Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Mikulski has asked that I control the time for our side, so I will stay on the Senate floor. What time does that time expire?

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I am here today to speak out along with my colleagues for the women and children in our Nation who would be gravely harmed by the House budget, H.R. 1. I hope we get the chance to vote on that House budget because I think the American people need to look at what is going on with my Republican friends who are in charge of the House of Representatives. We all know we need to reduce the deficit, but we also know the right way to do it. We did it with President Bill Clinton. We did it with a mix of revenue-raisers and smart cuts, plus investments that paid dividends. We did it in such a way that we actually had a surplus at the end of the day, and 23 million new jobs. When George W. Bush took over, the surplus was gone and the job creation was gone. Compared to 23 million new jobs, under President George W. Bush there were 1 million jobs created, and he left us with soaring deficits and the deepest recession since the Great Depression. That is the story. It has a beginning, a middle, and we are about to write the end. I will be honest. I will stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are willing to fight for the people of this country and the middle class of this country. According to leading experts, the budget bill, H.R. 1, would destroy 700,000 jobs, hurt our families, and, to me--this is my personal opinion--it looks as though they have a political vendetta against women, children, and a healthy environment on which they rely because they need to breathe clean air and drink clean water. All of this is on the chopping block in the House. Let's look at the title X family planning program. It is zeroed out. It is zeroed out in H.R. 1, the House Republican budget. What does title X do? Title X provides contraceptive services for 4.7 million women nationwide, almost 5 million women nationwide. It helps prevent almost 1 million unintended pregnancies. Now, here are my friends on the other side joining with us. We are all saying let's make sure we cut down on the number of abortions. What is one proven way to do it? Contraception. They would prevent almost 1 million people from getting that kind of service. Planned Parenthood operates 800 health care centers nationwide. I know my colleagues are very aware of health centers. They provide 720,000 breast exams nationwide, 730,000 pap tests. What does this mean? Hundreds of thousands of women just in California, and millions nationwide, go to Planned Parenthood to make sure they don't have breast cancer, they don't have cervical cancer, they don't have an STD, they don't have AIDS. And if, God forbid, it turns out they have any of these things, they can get treated. Without this, they are in deep trouble. Everyone in America knows early detection is where it is at. So if I said the impact of the Republican budget would mean more abortions, more breast cancer, more cervical cancer, more STDs, more AIDS left untreated, that is not hyperbole. It is not an understatement. That is a fact. I wish to talk about Nicole Sandoval from Pasadena, CA. She wrote to me and said: Please support Planned Parenthood because--by the way, our colleagues eliminate Planned Parenthood getting $1 of Federal funding. What are they implying? That the funds are used for abortion services. That is an outright lie. Since the 1970s, the Hyde amendment has said not one penny of Federal funds may be used for providing abortions, so they know that is an untruth. Yet they let it hang out there. The money Planned Parenthood gets is for just what I said: cancer prevention, sexually transmitted disease prevention, and contraception. So what does Nicole say? She was 23 years old. She had no insurance. Planned Parenthood was there for her and caught her cervical cancer early enough to save her life. So I stand with Nicole Sandoval. I am here to stand with Leah Garrard from Torrance. She wrote to me about a horrific incident in which a member of her family was raped. This young woman went to Planned Parenthood. She didn't know where else to go. She wrote and said: Planned Parenthood directed her family member to a local hospital, got in touch with the local sexual assault nurse examiner, and contacted her family to come and take care of her. Had her family member not gone to Planned Parenthood, she truly, she wrote, would not have survived that experience. I stand with Leah and her family