, right in this Senate Chamber, have decided--and they already did it in the House, the new Republican majority--they are going to stop EPA in its tracks. That is why I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a very good letter from the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the Trust for America's Health, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. The letter says ``Business Support for EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.'' It is a letter from Anne Kelly, who is director of this organization. She writes: We are writing as major U.S. businesses to urge you to oppose all amendments or other measures that would block, delay or curtail EPA's ability to take action on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. It is not business friendly. It is friendly, these terrible amendments, to the biggest polluters in America who today took out a full-page ad. I guess they can afford $20,000--maybe it is 50, I don't know what it costs--for a whole page, saying: ``Stopping EPA's job- killing greenhouse gas regulation.'' Of course, who are they? The Industrial Minerals Association, the National Mining Association, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, Petroleum Marketers Association of America, Society of Chemical Manufacturers, et cetera, et cetera. I guess the question for us as a body is, Whom do we stand with, the biggest polluters in America or the American people, 69 percent of whom said in a bipartisan poll: ``EPA should update Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution limits.'' This group in this body, for whatever reason--and I respect their reasons, I just strongly disagree with them--are saying: Stop EPA, stop. Mr. President, 68 percent believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards. That is what these amendments do. I say show me one other thing besides we all love our mothers that would get 68 percent of the American people in a bipartisan vote. Mr. President, 69 percent believe ``EPA scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards.'' But we have Senators playing scientist, putting on their white coats, deciding what EPA should do, when it ought to be based on science. What is the science telling us? That it is dangerous to breathe in air pollution with lots of carbon in it. I ask unanimous consent to have another letter printed in the Record from 1Sky, Center For Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Water Action, Conservation Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife--I can't even take the time to read them all--Interfaith Power and Light, League of Women Voters, NRDC, Safe Climate Campaign, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Republicans for Environmental Protection--I love that one--Voices for Progress, World Wildlife Fund. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record. It is dated March 30 of this year.

Mrs. BOXER. It says: For 40 years the EPA has protected our health and for 40 years the Clean Air Act has been reducing dozens of different pollutants--all while contributing to America's economic prosperity. Every single time we try to rein in pollution, special interests say: No, no, no, a thousand times no. We will stop growth. We will stop jobs. We will kill the economy. It is awful, awful, awful. Let me give one economic fact: If you can't breathe, you can't work. Here is a picture of a little girl suffering, struggling. I urge my colleagues who support Senator McConnell to look at this. They are not here, but maybe on TV they will. Look at this picture. Is that what we want for her future? We have another picture of a little boy. This is what is happening in this country because of the polluters who will not clean up their mess. Here is another beautiful child. We all love children. How many speeches have we had on this floor--we love children, children are our future, we will fight for our children. Do we want their future to look like this, breathing through a device? Come on. This is clear. You go to any school. I defy my colleagues, try this. Go to any school in your State and say: By the way, how many of you have asthma? You will see the little hands go up. Then you say: How many of you know someone with asthma? You will see half the class raise their hands. Yet what are we doing on this beautiful bill--that Senator Landrieu, I know, wants to have cleaned up? She doesn't want these amendments on it. Regardless of how she may feel or I may feel, we both agree we should not have these amendments on it, but so be it. We have to vote these amendments down because we are responsible for these kids. All our side is saying is very simple: The Clean Air Act has worked. If I went up to you and I said: If you know something worked perfectly well, would you mess with it? Would you change it? No. Why would you, if it is working well? So let's take a look at how well the Clean Air Act is working. I know how strong the belief of the Presiding Officer is on this subject. Let's take a look at this. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature deaths. By 2020, that number is projected to rise to 230,000 cases of premature death. So if we stay on course and we fool around with the Clean Air Act--as my Republican friends have already done in the House and I pray to God they do not succeed--we are going to see more deaths in 2020. