Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, colleagues, we must waive the Budget Act in order to continue working on this bill. My friend from Tennessee will tell you otherwise. This bill is 100 percent paid for. The CBO score actually shows a $5 billion surplus over the next 10 years. How is it paid for? I can tell you, my friend Jim Inhofe made sure it would be paid for, and we agreed on it. Through the highway trust fund, plus the bipartisan work of the Finance Committee, we have filled this trust fund to cover this bill. Mr. President, 2.8 million jobs hang in the balance. All the work we did today hangs in the balance. We need 60 votes. So if one is for the Transportation bill, please vote aye so we can continue our work next week. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. Most of them have gone, but I feel it is important that the Record reflect this last vote that we had. Basically, it was a vote to undo everything we worked so hard on all day. It was basically a backdoor way of killing the transportation bill--a bill that is fiscally responsible. It is at current levels plus inflation fully paid for. Senator Inhofe and I agreed at the outset in the EPW Committee we would only support a bill that was fully paid for. I was honored that we got so many Republican votes on that. I am looking forward to next week when we get this done. I understand the Senator from Michigan has something he wants to get accomplished by a voice vote. I ask unanimous consent that he be able to explain that so that we can continue making progress, and then he will yield the floor to the Republican side.

Mrs. BOXER

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thought I would use this opportunity to inform our colleagues and anyone following this transportation debate as to where we are. Yesterday, we had an opportunity to stop the filibuster and get right to our bill and get it done and protect 1.8 million jobs and create another 1 million. We didn't do that--pretty much on a party line vote. The filibuster continues. The hopeful sign we had was right before the vote when the Republican leader said he was open to reaching an agreement. I was hopeful that agreement would not contain extraneous votes. I don't think that is going to happen. I think we are going to face extraneous votes--to repeal Clean Air Act rules, to open our States to drilling that rely on fishing and tourism and recreation when we know the oil companies have millions of acres they can drill on without going to these areas that are so essential to our economic future just as they are to our environmental future. It looks as though we are going to face that and a vote probably on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Again, I am very sad we could not come together when we have a bill that got an 85-to-11 vote to proceed to it. We still have to face a filibuster and still we had to lose two votes to cut off debate. But the Senate, being the Senate, this is it. So now we have to vote. The two leaders can agree. I hope they can work together to achieve an agreement whereby we would have votes on these extraneous matters, and, hopefully, we would not have a prolonged debate on them because this is a highway bill. Thousands and thousands of businesses are waiting for us to act. By March 31, if we don't act, everything stops. In your State and mine all these highway projects will shut down with no Federal contribution at all, which is most of them. I am hopeful. I cannot report to the Senate that we have an agreement now, but I hope we will have one at some point today. Once we do have that, we have a path forward; and if we work together in goodwill, we can get this done. Frankly, I don't think we have a choice but to get it done. Everything, as I said, expires March 31. Here it is March 7 and we have a few days left before this whole thing blows up, and we will have no highway bill and people will be laid off. In this economic time, that is the last result we need. We need to fix our highways, bridges, and roads. Madam President, the occupant of the chair is a proud member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. She has worked hard to get us to this day. I know she has worked hard to bring this debate to a close and get a path forward. We can all hope that happens today. I will be back on the floor with Senator Inhofe. I am hopeful the two of us can lead us through this bill and get this bill done. Then I think we can have the House follow our example of Democrats and Republicans working together. If they start that over there, they will have the bill quicker than they think, and we can finally put this behind us and send a message that we are functioning. This concept of a Federal highway system was brought to us by a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. He understood logistics better than most. He knew we could not have a thriving economy if we could not move goods and people. So I am hopeful. I will be back on the Senate floor when we have an agreement and we can move forward. I will yield the floor, as I know the Senator from Vermont is here. I always look forward to his comments.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. What is the order at this time?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend for putting the gas price situation into a larger picture and also note that one other factor playing a role is manipulation due to some of the instability in the world that our President is certainly dealing with, and many of us here, and the instability in Iran; the fact that we have sanctions, the fact that there is also a greater demand coming for this product from China and other very high-growth areas. I say to my friend, is he aware--I know he is, but because of the rules I have to ask it in a question--that we are producing far more of this resource, oil, in this country than we have done? Since 2008 we have many more rigs out there, and is my colleague also aware that the oil companies are sitting on well over 50 million acres of leases on which they are not drilling when they could? And, my last point, is my friend aware that we are exporting more than we ever have from America? That is also a very important point. To those who say, ``drill, baby, drill,'' that is not an answer if it is ``export, baby, export.'' The fact is we are drilling more, and more is leaving America. So I say to my friend, is he aware of all of these factors, and is he as concerned as I am about the other side playing more politics with this because ``drill, baby, drill'' is not the answer? We are drilling more than ever. We only have 2 percent of the world's proven supply of oil. I wonder if my friend could comment on those points.