Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, is it a fact that the Senator from Utah will have 10 minutes and then the floor will be open for other Senators at that time?

Mrs. BOXER. Well, that was my parliamentary inquiry. So each Senator has 10 minutes, and then at the expiration of 10 minutes, the floor would be open; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am on the floor to talk about a situation that is occurring in my home State with a leak--a natural gas leak that is creating havoc in one of my communities. But before I do, I wish to comment on the issue that my Democratic leader talked about, which is the poisoning of children in Flint, MI, due to lead in the drinking water. Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I believe that when you hurt a child, that is the lowest thing you can do. There is nothing lower in life than hurting an innocent child. That means if you abuse a child, if you taunt a child--but when you poison a child and their brain is damaged for the rest of their life--that is the lowest thing an adult can do. Any adult who knew that these children were being poisoned and looked the other way, in my view, is liable. You don't hurt a child. You don't hurt a child--let alone for life--and destroy their mind. I know that Senators Stabenow and Peters are working hard with the Republicans to come up with something to help the people there, and I hope that it will work out. I know that in my committee on the environment we have been working with them, along with Senator Inhofe, so we can do something. But it is after the fact. It is not as if you can make this damage go away. What shocked me was that on the heels of this tragedy and travesty in Flint, MI, we were marking up a bill, and the Republicans, to a person, supported the ability of people spraying pesticides into drinking water not to have to get a permit anymore and to take away the authority of the EPA to require a permit if you are going to spray harmful pesticides with toxins into a drinking water supply. This is what my Republican friends did in the environment committee. I think they ought to change the name of that committee to the pollution committee. What is that? In addition, the underlying bill says you can never regulate the lead in fishing tackle under TSCA. Lead. Hello? We now know what lead does when it gets into drinking water. If there are ways to have less toxic fishing tackle, shouldn't we try to make that happen if it is available? So here we have a bill called the sportsmen's bill. Lots of things in there are wonderful and I support wholeheartedly, but now we are going to say you can never regulate the lead in fishing tackle under TSCA? Then you are going to say you don't need a permit to spray pesticides into a water supply? You have to be kidding. We talk a lot about defending the American people. We have to do it abroad and at home because dead is dead. It is a serious issue when you expose people to toxins. They get cancer. They have brain damage. I am hopeful we can do something for the people of Flint and stand with them, but I will tell you it is not going to let people off the hook. Anybody who knew this was happening and turned away or said: Who cares? It is a poor community, they will be punished at some point, even if in their own heart. We cannot disconnect from that incident to what we are doing today in saying you no longer need a permit to dump pesticides into drinking water. What are people thinking? Are we so beholden to special moneyed interests that we can't tell them they have to have responsibility? Defending our people means having a smart policy to defend them from terror, which I support, but it also means protecting and defending them with reasonable rules and regulations so we don't poison them here at home or hurt the brains of their kids. I want to show something that is happening in my State as we speak. This is quite a picture. It shows what a gas leak looks like: plumes of methane gas above a community. This is an infrared camera. This is what is happening from a natural gas leak. It didn't happen yesterday and it didn't happen a month ago. It happened on October 23, and it is still out of control. I have submitted an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Feinstein today to get some of the brightest minds from the Department of Energy--and there are very bright minds over there--to take a look at what the heck is happening and why it is that this is running amuck. It is now burning longer than the BP oilspill. I remember so well because I worked so hard on the committee with all of my colleagues, with Senator Landrieu and others, to get to the bottom of why it was happening, and we sent Stephen Chu, who was then Secretary of Energy. Guess what. In the BP spill, he figured out a better way to track the spill and therefore contain it by using gamma rays, as I remember. As of last week, almost 3,700 households have been relocated to hotels and other temporary housing because the residents who live right here are experiencing headaches, nausea, dizziness, nose bleeds, and other side effects stemming from the rotten egg smell, the chemicals that give the natural gas its artificial odor. This is Aliso Canyon. Schools have temporarily closed because the kids and teachers can't stand the smell all day. People's homes, their furniture, everything they have left behind are becoming infused with this horrid smell and the chemicals. It is a disaster for these residents and for many local businesses struggling to stay afloat. We see here, this is the Aliso Canyon leaking well site, but the plume is all over this community. I want to share a couple of other photos because we know a picture is worth a thousand words. These are children, sick of being sick at school. This is a mom who is having serious headaches. That is why this amendment is so important because this is what is happening and, by the way, could happen probably anywhere where there are these natural gas storage sites. There are 400 in America--400, in America. This is the first, and we had better deal with it and figure out how to deal with it because right now it is running amuck. One of my constituents said: My husband and I moved there over 3 years ago. We poured a lot of money into this home, our dream home, thinking it was a perfect area to move. I am expecting. We had difficulties trying to conceive. The joy has been robbed from us because we have had to relocate twice. I am fearful to bring my newborn baby back to Porter Ranch. That is the community here, Porter Ranch. She said: I am fearful to bring my newborn baby back to Porter Ranch when the time comes and they say the coast is clear. Another one. This particular individual, Scott McClure, was quoted in the L.A. Times: I can't go outside and play baseball with my sons. I can't go on walks with my family. My youngest son has been moved to another school. My property value has dropped dramatically. I get headaches, stomach aches. . . . The California Air Resources Board estimates that more than 86.5 million kilograms of methane--a powerful greenhouse gas--have been emitted into the atmosphere. So we move from a disaster for our families--reflected in this woman's face--to a disaster for the environment because it is, so far, 2.2 million tons of carbon dioxide. That is the equivalent of the methane that has poured into the atmosphere. That is more greenhouse gas than 468,000 cars emit in 1 year. Just think, in over 3 months this one leak has emitted as much as half a million cars do in an entire year. We have worked so hard across party lines here to make sure our cars have good fuel economy and don't emit so much of this greenhouse gas, and now we have seen as much as half a million cars in an entire year. That is what has come into the atmosphere. This leaking well is 8,600 feet deep. The leak is thought to be around 500 feet below the surface. The gas company has unsuccessfully attempted to kill the well seven times by plugging it with brine and gravel. They are now attempting to drill a relief well down to the reservoir and cut the resisting well at its base, but this may not be completed in another month. If it isn't successful, they will have to start over again. So--October 23. We are now starting February, and these people have lived with this extraordinary disaster over them. I pray that this nightmare will be over and people can move back to their homes and that they have the peace of mind that their homes are clean and their air is clean and the community will return to normal. In the meantime, we have to figure out what caused this leak and how to prevent it from happening again at Aliso Canyon and everywhere around the country where there are 400 similar sites. On January 6, 2016, the Governor of the State of California declared an emergency for Los Angeles County due to the Aliso Canyon natural gas leak. State regulators have been working with the gas company and with Federal PHMSA and EPA. PHMSA is hazardous pipeline. They check to make sure those hazardous pipelines--the pipelines that carry this hazardous material--are safe. They have been working as they have been providing consultation. I want to say that the working group on climate change called in the Federal people who were working in PHMSA and the EPA. They are doing conference calls and they are working, but it is not enough. It is not enough. We need the best minds--the best minds--and that is why Senator Feinstein and I have offered this amendment today. It is at the desk. Under the amendment, the Department of Energy Secretary would lead a broad review of this leak, including the cause, the response, and the impacts on communities and the environment. They will issue a finding to all of us, all of our committees, as we listen, and to the President, within 6 months, but if they find something in the course of their investigation that can solve this leak or prevent another leak-- in the Presiding Officer's State or anybody's State--they would have to come forward and make it clear and report that finding. The task force includes representatives of PHMSA--the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration--Department of Health and Human Services, Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Department of Commerce. We have a small task force here. Is it now seven? Seven. The reason is, we don't want some big bureaucracy. We want a small task force to meet, headed