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million fewer asthma attacks. I showed you the picture of those children. Why do we want to mess with that? The Clean Air Act prevented 10,000 acute heart attacks. You read the stories: So-and-so went out on a heavy, bad air day, took a little jog, and collapsed. I have to tell you, we have a success story to tell about what the Clean Air Act is doing. I will show a chart of what happened in Los Angeles. A lot of you go to my beautiful State. I know the chairman of the committee said she was just there, and it was a terrific visit to my State. We have a magnificent State. But there were times when you went to Los Angeles that you saw the air. That is not a good thing. When you see the air, that is a bad thing. The air was thick. People were told on many mornings: Do not go out unless you must. The air is so dangerous. The Clean Air Act passed. Guess what. In 2010, we have had no mornings like that--none. We went from 166 days a year of health advisories in southern California to none in 2010. I have to say, if you show me any other law that has had this record of success, I will smile and be happy. We went from 166 days a year of smog advisories to none because of the Clean Air Act. I have already told you, we have saved lives, saved asthma attacks. We have done it all. Yet there are people in this Chamber who want to either postpone enforcing the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon or want to stop it forever, which is the McConnell amendment and the worst amendment of them all, if I had to rate them. I have a couple other charts to share with you and then I will close. The McConnell amendment, which is the worst of all amendments--none of them are good--they all interfere with the Environmental Protection Agency, which is supported, the EPA, by 69 percent of the people. But the McConnell amendment is a disaster. It is the same as the Upton amendment, the Upton bill in the House, and the Inhofe bill in the Senate. The McConnell amendment--what does it do? It says that forever more, the EPA cannot do anything to regulate carbon pollution regardless of how dangerous it is, regardless of what the scientists tell us, regardless of what the physicians tell us, regardless of what the people tell us through the polls, regardless of what our communities tell us, what our States tell us, what our mayors tell us. Forever more, they are repealing the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon pollution. Rather extreme. Outrageous. We have to beat it. We must beat it. It is so bad. It goes against the Supreme Court decision. By the way, there will be lawsuits up the wazoo if it ever becomes law, and it will not, I pray. The Supreme Court said that if we find--scientists--that carbon pollution is dangerous, we have to regulate it. Guess what. The scientists found that carbon pollution is dangerous. They made an endangerment finding. The EPA is ready to act, I think in a judicious way. They are very mindful. They are not going after farms, they are not going after small businesses. That is not good enough for these special interests who took out this huge ad today standing against--it is a beautiful ad. It looks almost environmental, green. This is not green; it is dirty--dirty air. That is what this ad stands for--dirty air. A lot of people did not want me to come back here because they knew I would come here and tell the truth about this. But I am here, and I am going to tell the truth every day in every way because I love my grandkids and I love everybody's grandkids. As far as I am concerned, that is why I am here--not to protect the rich polluters who make billions of dollars a year. They can clean up their act. We proved it. We proved it. We have said we do not want kids struggling for air, and we said we can do this right. We proved it. We not only proved we can clean up the air, we not only proved we can save lives, we not only proved we can save asthma attacks, we proved we can grow this economy. I am going to close now and let my friend from Louisiana have the floor, but I have to close with this. There is a lot of talk about how this is bad for business. But the fact is, every time the polluters get up and say: Do not pass any more Clean Air Act amendments, it is going to be bad for jobs. We found out that cleaning up the environment actually creates jobs. Not only does it create jobs, it creates new technologies. Not only does it create new technologies, but those technologies are exported to the world. And I will have printed in the Record the number of jobs that have been created as we moved to clean up the air. So the reason I am here--and I think it is quite a spirited discussion I am having with all of you--is because we are facing four bad amendments--four, count them, the worst being McConnell--all of which would either slow down the EPA or stop the EPA. By the way, the McConnell amendment is so terrible that it even says EPA can no longer have anything to do with tailpipe emissions of cars, which is such an important part of the dirty air we are facing. In closing, according to information from the Institute of Clean Air Companies--those are American companies that oppose these big polluting companies--from 1999 to 2001, the number of boilermakers in the United States increased by 6,700--a 35-percent increase--even though we