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are back in our fourth week trying to get a transportation bill through this body. To me, it is a very sad statement about the dysfunction of this body that we spent approximately 3 weeks dithering over a contraception amendment that has nothing to do with the highway bill and other threats to offer foreign policy amendments, and so on. We have a chance today to vote to end this dithering, and the Chamber of Commerce is asking us to do that. The AFL CIO is asking us to do that. One thousand organizations are asking us to do that because they know thousands of businesses and well over 1 million jobs are at stake. I wish to say I heard the tail end of Senator Boozman's talk about the Keystone Pipeline. I wanted to make sure it was on the record--this is from a conversation I had with Senator Durbin--that under this President we are drilling now more than we have ever drilled. Anyone who says ``drill, baby, drill'' doesn't understand that the number of rigs that are now moving are four times as many as in 2008. They don't understand we are now exporting oil. They don't understand the fact that we are importing less. Does that mean we are done? No. The oil companies have more than 50 million acres of approved leases. They ought to drill there and hands off my coast because my coast is an economic gold mine the way it is because we have tourism and recreation and fishing. Those jobs far outweigh any jobs that would come from oil drilling, which would tend to undermine the very economy of my great State. If we have to vote on Keystone, we will. If we have to vote on offshore drilling, we will. But I will be here to point out that if we care about jobs and about making sure the price of gasoline goes down, when we have Keystone, let's make sure the oil stays here, that oil is made in America and stays in America. These issues are not one- dimensional; they are many sided, as my friend knows. He and I have agreed on much and we have disagreed on some. What we need is the kind of balance President Obama brings to the table when it comes to energy. He says we will do ``all of the above,'' but we will do it wisely. Interestingly, on the Keystone Pipeline--we now have the tea party talking about property rights and the fact that they have to be respected as well when we build a new pipeline such as this. So we will have votes. May I make a plea to my colleagues. At noon, just about 50 minutes from now, we can have a clean vote; 60 of us can vote to move to this Transportation bill, to get rid of, as my friend Olympia Snowe has said, polarizing amendments. Why not move to something that was voted unanimously out of our committee, 18 to zero--Republicans and Democrats, all together; Senator Inhofe and myself, together; Senator Shelby and Senator Johnson, together on the bill; Senator Baucus, working in a bipartisan way with his committee; and Senator Rockefeller, once they got rid of some bumps, working with Senator Hutchison. We now have pending an agreed-upon bill, plus we have added to the package 37 bipartisan amendments. What more do my friends want? We have a bipartisan bill. We have added more bipartisan amendments to it. All these jobs are at stake, and today we can end all this dithering and wasting time. The people of America look at us and wonder what we are about. Vote yes for cloture. I wish to talk about what is at stake if we don't invoke cloture and don't wind up with a bill. That is not just hyperbole; these are facts. All our transportation programs expire on March 31. My friend in the chair served as a great Governor of his State of West Virginia. He knows how important the highway bill is. We work together with the States and with the planning organizations, and we get those funds out there. On March 31, we are done. This bill reauthorizes that program, and 1.8 million jobs are at stake. As soon as we fail, there is no more program. There is no more authority to collect the Federal gas tax that supports the highway program. There is no more authority to spend any money on transportation. Again, 1.8 million jobs are at stake. Let's go to the next chart. I did a breakdown of the various States. In this time, I am going to highlight a few of the States. These charts will be available for everybody. In Alabama, we are talking about only 27,000 jobs; in Alaska, 18,000 jobs--I am skipping; in California, 164,000 jobs; in Florida, 76,000 jobs; right here in DC, 18,000 jobs; in Georgia, almost 50,000 jobs; in Illinois, 65,000; in Indiana, 34,000; in Iowa, 17,000; in Louisiana, 25,000; in Maine, almost 7,000. We will go on and give the rest of the States to give a sense of how many jobs will be lost if we do not act to reauthorize this bill. In Maryland, 26,000 jobs; in Massachusetts, 31,000; in Michigan, 39,000; in Montana, almost 14,000; in Nebraska, 10,000; in Nevada, almost 14,000 jobs; in New Jersey, 50,000; in New York, 118,000; in North Dakota, 8,000; in Ohio, 50,000; in Oklahoma, 22,000; in Pennsylvania, 68,000; in Rhode Island, 8,000. I will continue with another chart to show other examples. I will be sure to say what West Virginia is when I get to the Ws. In South Carolina, 22,000; in South Dakota, 9,000; in Tennessee, 30,000; in Texas, 128,000 jobs. I call on Senators to vote yes to stop debate and get to the bill. In Vermont, almost 7,000; in Virginia, 41,000; in Washington State, 34,000; in West Virginia, 15,133 jobs; in Wisconsin, 27,000; in Wyoming, 8,400 jobs. When we talk about this as a jobs bill, this isn't some exercise in our verbiage; this is a fact of life. These jobs add up to 1.8 million. In our bipartisan bill, we have increased a particular program--this is a reform bill, and we have taken 90 programs down to 30. It is a real reform bill. We have done away with every earmark. One particular program we increased is the TIFIA Program, transportation infrastructure financing. We took it up to $1 billion because it leverages Federal dollars 30 times. So let's say one of our counties voted to tax themselves one-half cent to build a transit system. We would come in--and the Federal Government, you make an application from your State and we would front that money. So you could build it all in 1 or 2 years instead of waiting for the funding over 10. This was an idea that came from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Chamber of Commerce and the labor unions in Los Angeles. So the bottom line here is not only are we saving 1.8 million jobs, but we have the potential of creating another 1 million jobs. If we fail today to cut off debate and we don't have a path forward--which I hope the leaders will figure out--if we abandon this, 2.8 million jobs are at stake. Let's look at some other charts of unemployment. Mr. President, you know as well as anyone in your State, and I know in my State, that construction workers have been hit very hard. The national unemployment rate is 8.3 percent. We are hopeful it is on the downtick, but the construction industry unemployment rate as a whole is 17.7 percent. It could be even worse in some areas, but this is an average. So if we add to the unemployment in the construction industry, we are looking at a