by Secretary Moniz, who is an outstanding scientist, and we want them to help solve this crisis and provide relief for the thousands of affected residents when they come in with their analysis. We want to make sure-- we want to make sure--this doesn't happen again in anybody's State, because when you have a constituent like this in your State who comes out and says: My God, I don't know what to do, that is what is on this face. I don't know what to do. I am scared. My kids are breathing this. I am breathing this. Where do I go? So we need our brightest minds, absolutely, dealing with this, and that is what our amendment does. Again, we have more than 400 underground natural gas storage facilities. We have nine in California. This is a public health and public safety issue that is critical for people not only in my State but across the Nation. Again, we know our most sacred responsibility is to keep our people safe. Whenever we say that, people right away think about what is happening abroad and homeland security and taking on ISIL and doing everything we have to do to keep our people safe. We have the Super Bowl coming up in my beautiful State. Believe me, we are focused on that. This is a great nation. We know how to take care of our people. Therefore, when we see a woman or children like this saying they are sick and we see this--and this is what the people of California are seeing in their living rooms, the picture of this out-of-control plume going on since October 23--we think: Wait a minute. This is the greatest country in the world, with the greatest minds in the world, the greatest science in the world. We have so many wonderful things, and we can't stop this leak? My God. It is ridiculous. I was frustrated after I had that meeting because we are very much alike in many ways. We want to solve a problem, and we don't want bureaucracy to get in the way. We want to get the best people. Who cares who gets the credit? Sit around and get it done. When I had this meeting with those Federal officials who were on these conference calls, I got a clear sense, after all my years of experience--and I have had a lot. When I started out, I didn't have all this gray hair. The bottom line is, I know from experience that it doesn't feel like somebody is truly in charge. That is why Senator Feinstein and I are giving this amendment all of our heart and soul. We hope that our friends on the other side will sign off on it because I know the Democratic side has. I believe they will. We are working with them right now on a couple of issues. If this passes and becomes the law of the land, we will finally have someone in charge here at the Federal level, someone so bright, so smart--Secretary Moniz. I have a lot of faith in him. I think a lot of us do. He is in it for the right reasons. I think if he goes in there and they start to take a look at this, they may well find something right away that has been overlooked that could stop this horrific leak. I want to close with this: Californians are leaders in so many areas--technology, entertainment, and trade. We would be the seventh or eighth largest economy in the world. I don't want to be a leader showing the way to the future with this kind of a travesty. I want to solve the problem. I want to tell my friends here in the Senate that we have the technology to solve it; we have leak-detection systems to find these problems before they happen. This particular yard started in the fifties. If you built a house in the fifties, you have to keep making improvements. I don't know the history of all of this, and I am not getting into that now. We are where we are. But I would suggest that if this natural gas yard was set up in the fifties, I don't think there were a lot of homes around at that time. Let's be clear. We have to think about these things, where we place these facilities. If I were in another State right now--and I am going to do this in California: I am going to look at the eight other facilities in my State. God forbid, if they have a leak, what is going to happen and how can we prevent it? Maybe there is an easy way to maintain these pipes in a way that makes sense. If we can find that out, we can stop this. We can say: This was horrible. We stopped it, and we are going to be able to prevent other explosions like this from happening. And if they do happen, we will know how to deal with it. We are not going to subject kids to this where they have to go out with signs--and, by the way, masks around their necks--that say ``relocate our school'' and ``sick of being sick at school'' and dislocate these kids, and they have been dislocated. They have been dislocated from their school. You know how it is for a kid. You have your world. Your world is your home. Your world is your school. Your world is your family. That is it. When you disrupt that, it is very difficult on our children. I hope and pray that we will get this done today and that we will get the Department of Energy ready to go on this. Even if we pass it here and we don't get it quickly to the House and they don't do it quickly, I think we will send a signal to the Department of Energy that they can look at this now and help in a way where they would have the confidence that we would all be behind that here in the Senate. I am looking forward to a vote on this. I hope we have a voice vote. We don't need a recorded vote on something like this. I am going to continue to work with the Republican leaders on this. I hope we can move forward. I thank you so much for your patience and your time. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Roe v. Wade became law of the land 43 years ago, taking women out of the back alleys and promising them the fundamental right to make their own choices about their health care and their futures. As we mark this milestone, the GOP and their extreme allies are doing everything in their power to take away that promise. Since 2010, States have passed 288 new laws that are designed to place barrier upon barrier between women and their critical health care. These laws have piled on outrageous requirements for clinics, providers and the women they serve--making it harder for women to get the care they need. Texas's extreme law, HB2, is no different. The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear Whole Women's Health v. Cole, a case challenging HB2, which is designed to close health clinics that provide safe, legal abortions. Its proponents claim to be protecting women. In what universe is it ``protecting'' women by making it harder for them to access critical health care? The answer, of course, is it's not. This law targets women's health care providers with intentionally burdensome requirements such as mandating that physicians gain admitting privileges at hospitals within a 30-mile radius of where they practice--a provision that has already forced more than half the clinics in Texas to close. And let's be clear: that is their goal--to shut down clinics and deny rights. If HB2 is upheld, it would reduce the number of providers from 40 to 10. Ten clinics for the second largest State in the country. This would force women to travel for hours or even to another State for care. That is exactly what happened to Austin resident Marni, who was forced to fly to Seattle when her procedure was cancelled the night before it was scheduled because the clinic was forced to immediately discontinue providing these services after HB2 took effect. Muni said her first reaction was ``to feel like my rights were being taken away from me, to feel very disappointed that elected officials had the ability to make decisions about my and my fiance's life.'' In some cases, forcing women to delay or cancel procedures could endanger their health and lives. Vikki is a diabetic who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion. Fortunately, Vikki lived in a State where she was able to have the procedure she needed to protect her life and ensure she could have children in the future. But GOP-led state legislatures are doing everything they can to pass laws designed to deny care to women like Vikki. There are currently laws across the country to: Ban abortions; Restrict the use of the abortion pill; Ban the use of telemedicine--which allows doctors to treat patients who live far away or in rural areas and prescribe abortion medication; Require women to wait a certain time between their first doctor's visit and their procedure; and Require women go through mandatory counseling and even require an ultrasound in which medical personnel describe the image of the fetus to the patient. This crusade is also about denying access to family planning. Yes, in the year 2016, Republicans and their extreme allies are still on a crusade against contraception, which the Supreme Court deemed legal 50 years ago. This is despite the fact that we know contraceptives are the best way to decrease unintended pregnancies and abortions. This is despite the fact that 99 percent of American women who have ever been sexually active have used at least one contraceptive method-- and not just to plan their families. Fifty-eight percent of women who take birth control do so at least in part to treat painful and difficult medical conditions. Of those, 1.5 million women take it solely as a medication to treat those conditions. They are women like Sandra from Los Angeles, who suffers from polycystic ovary syndrome and has used birth control since the age of 18 to treat her condition, which could otherwise render her infertile and put her at higher risk for complications like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. For women like Sandra, access to birth control is essential. In fact, contraception has had such a dramatic impact on women and families in this country that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared it one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. A 2012 study also found that access to affordable birth control led to a decline in teen births and reduced the rate of abortions by one-half, which is a goal we all should share. So while many of us fight to expand access to affordable birth control, the GOP is trying to make contraception more expensive and harder to get. Ironically, so many of those who want to overturn Roe and deny access to contraceptives are the same people who say they want limited government. There is nothing limited about inserting the government between a woman, her family and their most personal health care decisions. This is the opposite of limited government--and it is wrong and dangerous. Leaving women with no other option for health care may force them to take matters into their own hands--and in Texas, it is already happening. A recent study by the University of Texas found that as many as 210,000 women tried to end their own pregnancies since HB2 took effect in 2013. We cannot go back to the days of back alley abortions. We cannot undermine the promise Roe made to women 43 years ago. In the 21st century, we cannot deny women access to family planning and other reproductive care. But that is exactly what the GOP and their right-wing allies are trying to do. These shameful attacks are trying to take away the real, legal health care that millions of women depend on. This is a fight that has been picked before. We have won it before, and we will win it again. We will fight this assault on women's health. We will fight to make sure that women across America can continue to get the services they need--and deserve. And, we will make sure the promise of Roe v. Wade is protected for the next generation of women.