said: You have to clean up the air. The Department of Commerce shows that the U.S. environmental technology industry generated $300 billion in revenues, supported 1.7 million jobs. The air pollution control sector produced $18 billion in revenue. Small and medium-sized companies make up 99 percent of the private sector firms in this sector of the economy. So here is what you have. You have these huge, multibillion-dollar polluters who can afford to take one-page ads, full-page ads in the Washington Post. They want to continue polluting the air, and they don't want to clean it up. And you have a whole other group of businesses that have written to us and said: Please let the EPA do its work. It saves lives, it saves our children, and it creates many jobs-- new jobs, clean jobs, good jobs. If we go down the path of the McConnell amendment and these other amendments, we are ceding our leadership in environmental clean tech to China. That is the last thing we want to do. They are already surpassing us in solar production, and we created it. So the bill before us is a fine bill. I hope, if we have to vote for these amendments, and they do come up as part of this agreement as we move forward, we will not pass any of them and we will allow the people to have their way. Sixty-nine percent of them say: Let the EPA do its job. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so proud to be here with my colleagues Senator Mikulski and Kay Bailey Hutchison because of a woman who brought us all together despite any differences we might have, Geraldine Ferraro. I rise to pay tribute to Gerry. I thank Senator Mikulski. Her remarks touched on every single point that needs to be made about our friend. Gerry was a trailblazer. We all remember the first female Vice Presidential nominee of a major party, the first in U.S. history. She cracked open that glass ceiling for women seeking higher office. It was a long time ago. I just looked at an Associated Press photo of when Gerry arrived in San Francisco to prepare for her speech at the convention. I was there waiting for her to arrive--a much younger version of myself, I might say. I don't remember what I said or did, but this picture tells a story. We know the old saying: A picture says a thousand words. This one says a million words. I have never seen anyone as excited as I appear to be and was in this picture. Arms open wide, body language, just incredulous that we had reached this milestone, all the while knowing what a tough, tough time it would be for Gerry, as it is for many women, whether they run for the Senate or for Governor or for Vice President. It is a tough road still, especially all these many years ago, more than 20 years. Gerry was given a very hard time by the press. Gerry was given a very hard time by her opponent. She proved without question that women can stand up to the grilling. Women can stand up to the pressure. Women can go toe to toe with anybody. I often say women are equal. We are not better or worse. We are equal. Gerry proved it. When her campaign took a tough turn and a lot of others would have tried to contain the problem, she stood there in front of the press and said: Here I am. You ask me anything you want, and I will stay here hour after hour. They knew she meant it. She would have stayed there for days because that was Gerry. She was open-hearted. She was straight from the shoulder. She always said what was on her mind, and she did it in a way that was also very appealing because you knew this was a woman who was willing to look you in the eye and not give you any song and dance. It was what it was. And for that she will be missed as a friend, as a colleague. It is difficult today to imagine what it was like then. Now we see our women figures here in the Senate and in the President's Cabinet and in the Republican and Democratic Parties making a run for President and Vice President. It is hard to imagine today that women were not actively engaged in the highest of offices. Frankly, that is Geraldine Ferraro's abiding legacy because, as Senator Mikulski so eloquently stated, she did not win that race--it was a tough race; it was a very tough race--but she proved a woman could do this. When Gerry spoke about change, she felt in her heart the history- making moment. I remember her in a white suit, as if it were yesterday. In those years, TV people always said: Don't wear white. Gerry wore white.

Mrs. BOXER. She was magnificent. And that smile and her togetherness--at that moment in history, when not only was the whole country watching, the whole world was watching--it was an electric moment. I want to read what she said that night. She said: By choosing a woman to run for our nation's second highest office, you sent a powerful signal to all Americans. There are no doors we cannot unlock. We will place no limits on [our] achievements. If we can do this, we can do anything. And those words resonated not just with people who were interested in politics but with women who were in the corporate world; women who were going to law school--just a few in those years, now so many more; women who just dreamed of going into health care, not as a nurse, although some chose that--and some men do as well--but as physicians. This was something I truly believe changed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes, and then turn it over to Senator Hutchison.