total crisis, a total disaster. Right now, we have 1.48 million construction workers out of work. If we fail to do this bill, we are adding another 1.8 million. So you could say this would be a depression for construction workers. It doesn't stop there. The industry is feeling it, the businesses are feeling it, and we have a chart that talks about the thousands of businesses that would be affected. I don't know if you are aware of this, but there are over 11,000 transportation construction companies that would be adversely impacted by a shutdown on March 31. So in addition to the 1.8 million workers who would be laid off, 11,000 transportation construction companies--many of them--would have to shut their doors. And that is a very modest number. Let me show a picture that I often show when speaking of the construction workers. I am sure you are a Super Bowl fan--we all are, Mr. President--and this is a picture of a stadium during the Super Bowl. Every seat there, about 100,000 seats, is filled. Imagine every one of these seats filled with an unemployed construction worker, and then close your eyes and envision 14 more of these stadiums filled with unemployed construction workers. That is where we are today. Then you would have to envision another 25 or 30 of those. We cannot afford to go down this road. So today, let's vote ``aye'' for cloture. The last thing I want to show is the strong support for this cloture vote. We received this yesterday from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce: . . . strongly supports this important legislation. Passing surface transportation reauthorization legislation is a specific action Congress and the administration can take right now to support job growth and economic productivity without adding to the deficit. Because, as you know, this bill is 100 percent paid for. We also have a history-making group of organizations supporting this, and I will give you a sense of that as well. We have a coalition of 1,075 organizations from all 50 States. They sent us a letter on January 25, 2012, and they said: In 2011, political leaders--Republican and Democrat, House, Senate and the administration--stated a multi-year surface transportation bill is important for job creation and economic recovery. We urge you to follow words with action. I want to repeat that: We urge you to follow words with action. Continuing the quote: Make transportation job #1 and move immediately in the House and Senate to invest in the roads, bridges [and] transit systems that are the backbone of the U.S. Economy, its businesses, large and small, and communities of all sizes. They didn't ask us to take up the Keystone Pipeline, they didn't ask us to take up repealing clean air laws, they didn't ask us to take up drilling off the coast, and they didn't ask us to take up contraception. They didn't. They asked us to take up this transportation bill. And I am saying to colleagues, please, you have had 3 weeks to discuss contraception. We disposed of it. We voted. It is okay. It is tabled. Let's move on. There are other days we can talk about that but not when we are dealing with building the highways and bridges. You know, the state of our highways and transportation system is not what it should be, with 70,000 bridges deficient. Bridges are falling down. Senator Inhofe is eloquent on the point about a woman taking a walk and having a piece of bridge fall on her and she died. We have seen what happened in Minnesota when bridges start to fall into disrepair. When I was growing up, my parents always taught me be responsible--be responsible. I am not always living up to their expectations, but I try. And if somebody tells me there is a problem over here, I try to fix it. So when I hear that 70,000 bridges are in trouble and they are deficient, and 50 percent of our roads are not up to standard--I now know this information. If I were ignorant and I didn't know it, that would be one thing. But I now know it--how can I turn my back on this bill? I know how many unemployed construction workers there are. How can I turn my back on them? I know businesses--whether it is gravel companies or cement companies or general contractors--are begging us to do this. These are Republican-leaning groups along with labor and Democratic-leaning groups. Bridges are not partisan. Roads are not partisan. This is our moment. We can vote yes on cloture. What does that mean? It means we are not going to debate these very difficult, inflammatory amendments, but we are going to stick to the highway bill, stick to the transportation bill. This vote is a very important vote for folks because I think if you don't vote to move to the bill and you vote to prolong this debate, you have to answer to your folks back home and tell them why you are playing Russian roulette with the highway bill, because on March 31 it all stops. It is true in the past we have had extensions. This is different than usual because the trust fund is short of funds, so you can't just extend. If you extend, there is a price to be paid. Because the trust fund doesn't have the funds it needs--which is repaired in this bill-- you would have an immediate cut of a third--a third--right there, which means 500,000 jobs, if you did an extension. We don't want that. We want a bill that is a reform bill, that takes this from 90 programs to 30, that uses leveraging in a smart way, and that is totally bipartisan. Let me sum up. In a few minutes we will be voting, and let me say to my friends again, you have all the facts at hand. If you don't know what your State job loss would be if we fail to act, we have that. We will give it to you. But there is no way you can run away from what you know. We had 85 votes to proceed to this bill. That was a long time ago. It seems like ages ago. Yet we can't get off dead center because people are offering unrelated amendments. So my hope is we will get to 60. My hope is we can, in short order, get this bill done and send a message of hope to the people. I heard just now that Speaker Boehner has said he is very interested in the Senate bill; that he is going to take a look at the Senate bill because, at this point, they haven't been able to get a bill that they feel has a chance. This bill, I would reiterate for America, is bipartisan, the most bipartisan bill I have ever seen around here, and it unites people who fight and argue on everything else. When Inhofe and Boxer agree on something, you know that is a real good compromise. And we do agree. When Vitter and Baucus come in and agree on the same thing that Inhofe and Boxer have agreed to, it is a good day around here. And that is what we have before us. So I call on colleagues to vote aye on the cloture vote and let's get on with this. Let's spare the people the untold suffering that will come if we have to lay off 1.8 million workers and hurt more than 11,000 businesses. I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during these quorum calls be charged to both sides equally.