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Downey police officer Ricardo Galvez, a devoted son and brother who was tragically killed in the line of duty on November 19, 2015. Officer Galvez was born on April 2, 1986, and grew up in Whittier, CA. In 2006, he joined the Downey Police Department as a police aide and 2 years later decided to serve his country by joining the U.S. Marine Corps as a Reservist. After bravely serving in Iraq, Officer Galvez returned to Downey and became a police officer in 2010. He deployed again in December 2012 to Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. Those who knew Officer Galvez fondly remember him as a caring man with an infectious smile, a person of great humility and kindness, and a trusted colleague and friend who was committed to his family and career. The U.S. Marine Corps' motto, Semper Fidelis, is Latin for ``always faithful'' and truly embodied Officer Ricardo Galvez. He dedicated his entire adult life to public service, unwavering in his commitment to defend Americans abroad and safeguard his community at home. His devoted and courageous service earned the respect and affection of the colleagues he worked alongside, the community he served, and the family and friends he loved. He will be deeply missed. On behalf of the people of California, for whom he served so bravely, I extend my gratitude and deepest sympathies to Ricardo's mother, Margarita; brother, Pedro; sisters, Nancy and Sandra; and his entire extended family.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I do not support Senator Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve. In 2010, I supported an amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation included in the final law which required an audit of the Federal Reserve's actions during the financial crisis. That report was released in 2011 and found no significant problems with the Fed's activities. Dodd-Frank not only authorized the 2011 audit, it also expanded the scope for future GAO audits which any Member of Congress can request. Also, the Fed includes an independent audit of its financial statements within its annual report to Congress. The Federal Reserve has taken independent actions in recent years to be more transparent about its operations. Since 2009, the Fed has publicly released its economic projections, and since 2011, the chairman has held quarterly press conferences following Federal Open Market Committee meetings. Two recent studies found the Fed to be one of the most transparent central banks in the world. Transparency and openness in government is essential to a healthy democracy, but by requiring more audits and more disclosures, we risk politicizing a nonpartisan institution that plays a uniquely significant role in the global economy. Fed Chairman Janet Yellen recently wrote that a similar bill that passed the House of Representatives ``would politicize monetary policy and bring short-term political pressures in the deliberations of the FOMC by putting into place real-time second guessing of policy decisions. . . . The provision is based on a false premise--that the Fed is not subject to an audit.''. Since there are already many means for audits, disclosure, and transparency at our disposal, I do not support Senator Paul's bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support this bipartisan budget package that is an important step forward for our country. With this deal, we have avoided the devastating sequester cuts--which is incredibly important for our economy, for our workers, and for our businesses. We did not allow the government to shut down over divisive issues-- like taking away access to reproductive health care for millions of women. We fought to protect investments that are vital to our families, children, seniors, veterans, women, college students, communities, and our environment. By definition, no deal is ever perfect. No one will get everything they want--especially in a divided government, but this agreement is good for our country in many ways. I will start with the extension of the clean energy investments included in this package. Look at my State. We know what is at stake. Clean energy has proven to be a huge engine of economic growth in California. So extending the wind and solar energy tax incentives will help create tens of thousands of clean energy jobs across the country that will benefit American families and the environment, increase our energy independence, and protect our children and grandchildren from dangerous pollution. Extending the wind and solar tax incentives will eliminate over 10 times more carbon emissions than lifting the oil export ban will create. Combined, these incentives are expected to reduce annual carbon emissions equal to the emissions from 66 coal-fired power plants or 50 million passenger cars. Extending the Investment Tax Credit, ITC, for solar would create an estimated 61,000 jobs in 2017 alone and avoid losing 80,000 solar jobs. And extending the Production Tax Credit, PTC, would allow the wind industry to grow to over 100,000 jobs in 4 years and continue toward supporting 500,000 jobs by 2030. These provisions are a game changer--and I am thrilled they were included. I also strongly support the 9/11 First Responders provision. In this country, we take care of the people who put their lives on the line for us. These men and women answered the call of duty when our Nation was under attack. I never understood why it took so long to do this, and it is a moral outrage that this program was allowed to expire in the first place. We should never have left them in limbo for health care. We would never ever leave our wounded soldiers on the battlefield, and we should have never ever have given these brave first responders even a moment of doubt that we would be there for them. I want to praise Senator Gillibrand, Senator Schumer, and Jon Stewart for putting this issue on the map--and getting these 9/11 heroes the health care they need--and deserve. And I want to say this: it was then-Senator Hillary Clinton who, as a member of EPW, called attention to the dangerous, dangerous toxic air pollutants at Ground Zero, and I praise her for that work. She secured millions for a health screening program for Ground Zero workers and first responders. I am also thrilled this deal renews the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, for 3 years. The fund--our country's most successful conservation and recreation program--ensures that all Americans have access to our beautiful outdoor spaces. Since 1964, the fund has created recreation opportunities in every single State and protected national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, and other Federal areas--and doing so has benefitted our economy. Outdoor recreation, conservation, and preservation pumps more than $1 trillion into the U.S. economy every year and supports 1 out of every 15 jobs in the U.S. There are a number of other critical provisions in this package. Veterans--this bill demonstrates our dedication to our veterans by providing $163 billion in funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. A majority of this funding will go directly to medical care and medical research for our veterans. Education--this legislation will also provide billions of dollars in funding to ensure more access to quality education for our students-- including $22.5 billion for the Pell Grant Program--which when combined with mandatory funding will increase the maximum grant to $5,915 and ensure that more than 8 million low-income students can attend college in the next school year. The bill also invests significant funding in title I grants and Head Start--which gives our youngest children more opportunities for educational success. Afterschool--the bill boosts funding for afterschool programs by $15 million, expanding access to the critical programs for approximately 15,000 students. Fighting the opioid epidemic--the bill also includes robust funding to fight the growing use of drugs in this country and increase awareness of the dangers of prescription drug abuse by providing $3.8 billion for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services. Preserving our national parks--the bill provides $2.8 billion to preserve and protect our beautiful national parks. Drought--I want to thank Senator Feinstein for including $271 million to help alleviate hazards caused by drought, floods, fires, windstorms, and other natural disasters. It also helps farmers and ranchers repair damage to farmlands caused by these natural disasters. Included in this package are also important tax provisions that will help our families, our communities and our environment. The tax extenders package made permanent the child tax credit, CTC, earned-income tax credit, EITC, and American opportunity tax credit for college expenses. This will increase the tax refunds of working families by several hundred dollars per year, depending on the size of the family. Other important tax extenders made permanent are the deduction for State and local sales taxes, the deduction for donations of property for conservation purposes, tax-free retirement plan distributions for charitable donations, and the deduction for teachers' out-of-pocket expenses, as well as parity for parking and transit subsidies. The bill also