Mrs. BOXER. Well, Mr. President, there was only one Gerry Ferraro, so I would go 5 minutes and turn it over to Senator Hutchison for as long as she would want. After graduation from college, Gerry got a job as a second grade teacher at a public school in Queens. She applied to Fordham Law School. That is the law school my husband went to. She was accepted into the night program, despite a warning--listen to this--from an admissions officer that she might be taking a man's place. She got into law school. She was one of 2 women in a class of 179. Imagine, they said to her: You will be taking a man's place in law school. She persevered--one of just 2 women out of 179 students graduating in 1960. Yes, she raised her family. She adored her family. There was not a second that went by without her saying to one of us, anywhere in earshot: I have to tell you about Laura, I have to tell you about John, I have to tell you about what my kids are doing. Did my colleague want to ask a question?

Mrs. BOXER. As long as it will not interrupt my statement.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. I am very glad the Senator made that statement, and I appreciate it very much. When Gerry worked as an assistant district attorney, she formed a Special Victims Bureau. She investigated rape, child and women abuse, and abuse against the elderly at a time when no one was talking about it. She was elected to Congress. Senator Mikulski has gone into that, the work on the Economic Equity Act. I was proud to work with both Senator Mikulski and Gerry Ferraro on that and Senator Snowe and others. I remember Senator Mikulski, Olympia Snowe, Gerry Ferraro, and myself--we worked to open the House gym to women. It was a battle. We had to resort to singing and everything else. We finally got into the House gym. We said, yes, women need to work out too. That is the way it was then. We only had 24 women in the House and Senate. Now we have 88 of us. I will skip over her time as a broadcaster and all the things she did that Senator Mikulski talked about--her work in women's rights--but I wish to conclude with her brave spirit as she faced multiple myeloma, the bone cancer that ultimately took her life. I wish to do it in this context. I have a good friend now, whose name is Robin, and her mother is battling the same kind of cancer Gerry was battling. As we know, Gerry was given 4 or 5 years and went on, thank God, for much longer. This woman lives far away from her daughter Robin. When Gerry passed, she called her daughter and said: I need to see you. Will you come out and stay with me, as I battle this cancer? Robin said: Well, what is it, mom? You are doing great. She said: We just lost Gerry, and she was the one who kept my heart and soul together and my spirits up, and I knew she was there battling. Now that I have lost her, I don't know, I feel a hole, I am empty. That is just the most eloquent thing I could say about Gerry. This woman never met Geraldine Ferraro in person, but Gerry had that way about her that she could reach you as if she was touching you. It is a tremendous loss, first and foremost for the family, whom she adored beyond words, and, secondly, for all the rest of us who just need someone like that out there standing up and being brave and telling it like it is and never giving up. Mr. President, I am so honored I could be here with my colleagues, and I am proud to yield to Senator Hutchison for as much time as she needs.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my deepest condolences to the people of Japan, and to reaffirm that the United States stands ready to assist the country and its people in this time of tremendous need. On Friday, March 11, the world watched in horror as a devastating 9.0-magnitude earthquake struck off the northeastern coast of Japan, triggering a devastating tsunami that sent a 30-foot high wall of water hurtling into coastal towns and leaving complete destruction in its wake. As a Senator from California, which has far too often experienced the devastation of earthquakes, I was horrified by the magnitude of this event. In a stunning development, scientists are now saying that the quake caused the island of Japan to shift by 8 feet and the Earth's axis to move by 4 inches. In Japanese cities such as Sendai and Minami Sanriku, entire communities and countless lives vanished in an instant. In Minami Sanriku alone, 10,000 members of a population of 17,000 remain unaccounted for. The force of the tsunami generated by the quake was so great that waves traveled across the Pacific Ocean at more than 500 miles per hour, slamming into Hawaii and cities along the California and Oregon coasts. Today, we know that an estimated 4,277 lives have been confirmed lost--a figure that will undoubtedly rise--and that hundreds of thousands have been displaced. In this time of extraordinary grief, our thoughts and prayers go out to those who have lost loved ones and to those whose family and friends remain missing. What we also know is that without Japan's strict