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes, and that Senator Murray conclude our side with 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have news for the supporters of the Blunt amendment: We were not born yesterday. And no matter how many times they say this is nothing more than a restatement of old laws, the facts are not with them. We have never had a conscience clause for insurance companies. And if you wanted to give them a chance to say no, a lot of them don't have any conscience, so they would take it. And this is what Blunt does. It allows any insurance company that doesn't want to provide a service-- maybe an expensive service--to say, oh, I meant to tell you, I have a moral objection to this. What a situation. How many people have struggled with their insurance companies to get them to cover what they have paid for for years and years and years, only to have the insurance company say, sorry, sue us. Now Mr. Blunt is giving insurance companies a way to say, oh, we feel sorry that you have cancer; we are sad you have diabetes; we are torn apart you might have a stroke, but, you know what, we have a moral objection to the kind of therapies that are out there today, so we are sorry. That is what the Blunt amendment does. Should anyone think I am making it up, let's look at the words in the Blunt amendment. They are right here. They are right here. So the Senator from Maine can say whatever she wants about it, the Senator from Missouri can talk about what he wants to, but the fact is they say if you deny any coverage from the essential health benefits package or the preventive health package it is fine as long as you hide behind--my words--a moral objection. This started out with birth control. There was a hearing over in the House, and this iconic picture will last through my lifetime and yours. Here is a photograph of a panel discussing women's health care over in the Republican House. A discussion on women's health care. Do you see one woman there? I don't. They are all men. And these men are waxing eloquent about birth control and the fact that, oh, it is just a moral issue with them and they do not think women should have the right to have it. Not one of them suggested men shouldn't have their Viagra, but we will put that aside. We will put that aside. Not one woman was called. And when a woman raised her hand in the audience and said, I have a very important story to tell about a friend of mine who lost her ovary because she couldn't afford birth control, which would have controlled the size of the cyst on the ovary, you know what Mr. Issa said over there? He said, you are not qualified. You are not qualified to talk about women's issues. I guess only men are qualified to talk about women's issues. We have men on the other side of the aisle here, for the most part--with a little assist--telling women what their rights should be. I cannot believe this battle is on a highway bill, on a transportation bill, where 2.8 million jobs are at stake. We have been diverted with this amendment about women's health. Look at the different important benefits that any insurer or any employer could walk away from. Because if this amendment passes, they would have the right to do so. They would no longer have to cover emergency services, hospitalization, maternity care, mental health treatment, pediatric services, rehabilitative services, ambulatory patient services, laboratory services. They would no longer have to offer breast cancer screenings, cervical cancer screenings. All they have to do is say, oh, I am sorry, we believe prayer is the answer. We don't believe in chemotherapy. If someone is heavy and they are obese and they get diabetes, we have a moral objection to helping them because, you know what, they didn't lead a clean life. So they could deny any of these things--flu vaccines, osteoporosis screening, TB testing for children, autism screening. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to vote down this dangerous amendment. Vote it down. We will have a motion to table, and I urge my colleagues to stand for the women and the families of this Nation and let's get back to the highway bill. Get rid of this thing.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, California and the Nation are mourning the loss of seven courageous and dedicated marines who died last week in a midair helicopter collision during a routine training exercise in a remote mountain area in Imperial County, CA. This is a tragic loss for our military and our Nation. It is also a reminder of the sacrifices that all our servicemembers make each and every day. These brave men and women put themselves in harm's way to keep us safe--whether they are engaged in combat, conducting humanitarian missions, or taking part in training exercises here at home. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to these marines: Maj. Thomas A. Budrejko of Montville, Connecticut; Capt. Michael M. Quin of Purcellville, Virginia; Capt. Benjamin N. Cerniglia of Montgomery, Alabama; Capt. Nathan W. Anderson of Amarillo, Texas; Sgt. Justin A. Everett of Clovis, California; LCpl Corey A. Little of Marietta, Georgia; and LCpl Nickoulas H. Elliott of Spokane, Washington. Six of the victims were stationed at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in San Diego County. The seventh was stationed at Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, AZ. At this time of great sorrow, my thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of these seven marines. Nothing can fully account for the tremendous loss they have suffered, but I hope they can take comfort in knowing that their loved ones will be forever remembered and honored by a grateful nation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish today to pay tribute to 15 servicemembers from California or based in California who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since November 15, 2011. This brings to 324 the number of servicemembers either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Afghanistan. This represents 17 percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan. SPC Sean M. Walsh, 21, of San Jose, CA, died November 16, in Khowst Province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained after encountering indirect fire. Specialist Walsh was assigned to the 185th Military Police Battalion, 49th Military Police Brigade, Pittsburg, CA. LCpl Joshua D. Corral, 19, of Danville, CA, died November 18 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Corral was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. Cpl Zachary C. Reiff, 22, of Preston, IA, died November 21 of wounds suffered November 18 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Corporal Reiff was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. SSgt Vincent J. Bell, 28, of Detroit, MI, died November 30 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Bell