extends the favorable tax treatment of forgiven mortgages through 2016. I am pleased that we were able to stop more than 100 poison pill riders. We stopped Republicans from defunding Planned Parenthood and depriving nearly 3 million Americans of health care. We stopped them from undermining the Food and Drug Administration's ability to protect Americans from the dangers of e-cigarettes. We stopped them from restricting the authority of Health and Human Services, HHS, to administer and enforce the Affordable Care Act. We stopped them from weakening the Department of Homeland Security's DACA program, which helps DREAMers succeed. We stopped them from barring FEMA State and grant funds to sanctuary cities. We stopped them from gutting the President's landmark Clean Power Plan and weakening the Endangered Species Act and destroying the Clean Water Act. And we stopped them from eliminating the housing trust fund, which provides affordable housing for families across the country. I am proud that Democrats stood together and fought against these dangerous provisions that would seriously hurt the American people. Now, there were several provisions that ended up in the legislation that I do not support--measures that Republicans insisted on, such as lifting the oil export ban permanently, which I oppose. I also do not support Republicans' decision to flat-fund the EPA-- even though the EPA is incredibly popular with Americans. And it doesn't provide the IRS with any new funds--which hurts our ability to administer the Affordable Care Act, as well as crack down on tax cheats and frauds. The package also provides inadequate support for family planning-- especially abroad. At a time when we should be doing everything we can to prevent gun violence, this legislation does not overturn a prohibition on government-funded studies of gun violence. I am also disappointed that the House's visa waiver language was accepted--rather than Senator Feinstein's language that I supported. But in the end, that is what a compromise is--and that is what it means to negotiate and to govern. I want to praise Senator Reid, Leader Pelosi, Senator Mikulski, and all of my fellow Democrats who fought so hard to make this the best agreement we could reach. I also praise their Republican counterparts. I believe this is a good deal for the American people. It is good for our families, our children, our economy, and our environment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to move forward with the Senate language on the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, which has been a difficult, multiyear odyssey. I did this for two reasons. First, the bill has been vastly improved over the original bill, which in my opinion would have been harmful to our families because it overrode our State laws and set up an ineffective and nonexistent way to regulate most toxic pollutants. Secondly, I have been assured that, as the House and Senate bills are merged into one, the voices of those who have been most deeply affected--including nurses, breast cancer survivors, asbestos victims, and children--will be heard. I will have the opportunity to be in the room at every step and express their views. This is very important to me because the history of this bill has been so contentious. I want to assure my colleagues, my home State of California, and the people of this Nation that I will stay intimately involved as the bill moves forward, and I will share my views openly. I look forward to the work ahead, and I am optimistic that we can reach a fair and just conclusion.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the extraordinary life of Douglas Shorenstein, a loving husband, father, brother, passionate philanthropist, and pillar of the San Francisco community who passed away on November 24 after a long and courageous battle with cancer. A proud San Francisco native, Douglas Shorenstein was born on February 10, 1955. After graduating from the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, Doug worked as a real estate attorney in New York before returning to his beloved hometown in 1983 to join his father's real estate investment and management firm, Shorenstein Properties. Doug became chairman and CEO in 1995 and over the years transformed his local development company into a major national real estate group. A true visionary, Doug had a keen ability to keep his thumb on the pulse of San Francisco's evolving market. Because of him, key neighborhoods of San Francisco have been revitalized, and the company once started by his father now owns iconic buildings in cities across America. Doug also dedicated his immense talents to supporting many important causes that were dear to his heart. He was a board member of the Environmental Defense Fund, a member of the University of California San Francisco Medical Center Executive Council, and on the boards of several educational institutions, including the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Vanderbilt University, and the Yale School of Management. He was also appointed to serve on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in 2007, becoming chairman of the board in 2011. San Francisco has lost a true civic leader, and Doug will be deeply missed by all of us fortunate enough to have known him. I send my deepest condolences to his wife, Lydia; his children, Brandon, Sandra, and Danielle; and his sister, Carol Shorenstein Hays.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so relieved we voted on a 5-year, fully-funded surface transportation bill that increases funding for our highway and transit programs. This is a monumental accomplishment for us all. The Environment and Public Works Committee has led the way to achieving the longest surface transportation bill that this country has seen in 17 years, which is essential for jobs, for our safety, and for our economic standing in the world. This bill, which passed the House by a vote of 359 to 65, will provide the certainty that our States and local governments need to plan and construct improvements to the Nation's surface transportation system. It will support millions of jobs and thousands of businesses. Our bill has the support of a broad coalition of labor, business, and government organizations, including the AFL-CIO, Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition, Teamsters, Transportation Construction Coalition, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, National Association of Counties, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Governors Association, National Association of Manufacturers, American Trucking Associations, Highway Materials Group, Associated General Contractors, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Traffic Safety Services Association, Transport Workers Union, American Society of Civil Engineers, International Union of Operating Engineers, Amalgamated Transit Union, United Steelworkers, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors, and American Association of Port Authorities. The FAST Act is a comprehensive bill that, among other things, modernizes federal highway and transit programs, motor carrier and vehicle safety programs, and includes a passenger rail authorization. We should also not forget that it reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank, which is so important for jobs and our economic competitiveness. It was a mammoth task to put this bill together and it has been a roller coaster ride from day one. I am pleased that this entire process was jump-started when my dear friend Jim Inhofe, who has been my partner on many infrastructure issues, worked with me to pass a highway bill out of the EPW Committee on June 24 by a unanimous 20-0 vote. I truly believe that it was our overwhelming bipartisan vote that set the stage and built momentum for this bill to begin moving through the Senate. I also want to thank Chairman Shuster and Congressman DeFazio in the House. They led a strong bipartisan effort in the House of Representatives which allowed us to go to conference with the wind at our back, and while it was never an easy negotiation and neither side got everything that they wanted, I think we are all pleased with the outcome. I want to thank all the members of the conference committee, with a special thanks to Senators Durbin and Nelson, who are strong supporters of the conference report. Let me highlight a few things in this bill that I am so proud of: The bill creates and significantly funds two new programs: No. 1, the National Highway Freight Program, which will improve goods movement; and No. 2, the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program, a competitive grants program to support major projects. It provides $199 million to help commuter railroads install positive train control. It includes the Raechel and Jaqueline Houck Safe Rental Car Act, to protect consumers from leasing unsafe recalled rental vehicles. This cause has been incredibly important to me. I have worked tirelessly to get this safety provision into law. It will save lives in the future and is an example of the positive things we can do to prevent families from suffering from tragedies resulting from defective rental cars in the future. I have been working for years to pass a long-term transportation bill, because our Nation's aging infrastructure needs robust investment to keep us competitive in the global marketplace. Our country has over 61,000 structurally deficient bridges and 50 percent of our Nation's roads are in less than good condition. More than 30,000 people die from traffic accidents each year. The passage of MAP-21, for which I chaired the conference committee in 2012, provided 2 years of certainty and made key innovations for transportation. Now, the FAST Act, which increases highway and transit funding, will enable our State and local governments to make new investments to improve our roads, bridges, and transit systems, which will improve safety, increase mobility, and keep goods moving efficiently. Improving our transportation infrastructure should not be a partisan issue, and I thank Leader McConnell and Senator Inhofe for working closely with me to do the right thing for our country. This entire process has been about trust, teamwork, and persistence, and I couldn't be more proud of what we have accomplished. I would like to thank all of the staff that played an important role in this bill. As I have said, getting to this point has been a process that would make the workings of a sausage factory look appealing in comparison. Mr. President, I know it is late, and I know we are all exhausted, but you have to mark a moment. I think this bill was such a monumental effort and the staffs that we are mentioning--Senator Inhofe is right-- they were working constantly. The reason I know is that I called them constantly. Senator Inhofe is right again. I called my staff; I called his staff; I called Senator Thune's staff. I called everybody's staff. Right? I drove them crazy. One time my little granddaughter was there, and I was getting into a bit of an altercation with a Member from the House, and I whispered to my granddaughter: Tell him to help your grandmother. She got on the phone and said: Please help my grandmother. She had no idea. The gentleman on the other end said: Oh, boy, you are tough. OK. We got through that night all right. I am going to also thank the House family who helped us write the Safe Rental Car Act. In closing, I am going to read these names on my team: Bettina Poirier, David Napoliello, Andrew Dohrmann, Tyler Rushforth, Jason Albritton, Ted Illston, Mary Kerr, Kate Gilman, Colin MacCarthy, and Kathryn Bacher.