building codes and well-developed early warning systems, this terrible tragedy would have been much worse. I praise the work of all the first responders who are working around the clock in Japan. Tens of thousands of Japanese rescue workers have been joined by teams from around the world, including from the United States and China. I know that this includes a search and rescue team from Los Angeles County. The team, which left for Japan on Saturday, is made up of 74 rescue personnel including firefighters and paramedics as well as six teams of search dogs who are trained to look for survivors trapped in debris left by the earthquake and tsunami. There are also approximately 600 servicemembers from Naval Air Station Lemoore in California aboard the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier, who are assisting relief efforts off the Japanese coast. Our deepest gratitude goes out to all of those who are working tirelessly to save lives and bring comfort to communities in need. We also know that the earthquake and tsunami have caused tremendous difficulty at a number of nuclear energy facilities within Japan. The damage and subsequent failure of systems at these nuclear reactors are a clear warning that we must step up efforts to ensure that every precaution is taken to safeguard all of our people from a similar nuclear disaster. Special and immediate attention should be given to those nuclear reactors that share similar conditions as the failing reactors in Japan--those located near a coastline or fault line, or those with a similar design. We must all reexamine our assumptions about what constitutes a credible threat to those reactors and ensure we learn the lessons shown to us by the recent events in Japan. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over domestic nuclear regulatory activities, I will ensure that our members have full briefings on all of these issues, and I will hold a hearing on the safety of the Nation's nuclear facilities and what lessons can be learned from the dangerous situation at the failing reactors in Japan. I am also calling on the NRC to conduct a comprehensive investigation of these issues, with a focus on areas that are especially vulnerable to seismic activity like California. I would also like to spend a few moments talking about the approximately 300,000 Japanese-Americans who call California home. I am particularly proud that the Japanese American community in my State has quickly stepped up to assist with relief efforts in the aftermath of this horrible tragedy. This includes the Japan America Society of Southern California--a nonprofit organization founded in 1909 to build relationships between the United States and Japan. This also includes the nonprofit Japanese Cultural and Community Center of Northern California. These are just a couple of examples of how Californians are pulling together to help the thousands who have been devastated by the earthquake and tsunami. I thank all those in California, and those across the country and the world, who have responded to this tragedy with an outpouring of support for the people of Japan. I would also like to take just a brief moment to thank the Federal, State, and local officials in Hawaii, California and along the west coast for their quick response in warning residents of the tsunami threat and assisting those communities affected by severe waves. Coastal areas in northern California, particularly Crescent City and Santa Cruz, were impacted by these waves, resulting in damages to port and harbor infrastructure. I am pleased that federal officials arrived in California Monday and are working with State and local officials to assess the situation. And finally, I thank Senators Reid, McConnell, Kerry, and Lugar for drafting a resolution on the tragedy which passed the Senate Monday evening. I am proud to be a cosponsor. The resolution expresses the Senate's deepest condolences to all of those affected by this tragedy, including the families of the victims. It also urges the U.S. Government and the international community to provide any additional assistance the Japanese government may need as it moves toward healing, rebuilding, and recovery. Experts tell us that events of this magnitude are rare--in fact, this was the largest recorded earthquake in Japan's history. While we hope and pray that we never see such a horrific event again, this tragedy serves as a stark reminder of nature's extraordinary power and how precious and fragile life is. Let us also use this as an opportunity to redouble our commitment here in America to do the hard work of preparing for the unthinkable.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have the floor now to respond to some of the statements of my friend from Alaska, and also to be able to enter into some colloquies about this very dangerous and radical amendment. But before I do that, without losing my right to the floor, I yield for a moment to Senator Snowe to lay down an amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.