was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. SFC Clark A. Corley Jr., 35, of Oxnard, CA, died December 3, in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Sergeant First Class Corley was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, Fort Bliss, TX. SPC Thomas J. Mayberry, 21, of Springville, CA, died December 3, in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Specialist Mayberry was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, Fort Bliss, TX. SGT Christopher L. Muniz, 24, of New Cuyama, CA, died December 11, in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Sergeant Muniz was assigned to the 3rd Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, HI. SSG Noah M. Korte, 29, of Lake Elsinore, CA, died December 27, in Paktia, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Staff Sergeant Korte was assigned to the 720th Military Police Battalion, 89th Military Police Brigade, Fort Hood, TX. PO1 Chad R. Regelin, 24, of Cottonwood, CA, died January 2 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Petty Officer First Class Regelin was assigned as an explosive ordnance disposal technician to Marine Special Operations Company Bravo. Regelin was stationed at Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 3, San Diego, CA. Cpl Jon-Luke Bateman, 22, of Tulsa, OK, died January 15 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Corporal Bateman was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Cpl Christopher G. Singer, 23, of Temecula, CA, died January 21 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Corporal Singer was assigned to 3rd Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. Sgt William C. Stacey, 23, of Redding, CA, died January 31 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Sergeant Stacey was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. PFC Cesar Cortez, 24, of Oceanside, CA, died February 11, in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Private First Class Cortez was assigned to 5th Battalion, 52nd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command, Fort Bliss, TX. PO3 Kyler L. Estrada, 21, of Maricopa, AZ, died February 14 as a result of a noncombat related training incident in Djibouti. Petty Officer 3rd Class Estrada, a Navy hospital corpsman, was assigned to the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit based at Camp Pendleton, CA. PO1 Paris S. Pough, 40, of Columbus, GA, died February 17 during a port visit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Petty Officer First Class Pough, a hull technician, was assigned to the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), home-ported in San Diego, CA.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. As the senior Senator from New York relinquishes the chair to his colleague from New York, I want to thank both of them for their amazing leadership in every issue we turn to today. Senator Schumer's work to help us bring this transportation bill to the floor is exemplary. And Senator Schumer knows, as Senator Gillibrand knows and every one of us knows, we cannot have a strong economy if we cannot move goods, if we cannot move people, if commerce comes to a halt. So we have to pass a transportation bill to make sure our highways are adequate, our bridges are safe, our commerce can move, and our transit systems can carry people from one place to another. I want to say to my colleague who is now sitting in the chair, Senator Gillibrand, that I listened to her remarks. I am very touched by them. She talked about women's voices, and she is dedicated to ensuring they are heard. Let me assure my friend that her voice has been heard on this and so many other important issues. And it is an effective voice. She was the one who came to me when the Republicans started to say they did not think it was necessary for women to have access to birth control with no copay through their insurance, and said: Barbara, do you understand that a full 15 percent of women are prescribed birth control pills because they want to avoid ovarian cancer, they want to make sure that a cyst on an ovary does not get out of control, they want to avoid debilitating monthly pain, and even it is used for terrible skin conditions? So when we hear our colleagues talk about birth control as if it is some unnecessary prescription--although you never hear them say it when it comes to Viagra, I would note--let me point out it is necessary. We will be on our feet day after day, month after month, hour after hour, and minute after minute, because we are not going to let them take away medicine from women. Oh, no. They are not. They will not. And the women of this country will not have it. They are engaged in this debate. They understand it. My friend from New York has been an incredible voice. So here we are. We are on the highway bill. You may wonder, why is it that the Senator from New York came and talked about the issue of birth control and women's health when we are on a highway bill? Well, here is the news: My Republican colleagues are so intent on taking away women's rights, rights to health care, that they insisted on having a vote to take away these rights before they would allow the highway bill to move forward. Can you imagine? I think it appropriate that at this point I pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, who has been an amazing colleague, who has been a voice of reason, a voice of progress, over the many years she has served. I have served with her in the House and the Senate, I do not know, decades. I will miss Olympia Snowe. But let's listen to what she said. She said: This place has become so polarized, so partisan we cannot move forward. I would submit to you that the situation we find ourselves in at this moment is exhibit A on why someone such as Olympia Snowe is saying this has been a privilege and a wonderful thing, but I think I am going to move on. Because here we have a highway bill that is completely bipartisan. And again, my colleague in the chair from New York, Senator Gillibrand, is a very important member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We passed a bill out of our committee with a vote of 18 to 0. We had 100 percent support in a polarized time because everybody understands we have to make sure we have a No. 1 transportation system, a class A transportation system in this great country of ours, a vision that was first brought to us by Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s when he said, we have to be able to have a network of national highways. So here is a bill that comes out of the EPW Committee 100 percent bipartisan. The section that dealt with banking comes out of the Banking Committee 100 percent bipartisan. It comes out of the Finance Committee very bipartisan, not 100 percent but very. And in Commerce it had a problem, which we have rectified, and it is now bipartisan. So four committees have done their work on the transportation highway bill, and all of them have been