and with Planned Parenthood. Zero out Planned Parenthood? Where are we going? We are certainly not going forward. We are going backward. I remember the years when George Herbert Walker Bush was on the board of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is a bipartisan operation. If you walk in the door, they don't ask whether you are a Democrat, Republican, registered voter, or who you are. You get taken care of, and the community is healthier. Now, in the remaining time I wish to talk about the attack on the environment in which women and children have to live. The attack on the Environmental Protection Agency is the biggest cut of any agency in the Federal Government by our Republican friends over in the House. Seventy percent of the American people say the Environmental Protection Agency should do its job. Sixty-nine percent think the EPA should update EPA Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution limits. Sixty-eight percent believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards. Sixty-nine percent believe that EPA scientists--not Congress--should set pollution standards. Look at this. In this tough time, when the country is divided, almost 70 percent of our people say leave EPA alone. But, no, our Republican friends whack that agency by one-third-- billions of dollars--and not only that, instruct that agency with riders telling them they can't enforce air pollution standards for soot. We know what happens when you are exposed to soot. We are looking at other exposures as well--small particulate matter which gets into our lungs and is lodged in our lungs. They say we can't look at cement manufacturing and go after the mercury that comes out of those stacks--the mercury and arsenic. Do we think the American people want dirtier air? Is that what the election was about? I just came out of a tough election. I have to tell you that not one person ever came up to me and said: Please, I want more soot. I need more smog. It is missing out of my life. Oh my God, when my kids drink water, I want them to get contaminated. Forget it. That is not what the election was about. It was about jobs, jobs, jobs. OK. Let's look at a photo of a child who pays the price when the air is dirty. Children's exposure to air pollution worsens asthma attacks and causes lost days at school, emergency room visits, and for older people, it causes heart attacks, stroke, cancer, and premature death. According to the American Lung Association--and we have another picture--asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in children. It affects 7 million children. Here is a photo of another beautiful baby. I am showing you this as a grandma. I am going to take another 2 minutes and then turn it over to Senator Shaheen. Look at this picture, this face. Look at those eyes. I wish to say to our friends in the House, what are you doing? You are throwing women and children under the bus. You are throwing the middle class under the bus. I, for one, am going to tell the truth. During my campaign, people would say: What are you going to do to win? How are you going to win? I said: I have a secret plan. I am going to tell the truth. I am going to just lay it out there. Look, the truth is, EPA released a new report that was asked for by Congress. Congress demanded to know the benefit of the clean air law. They said that, in 2010 alone, 160,000 cases of premature deaths were avoided. Can you believe that? They want to turn all this back. The American Lung Association says H.R. 1 is toxic to the public health. They say it would result in millions of Americans, including kids, seniors, and people with chronic disease, such as asthma, being forced to breathe air that is unhealthy. It can cause asthma, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and shorten lives. A Republican President set up the EPA--a Republican President-- Richard Nixon. What are you doing over there? I already said that George Herbert Walker Bush was on the board of Planned Parenthood. Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act. They don't either seem to have a sense of history or they have moved so far away from some of the proud traditions of their party that they have lost total touch. In closing, we have to stop this war against women and against children. We are going to have to stop this war against the environment. We are going to come forward with deficit reduction that will equal what they do, but we will do it in a way that doesn't hurt job creation and doesn't hurt our kids, our families, and the environment we all depend upon.