Mrs. BOXER. Well, I say to my friend, not only do I generally agree, I agree wholeheartedly. Let me show you a picture of a couple of kids. We have a couple of pictures. I would love my friend to look at this, these beautiful children. They say a picture is worth 1,000 words. This is worth 1 million words. This baby has to go to a mask to breathe air because the air is so foul. We have another picture of another child. I am sure my colleague has seen it. I am a grandma. I would say we are talking maybe 3 years old, maybe even younger, a child knowing how to gasp for air. Here is another beautiful child. The answer I give to my friend is-- thanking him for his passion, because this is what he has dealt with with one of his grandkids, the fear, the blood-curdling fear, as my friend has said over and over, that when he is out and playing a sport, he might have to rush to an emergency room and my friend's daughter having to know in advance where the nearest emergency room is--this amendment is an attack on our children. Let me prove it. We have the leading health experts who have just sent us a letter telling us it is an attack on our children. I put up any Senator against these groups for a debate. When I hear from the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation, from physicians across the country, the Trust for America's Health--they say: Beat this McConnell amendment; it is dangerous--I listen. So should every American. I don't care if one is a Republican or a Democrat. The Senator from Alaska was railing against the Environmental Protection Agency. Let's see what the American people think of the Environmental Protection Agency. There was a bipartisan poll done by a Republican pollster and a Democratic pollster. Sixty-nine percent of Americans think EPA should update the Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution limits. The McConnell amendment says to EPA: You may not do this. You may not update air pollution standards as it relates to carbon pollution. We are a country that is polarized by a lot of issues. I appreciate that. I often say, I just came out of an election that was tough. But 68 percent of the people believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards. Let me repeat: 68 percent of the American people--this poll was done February 16, very recently--believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards. Guess what the McConnell amendment does. It stops the EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards. Sixty-nine percent believe EPA scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards. What does the McConnell amendment do? It says that Mitch McConnell and Jim Inhofe--my buddy, my pal, and we are friends. But on this one, we are on opposite sides. I stand with the American people on this one. Sixty-nine percent say EPA scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards. Why would that be? These are people from Alabama, Florida, California, New Hampshire. It doesn't matter. This is a huge number. Why do they think that? Common sense. We trust doctors and scientists to tell us what is good for us, not politicians. Period. We have Members of Congress who are doctors. But I have to say, some of them come out against the science and the doctors because they have given that up. They are politicians now. Here is the deal. We have the McConnell amendment. It is taken straight from the Upton bill in the House and the Inhofe bill in the Senate that stops EPA in its tracks from updating Clean Air Act standards, so that we have a standard for carbon pollution which is dangerous. Who tells us it is dangerous? The doctors. Who tells us it is dangerous? The scientists. Who made an endangerment finding? The Environmental Protection Agency. Do my colleagues know who actually came up with the idea of an Environmental Protection Agency in the 1970s? Richard Nixon. Everyone knows Richard Nixon was a Republican. By the way, I have the same Senate seat he once held. In this, we are in agreement. The EPA was a brilliant idea. Why? Because if we can't breathe, we can't work. My colleagues may think they are doing something for the economy by telling the EPA to go into their rooms and forget about their jobs. But when people start getting more asthma, when there are increased premature deaths, they will think about it again. Let me show my colleagues what happened in Los Angeles since the Clean Air Act was passed. This is an amazing graph. I hope people can see this clearly. In the 1970s, when Richard Nixon and Congress voted the Clean Air Act in--and it was voted in with a huge majority, it was overwhelming--in Los Angeles, 166 days were lost where people were told they had to stay in, sensitive people. I remember those years. You used to go to the radio to make sure it was safe to go out, if you had a kid with asthma or you had a mom who had a breathing problem. More than half the year, in those years, you couldn't go out of the house. Think about what that says about the