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, when I woke up this morning, I had hoped that yesterday's tragedy in San Bernardino was just an unimaginable nightmare. Then, as I usually do in the morning, I went through the clips from my State and I read the headlines: ``Bloodbath in San Bernardino.'' ``14 slain at California office party.'' ``Carnage in California.'' ``Shooting Rampage Sows Terror in California.'' ``At Least 14 Dead in Mass Shooting.'' ``Deadly rampage at holiday party.'' ``A Day of Horror.'' ``Horror Hits Home.'' `` `Horrific'.'' Just one word. ``Masked Mass Murder.'' These are papers all over my State and a couple of national headlines. My heart is broken after this rampage that led to the tragic loss of life, so many injuries, so much trauma and pain for the people of San Bernardino. I thank the medical personnel who are working as we speak to save lives and all the brave, courageous law enforcement officers who rushed to the scene and later stopped these killers. We know the victims in this attack were county employees at the San Bernardino Department of Public Health. I began my career as a county supervisor, and I oversaw in Marin County the Department of Public Health. I know how dedicated those county employees are. They are right there. They are right there in the communities. And the facility was dedicated to helping disabled people. So for this to happen at a holiday party where these employees were gathering in friendship--it is a stunning shock. While details about the motive behind this despicable attack are still unknown, here is what we do know: Because these killers used military-style weapons, 14 people died and 17 people were wounded in a matter of minutes. The purpose of these guns, these military-style guns, is to kill a lot of people very fast. The scene looked like a war zone, and there is a reason for that--again, because these weapons are designed for the military. They are designed for the police. I have to be honest with my colleagues: I have never heard one persuasive argument about why anyone else would need to have this type of weapon. These weapons of war just don't belong on our streets and in our communities. My colleague Senator Feinstein for years has been pushing sensible legislation that would keep these military-style weapons off our streets. We need to stand with her. We need to stand with her across party lines and pass it. It is so discouraging that we can't even pass legislation here that would keep suspected terrorists who are on the no-fly list from legally buying a weapon--any kind of a weapon. It isn't enough for us to keep lamenting these tragedies; we need to take action now, before something else like this happens again in the Presiding Officer's State, in my State. When we take an oath of office, we swear that we will protect and defend the American people. I just don't think we are protecting them when we allow these types of weapons to get into the wrong hands. This year we are averaging more than one mass shooting every single day--multiple people killed by guns, innocent people, every day. This is America. This doesn't happen in other industrialized nations. Thirty-one people die every day from gun violence. After 10 years of the Vietnam war, we lost nearly 60,000 Americans, and people were in despair. We lose more than that in gun violence in less than 2 years in this great Nation. If there were anything else that caused the death of 30,000 Americans a year, every single Senator would be in their chair and we would be demanding action and we would be crossing over party lines to stop it because that, my friends, is an epidemic. People deserve to feel safe in their communities. I don't understand it. They deserve to feel safe when they go to a holiday party at work. They deserve to be safe sitting in these galleries. They deserve to be safe going to a movie theater. They deserve to be safe in their school when they are 6 years old or 16 or 26. They deserve to be safe in their workplace, at a shopping mall, at a restaurant, and at a health care clinic. This is our job, to keep our people safe. We know the threats that face us abroad, and we have threats at home. So we need to do both. We need to protect our people abroad from threats abroad and from threats at home. The very best way to honor the victims of gun violence is to take sensible steps that are supported by the American people, such as universal background checks, safety features on guns, keeping assault weapons in the hands of our military and our police, and keeping guns out of the hands of people who are unbalanced, unstable, criminals. Then we can prevent these tragedies. Will we prevent every tragedy? No. I know my friends will say: Well, someone can have a knife. Yes. It is a lot easier to get away from a knife than an automatic weapon that mows you down before you can even look up and figure out what is happening. I am crying out today for support for sensible gun laws, and regardless of motive--regardless of motive--we need to make sure that military weapons belong in the hands of the military and the police. It is pretty straightforward. Our people are not safe. I don't care what State you look at, I don't care what city you look at, I don't care what county you look at. San Bernardino is a beautiful place. I don't live far from there. I have an office about 15 minutes or less from there. People deserve to feel safe in our communities. So I send my love, my prayers, my solidarity to the community, to the families, to the first responders, and to everyone there. Yes, we are going to pull together, as all these communities do, but we need to prevent these things from happening because if we don't, we are liable. I believe we are liable. We know what is killing people every day. It is gun violence, and we know it. I am not a lawyer, but I have a lot of family members who are lawyers--my son is, my father was, my husband is--and I think once you know something is happening and you can do something about it and you don't do something about it, you are liable--maybe not in a legal sense, but in a moral sense. So I hope we can come together around this. Every time the press comes in and asks me, tragedy after tragedy after tragedy: Will something happen now? After Sandy Hook, I said: Absolutely. We are going to come together. We did not. We did not. I want to close with this. In California we have tough gun laws. I don't know how these weapons got where they were. We will find out. People say: Well, we have these gun laws. Look at this; we have had a 56 percent reduction of gun violence since 1993 in my great State because we have taken action. But this is one Nation under God. If somebody comes from a nearby State, from the North, from the East, and they have a gun--that is why it is so important for us to work together to have sensible national laws and universal background checks. Almost 90 percent of the people support it. The majority of NRA members support it. What is wrong with us that we can't do that? What are we afraid of? These military assault-style weapons kill so fast--and so many people. We should make sure they are in the hands of the military and the police. My heart is heavy and will remain so. This is supposed to be a great day for a lot of us who worked so long and hard on the highway bill. This was a moment we were waiting for, and that is what life's about. You know, there are these moments that you savor, and there are moments that you wish to God you never had to talk about or experience. That is the kind of day it is for this particular Senator, and I know Senator Feinstein feels the same way. I thank you very much, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I am so not going to object. I just wanted to thank you and thank everybody. I think this is a moment all of us have waited for, for a long time, so I am not objecting.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am rather shocked at this amendment by my friend--and he is my friend. If I stood here and said: I don't like the laws in Lexington, KY, and I think that Big Brother ought to decide we should repeal their laws because I don't like it--that is ridiculous. The fact is, I am shocked that a Libertarian would stand here and offer this. I thought that Libertarians believe in freedom of localities over Big Government. So why would you wipe out duly enacted local laws? DC has its own unique needs. We know how many diplomats come here. We know the rest. It is quite different. We are a definite target, but the fact is, I urge my colleagues to stand and be counted here on behalf of local control. I started off as a county supervisor. I didn't want other entities telling me what to do. I think we ought to vote no on this.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I could just be heard for 30 seconds or less. Please, please don't alter this, because if this passes and we don't waive the point of order, this bill is gone. The House bill didn't even have an extension. So if this bill goes down, we have no highway system. Please vote with Senator Inhofe and myself. It is urgent.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, everybody. I love everyone tonight. We are going to have a great vote. But go. Go.