bipartisan. So we come to the floor--I think this is now the third week or the second week on the bill--the second week on the bill--and we have gone nowhere, because in order for us to move forward, the Republicans are insisting on a vote to take away women's health care. So Senator Reid said to them: Fine. We will vote on it Thursday morning. But let it be known throughout this land what is going on. Sometimes people tune in and they say: Oh, it is so complicated, I cannot follow it. It is not complicated. Here is where we are: We have a bipartisan bill, 2.8 million jobs are at stake. We have to do it. The transportation bill is going to expire, the authorization, so we will not have any program in place March 31. We have to do this work, and we cannot move forward unless we have a vote on a polarizing amendment--a polarizing amendment. How did it come about, this polarizing amendment? It came about because we passed the health care law that made some incredible breakthroughs. Two of the biggest breakthroughs, I think, in that bill is that we for the first time said to insurance companies and employers: When you provide insurance for your people, it must include a list of essential health care benefits and preventive health care benefits. Let me read you the list of essential health care benefits that people of America are going to have unless the Blunt amendment passes and takes this away. This is the list of essential benefits the Blunt amendment would take away: Emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health treatment, preventive and wellness services, pediatric services, prescription drugs, ambulatory patient services, rehabilitative services and devices, and laboratory services. These are categories of services that health insurance plans must cover under health care reform. But if the Blunt amendment passes--and we know it started because of birth control, but it has reached beyond that to every single essential health benefit that any employer in this Nation, if Blunt passes, could say: I do not want to do any of these. I do not want to do some of these, because I have a moral objection. So if you worked for an employer who believes that prayer is what we need to cure illness--and by the way, that is their right. I would fight for their right to believe that. They would be able, however, to tell you that that is your alternative, and they do not have to provide any of those essential health benefits in their insurance plan. The other thing the Blunt amendment does is it says that no more preventive health benefits will be required. Under the law, these are the preventive health benefits that are required to be offered to you. You do not have to take them if you are an employee who has an objection to any of these things. You do not have to do it, but they have to be offered to you: Breast cancer screenings, cervical cancer screenings, hepatitis A and B vaccines, measles and mumps vaccine, colorectal cancer screening, diabetes screening, cholesterol screening, blood pressure screening, obesity screening, tobacco cessation, autism screening, hearing screening for newborns, sickle cell screening, fluoride supplements, tuberculosis testing for children, depression screening, osteoporosis screening, flu vaccines for children and the elderly, contraception. Contraception is a preventive health benefit because we know it prevents unintended pregnancies and prevents abortion and prevents illness. Fifteen percent of people take it to prevent illness. Also, well-woman visits, HPV testing, STD screening, HIV screening, breast feeding support, domestic violence screening, and gestational diabetes screening--all of these have to be provided. But if you don't want to take contraception, you can say, no; I am not interested in that. If you don't want to have your child to have a vaccine--personally, I think that is terrible--but you don't have to. But that is what is required. Under the Blunt amendment, let's be clear. Any employer who simply says they have a moral objection can say: Sorry, see this list. We are not going to do 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 things here. For example, obesity screening, we believe that is your problem, and we have a moral objection to that. Colorectal cancer screening, I have an objection to that because, again, my religion says it doesn't do any good. This is why Blunt is so dangerous. It is about denying women the absolute right to have contraception offered to them--it does that, but it does a lot more than that. Again, we are on a highway transportation bill. It is 2.8 million jobs. It came out of four committees, and it is bipartisan. It will keep this country moving. It will keep this economy going. Madam President, I want you to imagine one Super Bowl stadium filled with people. Think about what that looks like in your mind's eye. Every seat in that stadium is filled. Now imagine 15 of those stadiums filled. That is how many unemployed construction workers there are in this great country today. Yes, we are making progress. Yes, President Obama took us out of the worst recession since the Great Depression that he inherited. Yes, he turned it around. But he and we say, we have to do more. We cannot just say, because we are creating jobs now, it is enough. The President knows it; we know it. We were bleeding 800,000 jobs when he took over, and now we have stemmed it and we are creating a couple hundred jobs a month--100,000, 200,000--thank goodness. We have created, in the last 6 months or so, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Here is the point: Why on Earth would we take a U-turn as we are on the road to economic recovery, as we are on the road to a bill that is absolutely necessary, and take up the issue of women's health? I am telling you, I believe it is radical. I believe it is taking us backward. I believe it is hurtful to women. I call on every woman, regardless of political party, to make your voice heard against the Blunt amendment. You are being attacked. What the President did in dealing with the issue of contraception showed the wisdom of Solomon. He basically said: If you are a religious institution and you have an objection to offering contraception, you don't have to do it. So 335,000 churches are exempt. I feel sorry for the employees who may not agree with the church, but they work for the church and therefore that is the rule. Religiously affiliated hospitals and universities raised a question-- you know, they serve a broad array of people. They hire a broad array of people, not just people of one faith but of many faiths and of many points of view. They raised the question, saying: We don't feel comfortable. The President came up with a compromise that has been embraced by Catholic Charities, Catholics United, and the Catholic Health Association. The only group that doesn't support him are the bishops. If I could respectfully say to them, they don't deliver the health care services; Catholic