economy, when people are trapped inside their houses. Think about what it means to their freedom of movement and think about what it means to the economy when so many people have to stay home and not go to work, not go to school. Over the years, as the EPA starts to do its job, we start to see fewer and fewer lost days where people could actually go out. I am proud to tell my colleagues, in 2010, in Los Angeles, which was once the smog capital of the Nation, not one day was there an advisory, not one day. What more of a success rate can we have? Do my colleagues want to see more success? I will show you some of the benefits in another way. The Congress said to the EPA: We want to make sure there are benefits that go along with your enforcement of the Clean Air Act, so that when you go to a company that is belching smoke and you say they have to install some cleanup devices, it is working. What did we find out? In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature death. We understand why the heart doctors and the lung doctors and the physicians and the public health doctors are telling us: Don't vote for McConnell. It will turn the clock back. We saved 160,000 lives in 2010 alone. Projected out, it is going to go way higher in the number of premature deaths averted, if we move forward with the Clean Air Act and we don't substitute politicians for doctors and scientists. Clearly, we are on the right track. In the future, we prevent even more deaths--230,000, to be exact, by 2020. I don't care if one is a Republican or a Democrat, liberal, conservative, Independent, whatever, this has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with families. This has to do with health. That is why we see 69 percent of the people saying: Congress, butt out of this. Let the EPA do its work. That is why a defeat of the McConnell amendment means we are standing with the doctors, with the scientists and, more than anything else, we are standing with the kids. We are standing with these beautiful kids, these kids who at age 3 are having to learn how to breathe oxygen because they can't go outside because the air is dirty. Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of this baby and his family or are we on the side of the biggest polluters in the country who are making billions of dollars? They are doing fine, and all they have to do is do a little bit more to clean up the air. We had lots of arguments over the years. Every time we had Clean Air Act amendments, people argued: Don't do it. The air is clean enough. Stop. Enough. Business can't do it. Guess what we found out. Not only did business step up to the plate and do it, but what was created was an incredible export business, exports of clean air products, technologies, machinery, the best available technology made in America. We are talking about taking the lead on clean air and keeping it, not retreating. We remember when the Berlin Wall came down. Everyone said: Hooray. But then they could see the air settling on the other side. Germany did the right thing, and they said: We are going to clean up the air in Eastern Europe. Because without clean air, you can't have growth. I am happy to see my friend from Washington State. I will yield to her for a question. I want her to know how much I rely on her leadership. Maria Cantwell has been a leader from the beginning on clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, cleaning up Superfund sites. She never flinches. Before I yield for a question, I started off my debate by telling the Senate what my friends on the other side call their amendment. They call it the Energy Tax Prevention Act. I have already told my colleagues why it should be called the more air pollution for every American act or, if they don't like that, we could call it the relying on foreign oil forever act. That is what it truly is. It stops us from cleaning up our air, which the people definitely do not support, 69 percent of the people in a bipartisan poll. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this Truth-O- Meter Politifact. That is an independent Web site that judges the truth of these claims.

Mrs. BOXER. They looked at this amendment. They said the claim is false, that gasoline prices would go down. So beware of things that are called good names. But when we get behind them, we see they are not good. They are dangerous. This is a red flag coming from me to everybody watching the debate. This bill would tell the EPA they can no longer do their job--EPA, one of the most popular agencies in the Nation. Sixty-nine percent of the people say: Do your job. It would, in essence, stop us from making more fuel-efficient cars because it would say States cannot do more, and that would mean reliance on foreign oil. I am happy to yield to my friend from Washington for a question.

Mrs. BOXER. I have the floor, and I plan to proceed as long as colleagues want to come and ask questions. I could go until about 5.

Mrs. BOXER. She was already allowed to offer it.