Mrs. BOXER. Actually, 10 years. I am told it was 17 years since we had a bill of this size.

Mrs. BOXER. I am hardly ever at a loss for words, as you all know. I was so touched tonight. A terrible tragedy happened in my State yesterday. You all know about the emotions of that and then the emotions of this. I am going to set aside the emotions of the tragedy and talk to my friends here. What we did was the impossible dream. It was, in many ways, a very long and winding road to get to this night. People worked together who never thought they would find that common ground. We found it. The reason we found it is we were willing to set aside the misperceptions I think we had on so many fronts and recognized that our people needed this badly. As I often say, if you want to buy a house and you go to the bank and the bank says ``Oh, you have great credit, but I can only give you a mortgage for 6 months,'' you are not going to buy the house. You are not going to build a major road if you are worried about the funding. What we have done is extraordinary. For the first time in 17 years, we have a long bill. We have a bill that lasts 5 years. I have to say--and I did not think of it--I think the pay-for was brilliant, the major pay-for. There are others who don't like it. Many people on my side said we should look at the gas tax. I looked at the gas tax. I agreed with the chamber of commerce on the gas tax, but I am only one of six people here who probably voted for it. When you come up against these barriers, you need to be very creative. The international tax reform--Leader McConnell was never going to allow that. I got that message. I still encouraged my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work on it, but it didn't work out. What are we going to do? Just fold up our tent and say the general fund is going to pay for this? We don't have enough in the general fund. We have deficits. We all know that. What I want to say is that with 60,000 bridges in disrepair--falling down, structurally deficient--and 50 percent of our roads in disrepair, we have a lot of work to do. This gives our States the certainty. The relationships that developed between the staffs--I am going to withhold my comments on that until later. When everybody finishes, I am going to be here because I am going to mention every single name on both sides. I can't thank you enough. They didn't sleep during the Thanksgiving break. They worked constantly. Let's face it, this bill was the ``Perils of Pauline.'' Even last night my senior leader asked me to do something I could never do in a million years on this bill. I must have turned so pale that I almost fainted. Bettina almost had a heart attack on the spot because we thought that maybe we would not have this bill. But he knows me well enough to know what I can do, and that makes for a great working relationship. I will talk about the details of the bill later. Basically, it is a 5-year bill. Over the period, it is a 20-percent increase, which is huge for our States. It is roads. It is transit. There are new programs, freight programs that Senator Inhofe and Maria Cantwell worked on. Ex-Im is in there. I know it is controversial for some, but for our small businesses it is great. I predict that this bill is going to give the economy a real boost--I really mean it--because of the certainty it is bringing and because of the fact that millions of jobs will be created. That always boosts us. It helps with our deficits. I will yield the remainder of my time--just 2 minutes--to Senator Nelson, with the deepest thanks to Senator McConnell; Senator Inhofe; Senator Thune; Senator Nelson, who is just a hero; Senator Brown; all of the members of the conference committee who signed the conference report. I yield this time to Senator Nelson, and then we will go back to Senator Inhofe.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thoroughly support the right of my colleague to his opinion, but we have never had more people insured in modern history because of ObamaCare. It doesn't mean it is perfect, but let me tell you--I don't know what my colleague's constituents tell him, but I will tell you what mine do. They say thank you. Thank you for the fact that I can get insurance. Thank you for the fact that I can get it even if I have a heart condition. Thank you for the fact that my child can stay on my policy until he is 26 years old. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the lifesaving preventive care I get. Thank you. Thank you for the cheaper prescription drugs. So people live in a different universe, I guess, but I prefer to stick with the facts, and the facts are millions and millions and millions of Americans now have the peace of mind of being insured. They don't become a burden on their families, they don't become a burden on the emergency room, and they don't become a burden on their communities. I thank President Obama for his courage. We can fix what is wrong with ObamaCare, but time and time again--more than 50 times-- they tried to repeal it, the GOP, and they are going to try again, and they are going to fail again. Secretly, I think they hope they fail because they have nothing--nothing--to replace it with. It is kind of a joke. Nothing. Oh, let's just open up the free market. Well, folks, we tried that forever. ObamaCare isn't government care. It is insurance exchanges, and it is Medicaid expansion in those States that wish to have it. I have to tell you, in those States who have it, the people are very happy. Amendment No. 2876 I rise not only to respond to that attack on health care that we have heard again for the 90th time from the other side, I really rise to thank Senator Murray. I thank her again for her unbelievable leadership in protecting women's health. Beyond that, she is a leader in protecting children's health, men's health, families' health, and our seniors' health. Today what she is doing is very important. She is saying to the Republicans: We don't like the fact that you are defunding a health care organization that serves 3 million Americans every year with lifesaving health care, preventive health care, STD testing, breast cancer exams, and these 3 million Americans want us to stand and fight for them. That is what Senator Murray is doing today, and I am proud to be by her side. What she is simply saying is, no, we are not going to defund Planned Parenthood. She is going to strike that out of this bill they have put forward, but also we are going to pay for an expansion of women's health care because we know all you have is your health. Just ask people who may have everything else in the world, but somebody gets cancer, somebody gets a heart attack, somebody gets a stroke, someone in the family is diagnosed with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, their whole world is turned upside down. So what do my friends on the other side do? They strike funding from an organization that has more respect in this country than their party or my political party or this Congress has. Well, it would be easy to beat the reputation of this Congress, but the vast majority of the American people understand the role of Planned Parenthood. So I strongly support this amendment, and I want to reiterate something Senator Murray said. Republicans have introduced more than 40 bills to take away women's health care in this Congress--40 bills--40 bills. And then they say: Oh, no, we are not conducting a war on women. Yes, you are. Yes, you are. When you want to turn the clock back to the days when women died from back-alley abortions, you are conducting a war on women. By the way, if you don't believe a woman should have the right to choose, I respect you. Take that ideology to your own family, of course, but don't tell everyone in America they have to think the way you think. I don't tell them they have to think the way I think. If I have a constituent who says: Senator, I have a certain belief and it means no abortion, I say: God bless you, of course. But if you don't have that belief and you do believe in Roe v. Wade--which most of the people in this country do, where a woman should have the right to choose early in her pregnancy without government interference--if you do believe in that, and that is the law of the land, then you should have that right. May I ask that there be quiet? Thank you. This is a very serious point--a very serious point. I have to say, you have now, over on the other side, in the House, a new special committee which is going to continue the witch hunt on Planned Parenthood. Why do they need a new committee? They have several committees. I served proudly in the House for 10 years. There are so many committees that have jurisdiction over health, health care, science, and the rest. If you want to repeal Roe v. Wade, if you want to take away a woman's right to choose, then have the courage to introduce an amendment and do it--just do it. The last time it was done, it failed, here, but if that is what you want to do, I respect you. Come on down and say you think abortion should be a crime, subject to jail time for women, for doctors. Go ahead. Do it. Do it. I will debate you. I was thinking the other day, the GOP has changed--the Grand Old Party that I knew. The first President George Bush was on the board of Planned Parenthood--was on the board of Planned Parenthood. I was on the board of Planned Parenthood in the 1970s. I was one of the few Democrats. This was a bipartisan