Charities does, and the Catholic Health Association does. They represent thousands of providers. So they have embraced the President's compromise. But not my Republican friends. They didn't. They want to cause trouble and take away the ability for women to have access to contraception, without a copay--while they support supplying Viagra to men. It is stunning. I think this is rippling across the land. I don't know if we have the photo--I don't think we have it on the floor--of the last panel that was held in the House, and my friend from New York talked about it. We do have it. This is a picture. A picture is worth 1,000 words. This is a panel on women's health focused on contraception. Where are the women? Where are the women? One, two, three, four, five men; they are talking about women's health care. Not one of them ever had a baby. Not one of them ever had a monthly cramp. They are talking about women's health care like they know all about it. The chairman, Chairman Issa, didn't see immediately that there was a problem. There was a woman sitting there, and she asked to be heard. She said, ``I have a story to tell this panel.'' Oh, no, he didn't want to hear from her. He said she wasn't qualified. Do you know what her story was? It was about how a friend of hers who was denied the contraceptive pill and instead developed a terrible tumor on her ovary. He didn't think that was worthy of discussion. This issue is rippling through the land. It says everything to me. We women in the Senate are not going to allow this to go unnoticed. That is a symbol of what is happening to women in this country. In the very States that are passing legislation that some have dubbed ``State rape,'' because it would require a woman to be subjected to an invasive vaginal probe without her consent, now they are backing off. That was the bill that almost passed in the Virginia Legislature. Now they have said: OK, it is a sonogram. There is another way to do it. It took women crying out and saying: Wait a minute. Are you kidding? And they are backing off. Well, they better back up overall because this is the 21st century. Women should be trusted and respected and honored and believed. When you tell a woman she needs to be lectured by some stranger on her own personal decisions, right away you are questioning her worth. So the issue goes so far beyond the ability to obtain birth control pills. The issue goes so far beyond that. It really does. You can stand up here and say it is not about women's health, it is really about religious freedom, but as Patty Murray, my colleague from Washington, has said: When they say it is not about contraception, it is about contraception. Others have said: When they say it is not really about the money, it is really about the money. When they say it is not really about politics, it is about politics. This is about contraception, making it difficult for women who don't have the means to have some sense of control over their reproductive lives and to be able to access a pill that could help them live a healthier life and live longer and free of pain. So they will come and say: Oh, Senator Boxer, this isn't about contraception; it is about religious freedom. The President has taken care of the religious objection. I described how he did it, and I will say it again. He said if you are a religious institution, you don't have to provide contraception. If you are a religiously affiliated institution, there will be a way for a third party to deal with it. The Catholic health organizations support it, Catholic Charities. He has come up with a compromise. There is no reason to have this polarizing debate. Everybody should have religious freedom, including the employees, including the boss, including everybody. So no one under the President's plan is forced to do something they don't want to do. We just want to make sure when the Institute of Medicine tells us that availability to contraception saves lives and protects health, women get a chance to get it if they want. If they don't want it, they don't have to get it. Of course not. Again, I will end where I started, talking about my colleague Olympia Snowe, who is retiring, not running again, because she said we are so polarized. This is exhibit 1. We are on a transportation bill that is bipartisan, but the other side can't let it rest, cannot move forward on it, and cannot move to make sure our businesses and our workers have a brighter future. Oh, no, they have to delay it. By the way, it is not only with this birth control amendment and women's health amendment but with other amendments that have nothing to do with the subject. It is what makes the American people wonder what we are doing here. I want to show some charts that deal with transportation issues right now. I will continue talking about Olympia Snowe for a minute. I went through some of the issues that I worked on with her. I want to talk about them. She and I wrote the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act. We were very strong because we knew our constituents were getting stuck on aircraft hour after hour, stuck on the tarmac, with no food, kids screaming, nightmare scenarios, 9, 10 hours on the runway. We thought passengers deserved a bill of rights. We worked with outside groups, some wonderful people. Lo and behold, it passed as part of the FAA bill that finally got enacted. We didn't get 100 percent of what we wanted, but we got 90 percent. I was proud to work with her. In 2009, following a tragic Buffalo commuter plane crash, which I know the occupant of the chair remembers, Senator Olympia Snowe wrote a bill to implement the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board to make sure these pilots get enough rest and that they are well-trained. We were very pleased that moved forward. We worked together--Olympia and I--on the Purple Heart for POWs to make sure the Purple Heart included prisoners of war who died in captivity and they could get that to bless their memory. We worked together against the global gag rule. We worked together and wrote a letter to the President--President Obama--asking him to appoint a woman to replace Justice David Souter. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter I will be quoting from.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.