Mrs. BOXER. It is my honor to yield to Senator Shaheen for 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Kay Hagan.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hagan for her remarks. She is one of the leaders in the Senate in finding solutions to the deficit that do not kill jobs and do deficit reduction in the right way. I thank her. She made the point that when we attack kids and pregnant women, at the end of the day it is morally reprehensible, but in addition to that it costs money. That point was made beautifully. It is an honor to yield 10 minutes to a great colleague, Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington State.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, after consulting with my friends, Senator Collins and Senator Sessions, I give Senator Lautenberg until 6 minutes after the hour and then add 6 minutes to the time of the Republicans.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am so pleased the Senate has passed H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011. This legislation provides a clean extension of Federal surface transportation programs through the end of the fiscal year. H.R. 662 was passed by the House of Representatives yesterday by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 421-4. This legislation had previously been approved by voice vote in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Under this extension, States will receive $23.1 billion for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. This equates to over 800,000 jobs nationwide that would be created or saved. As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I am working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol to move forward on a transportation authorization that will put people to work, bring our Nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems up to a state of good repair, and reduce congestion and its impacts on commerce and communities. The committee is planning to markup a new authorization by spring. However, this extension is necessary in order to give Congress time to enact this authorization. I have letters from several organizations who urged Congress to pass H.R. 662. These letters were signed by AAA; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO; American Bus Association; American Highway Users Alliance; American Motorcyclist Association; Americans for Transportation Mobility, which includes 12 organizations; American Trucking Associations; Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association; and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This broad and diverse coalition composed of businesses, workers, and users of the highways, recognized the need to enact this legislation today. Investments in transportation infrastructure are an important part of the solution to the serious economic challenges we are facing. This is especially true in the construction industry, which has been hit hard by the economic downturn. According to January data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the construction industry has an unemployment rate of over 22 percent. Not only will this extension of SAFETEA-LU save jobs in the short term, an extension through the end of the fiscal year will provide the opportunity for Congress to enact a new surface transportation bill. I am so pleased that my colleagues did the right thing and approved this legislation that will save hundreds of thousands of jobs, improve our nation's infrastructure, and provide a solid foundation for economic recovery. I ask unanimous consent that several letters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Chair cut me off at 1 minute?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch so much. I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein, for this critical amendment. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my dear friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein. The amendment would strike the first-to-file provision in the patent reform bill. I was pleased to work with my colleague, Dr. Coburn, in support of his amendment to allow the patent office to keep its user fees, which was accepted into the managers' amendment that passed yesterday. To me, that was one of the most important reforms we could enact in this legislation--giving the PTO the resources it needs to serve the public. I support efforts to improve our patent system. And there are some good things in this bill, including efforts to help small businesses navigate the PTO. But I strongly disagree with changing the core principle of our patent system--awarding a patent to the true inventor--for the sake of perceived administrative ease. Unlike other countries, our patent system is rooted in our Constitution. We are the only country in the world whose Constitution specifically mentions ``inventor.'' Article I, section 8 states ``The Congress shall have the power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' Our system recognizes the complete process of invention--from conception to completion. The United States is still the heart of innovation in the world, and its patent system is its soul. Despite our rich history, the bill before us today seeks to erase over 200 years of invention and achievement, and replace it with a weaker system. Let's talk about those changes. Section 2 of the bill awards a patent to the first person to file, regardless of whether that person was the true inventor--the one who first conceived and developed the invention to completion. That goes directly against the express language of the Constitution, which awards patents to the inventor, not the fastest to the PTO. Section 2 of the bill also provides a weaker grace period than current law. This is a big change that will have a significant economic effect on startups, entrepreneurs and individual inventors. I believe it is a change that we cannot afford, especially in these tough economic times when we need our small businesses to create new jobs. Current law allows an inventor to obtain a patent if an application is filed within a year of a public use, sale or publication of information about the invention. That year is called the grace period, during which an inventor's right to apply is protected from disclosures or applications by others related to his invention. The grace period is important because it allows smaller entities, like startups or individual inventors, time to set up their businesses, seek funding, offer their inventions for sale or license, and prepare a thorough patent application. Put another way, the grace period is an integral part of the formation of a small business. The grace period has been a part of our patent system since 1839, and it was implemented to encourage inventors to engage in commercial activity, such as demonstrations and sales negotiations, without fear of being beaten to the patent office by someone with more resources. The new grace period in the bill, however, would no longer cover important commercial activities such as sales or licensing negotiations. The new provision also contains vague, undefined terms that will inject more uncertainty into the system at a time when inventors and investors need more certainty. Proponents of first-to-file will argue that there have been studies or reports that show that a first-to-file system does not harm small entities. For example, they often mention the report of the National Academies of Science that reached that conclusion. However, those studies and reports only analyzed the rare cases where two parties claimed to be the first inventor. Do you know how rare those cases are? Last year, there were 52 cases out of over 450,000 applications filed--.01 percent of all applications ended up in a contest. I do not think we should change over 170 years of protection for small entities based on cases that happen with the frequency of a hole in one in golf--1 out of 12,500, or .01 percent. Listen to the conclusion of a report analyzing the business effects of Canada's switch to a first-to-file system: The divergence between small entities and large corporations in patenting after the Reforms supports the idea that a switch to a first-to-file system will result in relatively less inventive activity being carried out by independent inventors as well as small businesses, and more being channeled through large corporations instead. In closing, I believe there are things we can do to improve our patent system. But I also believe that the foundation of our Constitution-based system--a patent is awarded to the inventor--has worked well for over 220 years, and we should not change that core. It has produced inventors such as Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, and George Washington Carver. We should not change the core of our system, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the Feinstein amendment. Mr. President, I will conclude in this way. The Feinstein amendment is necessary. It is necessary because the first person to invent should get the protection from the Patent Office. We believe that if this amendment does not pass, it goes against the express language of the Constitution which awards patents to the inventor, not the fastest one to run down to the Patent Office. Senator Feinstein has explained why this is a matter of fairness and is better for consumers. I am hopeful that the amendment passes. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I think the managers are aware that I am going to make a unanimous consent request shortly on a bill that deals with Members' pay in the event of a government shutdown. I have been told we are waiting to see--there is apparently one objection on the Republican side. If we can clear it, then this will be passed. If not, then I will be back later to make the same request. I say to my friend from Vermont and my friend from Iowa that I support the managers' package. It is terrific. One of the things in there is a Coburn-Boxer amendment that would keep the patent fees in the Patent Office. I am so glad the chairman sees it that way because we have such a tremendous backlog. I will be happy to yield to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. That is a good idea. The reason I have done it this way is because I am trying to say that we in the Senate and in the House have an obligation to keep the government running, and we should be treated just like other Federal employees. That is the simplicity of this legislation. We cannot force a Member to give money to charity.