issue, women's health, reproductive freedom. It was not a partisan issue. So the Grand Old Party has changed from the GOP. I call them the POP, the ``party of the past.'' They are the party of the past. Not only do they want to reverse Roe v. Wade, but they don't have the courage to come down and do it directly. Oh, no, they defund Planned Parenthood. Come on. I wasn't born yesterday. It is obvious, and I know what this is all about: take away the clinics, take away the health care, take away women's right to choose. It is happening all over the country. If you don't like Roe v. Wade, come down and try to overturn it here. OK. Now, fetal tissue research. There are organizations all over this country that do make fetal tissue available to save lives--to save lives. How long has this been in place? It was under Ronald Reagan, when he was President, that he set up this special committee that was headed by a pro-life judge, an anti-choice judge. They studied this and said it is very important to do it--very important to do it. In 1993, Congress voted to federally fund fetal tissue research. If you don't like fetal tissue research, if you think we ought to stop it, come down with a bill, introduce it, and we will argue it. If you don't want to do fetal tissue research, if you don't think it is good to find cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, you come down and put the bill in the hopper. Oh, no, they don't want to do that. They just want to conduct a witch hunt on one of the organizations that help make fetal tissue research possible, and this after--this after they had the head of Planned Parenthood before the Congress for 4 or 5 hours straight, only topped by what they did to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I think she was there 11 hours. So after all those hours that Cecile Richards--and they asked her what she was paid to do her work. I never heard them ask anybody else what they get paid. As it turned out, she was on the low scale of what equivalent jobs are. That is not the point. They harassed her for hours--hours--and their rhetoric was not good. What we say matters. What we say matters. When I say I respect people who feel they would never allow their child or their wife to have an abortion, I respect that, but if somebody else says we agree with Roe v. Wade that in the early stages it ought to be an option for women and their family, I respect them. I don't demonize one side, but the other side does over and over again. I have stood on this floor for many years now, frankly, with my colleague Patty Murray and my colleague Dianne Feinstein, and we have heard mostly men come down and lecture us about how it is terrible. Roe v. Wade should never be the law of the land. There should be no abortion, and the rest of it. That is their right. I do not believe it is their right to take away funding from an organization that serves 3 million Americans a year and saves lives. So while Republicans--the party of the past--have put in 40 bills to take away a woman's right to choose, essentially, we say today, through the Murray amendment, we are looking at the future, we are looking with clear eyes, we are looking at our people, and we support people who go to Planned Parenthood for their health care, and we are going to vote-- and I pray we win this vote--to strip out this attack on Planned Parenthood. We are here to say: Stop this assault on women's health care. It is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. I want to put it into context. I said that Planned Parenthood serves 3 million people. I want to give even more specifics. Four hundred thousand women receive their Pap tests to protect themselves against cervical cancer. They want to stop that funding. They want to take away services from 400,000 women. They say: Oh, no, we really don't. They will go other places. They will go to little health care centers. Excuse me. I have those health care system centers--more than anybody. They are overworked, overloaded, and they support Planned Parenthood. They are attacking 500,000 women who get breast exams, and if a doctor finds a lump, they refer them for a mammogram. They go after women and men who have nowhere else to turn for their most basic health care. We have been down this road before. A few months ago in this very Senate, we defeated the Republicans' attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, but they are back again with the same old, same old party of the past attitude. They are attacking Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood has a host of services, 97 percent of which have nothing to do with abortion. If you don't want to have abortion legal, you want to make it a crime, you want to put doctors in jail, you want to put women in jail, then come down here and put something in a bill form, repeal Roe v. Wade, and criminalize abortion. I am old enough to remember when it was a crime. Let me tell you something. There are graves all over this country with women who died from back-alley abortions and botched abortions. They never said it was from that because then they would have died as a criminal. We are not going to go back to those days. The party of the past is not winning on this. They are not going to win, because President Obama is going to veto this bill. Maybe this next Senate will have a pro-choice Senate for a change. In 2011, Republicans threatened to shut down the entire Government of the United States of America if Planned Parenthood wasn't defunded. Remember, 97 percent of what Planned Parenthood does has nothing to do with abortion, but Planned Parenthood is in their line of attack and they haven't stopped. The rhetoric matters. What they say matters. In fact, these attacks go back to 1916 when Planned Parenthood's founder was arrested because she was providing birth control information to poor people. Imagine, a woman was arrested for explaining to some people how they could prevent unwanted pregnancies-- arrested. I admit that we have come a long way, but these people want to take us back. Yes, a woman was arrested for advocating birth control. Now you have Republicans right in this Senate and in this Congress who say that women shouldn't have access to free birth control. If they don't want to take birth control, fine. Don't; it is fine with me. I respect it. If you don't think your family should ever have an abortion, I am with you all the way on your right. That is your right. But this is America. We don't have Big Government think. We don't have Big Government telling you what to think about your own body or what your religion should be. This is a major issue. I always thought the old GOP was the party of independence. We have our views, but people have a right to think the way they want to think. No, that is the old GOP. This is the new POP, the party of the past. Let me say this. This is sad. This is the 21st century. We should be working together to ensure that every family has access to legal health care. If you want to make something illegal, have the courage to come down here and say it is illegal. Don't start defunding organizations that give women health care. Also, stop the demonizing rhetoric. One candidate for President on the Republican side called people who were pro-choice barbarians, and he happens to be a Senator. He called us barbarians. What we say matters. Political witch hunts are wrong. What we say matters. Special committees set up to demonize an organization like Planned Parenthood--that is wrong. I wrote to Speaker Ryan. I asked him to disband the latest House committee that was set up. It is costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for a special committee when they have a slew of committees that have jurisdiction over health care and over science and fetal tissue research. It is a political witch hunt being paid for by taxpayers after they hauled the President of Planned Parenthood before them and had her sit there for hour after hour. The American people have to wake up to this. That is why I am taking all of this time. This isn't a small matter of supporting Patty Murray's amendment, which is so important. It is a very simple amendment. We are going to stop them from defunding Planned Parenthood, and we are actually going to increase spending on women's health. I can assure you that when you catch breast cancer early, it pays dividends, first and foremost to the woman and her family--she is going to live-- and second of all, to the taxpayers. They don't have to treat cancer with expensive drugs and surgeries. The same is true when you catch cervical cancer. When my friend suggests that we spend more on health care to prevent these problems, she is doing something right for the taxpayers. Let's be clear. There is a dangerous climate out there for Planned Parenthood, and it is going to be exacerbated today. Since 1977, there have been 11 murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, and 186 arsons against abortion clinics and providers for doing something that is legal. Anything we say that promotes this kind of terrorism and violence--anything we say that results in this--we should never say. We need to protect medical personnel and staff who put their lives on the line every day working in these clinics, and we should protect the patients who rely on them. As my colleague said, imagine a doctor, a nurse having to wear protective gear under their uniform. The Women's Health Care and Clinic Security and