Mrs. BOXER. Again, that is treating us differently than other Federal employees. That would be a tax writeoff.

Mrs. BOXER. It is a tax writeoff to give to charity. All I am saying is that is certainly another option if my friend wanted to change it. I just think it is simple. We just want to be treated the same as other Federal employees, and that is how I have structured it. I spoke about this issue this morning. I wrote this bill with the support of Casey, Manchin, Tester, Nelson of Nebraska, Bennet, Warner, Wyden, Coons, Harkin, Hagan, Menendez, Stabenow, Merkley, and Rockefeller. There is a growing consensus that we want to avoid a shutdown at any cost. I am hoping we will avoid it. There could come a moment where it is forced upon us. There are lots of stories--who will get the blame for this, that, and the other. To me, that is not important. What is important to me is that we sacrifice--we in the Senate and in the House as well. I am hopeful that if we get this done and send this over to Speaker Boehner that he will get it through his body over there, and we can get this done and send it to the President. It impacts the President too. We say the President cannot get paid either because the deal is we have to work with the President to come up with a compromise. Senator Leahy has a good suggestion. Some people might like that option better. I believe this should be kept very simple; that in the case of a government shutdown we are treated the same way as other Federal employees. The reason we have to do this is Members of Congress and the President are paid by separate statute rather than by the annual appropriations process. We have to pass a separate statute on this issue. It is a very simple bill. Again, I hope we never have to come to this, where we have any type of a shutdown. Maybe this bill will make some colleagues who believe they will be protected from sacrifice realize it is painful. It is painful for a lot of people. Certainly, it would be painful if somebody on Social Security or disability cannot get their payment. It is painful if veterans who are on disability do not get their check. It is certainly painful if a citizen is planning a trip and cannot get a passport. It is painful if Superfund sites cannot be cleaned up. It is painful if there is, God forbid, an oil well explosion because we did not have people there to inspect the oil well. For our business people who are government contractors it is painful if they do not get paid. Export licenses must be granted, and our troops should be paid. So there is no reason why we should shut down this government, and I am very hopeful we will have unanimous consent to do it. I have a parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair: Is it true that we no longer have secret objections here; that a person has to identify themselves if they are objecting?

Mrs. BOXER. So would I be correct if I said that if someone objects, we would know who that individual is so we can speak with that individual? You said there are provisions. Could you be more specific about that?

Mrs. BOXER. Certainly.

Mrs. BOXER. I know this issue, yes.

Mrs. BOXER. We did check this with legal counsel, and they told us that the legislation, as drafted, does not increase or diminish the annual salary of the President. It withholds pay during a shutdown or failure to raise the debt ceiling. There are definitely standing questions, and we are told that only the President would be able to challenge this legislation in a court of law.

Mrs. BOXER. Well, I will repeat what I said. This legislation--

Mrs. BOXER. This legislation, as drafted, does not increase or decrease the salary. If you withhold it, and if the President felt that was a violation, he himself would have to challenge it.

Mrs. BOXER. Because we are not changing--diminishing--his salary.

Mrs. BOXER. It is only in the case of an extraordinary event--a government shutdown.

Mrs. BOXER. The Senator may oppose it.

Mrs. BOXER. I will repeat. We don't diminish, we withhold it during a period of a government shutdown or a failure to raise the debt ceiling. There is a reason we do it. It is very rare we have a government shutdown, but, in my view, and in the view of the cosponsors, this is a major function of our body and of the President--to avert a government shutdown. We don't think it is fair to treat some people differently than others. If other Federal employees are going to get their pay cut and your Social Security recipients don't get their checks, we think the Congress and the President ought to have a bite taken out of their pay as well.

Mrs. BOXER. No, we do not.