Safety Fund that my friend is proposing is very important. It is a very important vote. It will provide compensation for health providers who provide the full spectrum of comprehensive women's health care services, and it will enhance safety at clinics. The great Ted Kennedy and I worked on the FACE Act. That was his bill. The FACE Act was meant to protect patients and doctors at clinics. All those years ago--I was a young, new Senator then, and he asked if I would be his lieutenant and help him get the bill through. We got the bill through, but I think what Senator Murray is doing today is responding to the violence, the increased violence, the atmosphere of fear that we see at these clinics. Her amendment also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work in coordination with the Attorney General's National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers to submit an annual report to Congress identifying the best practices to ensure the security and safety of clinics, providers, facilities, and staff. We cannot waste another minute on yet another vicious, wrongheaded assault on women's health. As I said, if you don't want women to have the right to choose, then have the courage to come down here and take it away. But don't do it through the back door by attacking an organization that provides health care to 3 million people every year. If you don't want fetal tissue research that has been legal for a very long time--since 1993 we have had government funding. If you don't like it, if you don't think it is helping find cures for diseases, come down here and stop it. Don't attack an organization that is involved in that activity legally. If you want to take us back to pre-1973 when women died in back alleys, have the courage to come down here and make your case. Believe me, we will take you on, but do it because that is what you want. Don't hide behind attacking these organizations. That is a phony way to approach something. Approach it straight ahead. We have fought this fight before. We have won this fight before. They wanted to shut down the government. We said: Go ahead; try it. And we beat them. They are doing it again. I have to say, this isn't about me. This isn't about Senator Murray. This isn't about any individual Senator on the other side. We are here for a little time in history. In America, we don't go back. I say to the party of the past: We don't go back in America. We go forward. We don't take away rights. We expand rights. We don't have Big Government telling people what to do in the privacy of their own homes, their own bedrooms, their own lives. We let them make the decision, as long as it is legal. We are going to fight to make sure men and women across this country continue to get the services they need. We are going to make sure that Planned Parenthood is still there for the millions of women and families who depend on it. I strongly support the Murray amendment. I compliment her for putting it together. I hope we get a good vote--maybe even a majority vote--and make a strong statement for this Senate that we stand with the 3 million people who rely on Planned Parenthood, and we stand for health care. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a few remarks to respond to my colleague's remarks, and then I ask--I am not going to be long--to be immediately followed by Senator Blumenthal.

Mrs. BOXER. OK, I will just yield to the Senator from Connecticut for a question, and I will give him his time that way. My colleague from Oklahoma came down, and, first of all, he talks about ObamaCare and forgets the fact that there are millions and millions and millions of Americans who now have insurance, the same kind of insurance he has as a Senator and I have as a Senator. He forgets the fact, No. 1, that we have seen more people insured than in modern history. He conveniently forgets that fact. He forgets the fact that there are no limits on coverage. Insurance companies can't cancel a person's health insurance. He talks about children with great eloquence--and I am sure he is a fantastic parent--but he forgets that 17 million children with pre- existing conditions are insured, which is a pretty important point. I really have to take offense to some of the remarks of my colleague. He makes an eloquent point about States' rights. He finishes his argument about ObamaCare saying: Don't have the Federal Government tell my State what to do. Well, in essence, ObamaCare doesn't do that. We have an exchange. But, yes, we do require people to get insurance. That is true, and that comes from the plan of a Republican Governor named Mitt Romney. Then he says: Leave my State alone. Then he wants to take away a woman's right to choose an abortion. He wants to do that. He thinks the Federal Government should do that. So he makes an eloquent point about States' rights, but he, as a Senator who doesn't believe in abortion--and that is his total right, and I respect it and I defend it--basically says he wants to decide for everybody in the country that they shouldn't be able to have an abortion because he doesn't approve of that. What makes his opinion more important than mine? There are dozens--it isn't. This is America. We all have different views about when life begins, about Roe v. Wade. Yet he stands here and uses rhetoric that I say is irresponsible. That is my opinion. It is my opinion, not his. Now, the Senator started off his discussion by saying the truth, that he has a beautiful wife and a beautiful family. Well, I want the Senator to know I have a handsome husband and a beautiful family. So he has a beautiful wife and a beautiful family, and I have a handsome husband and a beautiful family. What the heck does that have to do with anything else? We are both parents. I am a grandparent. I gave birth. What does that have to do with this conversation? The fact of the matter is it is not about your beautiful family or my beautiful family. It is about the beautiful families out there who, A, need insurance, and B, will make their own decision in America about when life begins, and who will make their own decision in America as to whether they support Roe v. Wade. Then my friend says that someone in his family survived cancer--and thank God. I have had friends who have survived it, and I have friends who have died from it and family members as well. This conversation has nothing to do with our lives personally. It has to do with the other lives that we impact when we say we are going to take away health care from 3 million Americans who get it from Planned Parenthood. Now, my friend lectures us. He has done this before. He and I have gone at this before. It is fine. He talks about his deep feelings about how he is against abortion at any stage. Then why doesn't he come to the floor, after all his rhetoric--I listened to it and I am offended by it, frankly--why doesn't he come down here and right a wrong that says it is a crime to have an abortion and you should go to jail. That is what he is basically saying, if we listen to his rhetoric, the words he used. No, he doesn't do that. I checked his legislative record. He just wants to defund organizations that are operating under complete legality--under Roe v. Wade, the law of the land. Abortion has been legal since 1973. The Senator doesn't agree with it. I have total respect for that. But if you think it is a crime, then go ahead, instead of coming here and giving these speeches about those of us who happen to believe it is up to a woman to decide these issues. He is really basically saying we are advocating a crime, and that is offensive. I would never say that to my friend, never. And then, of course, the whole party over there is attacking an organization that is operating legally under the law. Ninety-seven percent of what they do is breast cancer screenings, STD screenings, cervical cancer screenings--saving peoples' lives. I have met them. I have looked them in the eye. I know what I am talking about. So if you don't think that 3 percent of the work Planned Parenthood does--which is absolutely connected to reproductive health, the 3 percent--then come down and say it is a crime. But I bet none of my friends would do that, because if I went to my people and I said Republicans think you should go to jail if you have an abortion or go to jail if you take a contraception--some of them feel that way, not all of them--they would really be in trouble at the polls. When you make these verbal attacks on people who don't agree with you, sir, your words matter. Your words matter. They have an impact. You are here because you are eloquent. Your words have an impact, and if what you want to have happen is to put people in jail for performing a legal procedure, come down here and do that, but don't come down here and say what you think is a crime and then say, therefore, we are going to defund an organization that is operating illegally. Now, my friend from the other side of the aisle may not like it, but 3 million people count on Planned Parenthood, and his approach is an attack on those 3 million people. More than--I don't know how many people live in Oklahoma, but I would assume it is fewer than that, perhaps. This obsession in repealing ObamaCare, despite the fact that it is helping so many people, is of epic proportions. We have seen a repeal in the House of Representatives 52 times. I wonder if my friend from Connecticut wanted me to yield for a question or if he is going to wait.