Mrs. BOXER. I am so proud of this letter we wrote together. In the letter, we said: The most important thing is to nominate an exceptionally well-qualified, intelligent person to replace Justice Souter. . . . Women make up more than half of our population, but right now hold only one seat out of nine. . . . This is out of balance. In order for the Court to be relevant, it needs to be diverse and better reflect America. Then, of course, the President nominated Sonia Sotomayor and we were very excited about that. So it was wonderful to work with her on that, and we worked together on respecting human rights in Tibet and led 27 Senators in a letter to Chinese leader Hu Jintao asking that Tibetans be respected. Regarding women in Afghanistan, we worked together to ask Afghan leaders to revise a law that would legalize marital rape and impose other Taliban restrictions on Shiite women in Afghanistan. This is just a partial list of issues I have worked on with Olympia Snowe, and I will do a longer tribute for the record at a later time. But, again, as I heard this news, I was first filled with worry about her health, and I hoped she was OK. But she has clarified she absolutely is. So I wish her nothing but the best. I know she will always work on issues because she is so good at looking at a problem and solving it and not thinking first whether it is Democratic or it is Republican or where it falls on the political scales. So I have appreciated working with her on so many of these important issues that have come before us. I think the Senate should take a minute to think about this in relation to this bill. The whole world is watching us. When I say that, I don't mean the whole world literally, but I think the country is watching us. Why do I say that? Because 1,000 groups have endorsed our moving ahead with this bill--a coalition of 1,075 organizations from all 50 States. Here is what they said about this Transportation bill: There are few Federal efforts that rival the potential of critical transportation infrastructure investments for sustaining and creating jobs and economic activity. This is what they wrote. So they know this is the way to sustain and revive economic activity. This is what is at stake: Right now, 1.8 million jobs are created because we have a transportation bill. That bill ends March 31. So 1.8 million jobs are at stake if we don't act. Because of the way we wrote our bill, we leveraged funding, and this gained great bipartisan support. We have greatly increased the TIFIA Program, which is the transportation infrastructure financing program, which leverages funds by 30 times. Because of this, we believe we will see another 1 million jobs created. So we are talking 2.8 million jobs that are at stake. Yet we have an amendment on women's health. I just keep coming back to how insane that is. I also wish to note again the many unemployed construction workers. Remember, I said 15 stadiums could be filled with unemployed construction workers. This is the number: 1.48 million construction industry workers unemployed. The unemployment rate is 17.7 percent among construction industry workers; whereas, the national unemployment rate is 8.3 percent. We know the housing sector is still having major problems getting out of the funk it is in. It is tough. So we have to do this bill. I have a picture, just in case your mind's eye wasn't able to conjure it up. Here is a picture of a stadium filled with about 100,000 people. So 15 of these stadiums would basically reflect all the unemployed construction workers. Which are the groups that are supporting us and are they bipartisan? Oh, my goodness. I don't think I could share with everyone a more bipartisan list of organizations than the AAA, the American Association of State Highway and Transit Officials, the American Bus Association, the American Concrete Pavement Association, the American Council of Engineering Companies, the American Highway Users Alliance, the American Moving & Storage Association, the American Public Transportation Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers--and it goes on and on--the trucking association, the Metropolitan Transportation Organizations, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, Governors Highway Safety Association, International Union of Operating Engineers, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, National Asphalt Pavement Association, National Association of Development Organizations, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, National Construction Alliance. Oh, it goes on. That is just a partial list of those 1,000-plus organizations. When we started our bill the Presiding Officer will remember we made history because we had Richard Trumka, the head of the AFL CIO, sitting next to Tom Donohue, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Donohue and Trumka, the odd couple. They are fighting and arguing on everything. Yet they came together in front of our committee because they know we will all benefit. All of America benefits when we do a bill such as this. I think I have shared a lot, but there is one more point. If we allow this bill to go away, and we are stuck with an extension because the transportation fund is not collecting enough gas tax revenues--and there is a good-news reason for that, which is we are getting better fuel economy and we are using public transit a lot more, so the gas tax is not coming in at the rate it normally does--we will be down 35 percent in the fund. So right away--right away--631,000 jobs are gone. But what is so great about our bill is that four committees, including the Finance Committee, filled the gap in a way that was bipartisan. Our story is a great story to tell. If I had to tell my grandkids a story, I would say: Once upon a time in America, we didn't have a national road system. But a Republican President named Dwight Eisenhower had a vision. He was a general. He knew it was important to move things in a reliable way, and he had a vision of a national transportation system, and everybody in the country said: What a great idea. So we started to have a bill every few years to authorize a highway fund. Then somebody came up with the notion of it being funded by the users, so that the gas tax would go--part of it--to this fund and we would have enough in that fund to build our highways and our bridges, and then, later on, our transit systems. People said: We have a lot of wear and tear on the roads. What if a lot of people took public transit and got out of their cars? It would be better for the air quality. It would be better for everybody and for the state of the roads, and so they were married up, highways and transit and bridges. Now we have to live up to that legacy and not bog this bill down with birth control amendments and women's health amendments and amendments about Egypt or anything else. There is time for that. We don't mind those battles but not on this bill. Infrastructure is the name of the game. We all know it--Republicans and Democrats. So I say, let's stop playing games with this bill, please. Let's dispose of this birth control amendment, this women's health amendment. It doesn't belong on here. But if that is what it takes to get us off dead center, fine, let's go. To coin Olympia Snowe's phrase, it will be polarizing. It will not be pretty, but we will dispose of that and then we will move on and dispose of this bill. I hope we will not have to face 5, 10, 20, 30 unrelated amendments. I hope we can get it down to a small number and move on. Let's pass this bill, lift the workers and lift our businesses. Every dollar, almost-- most of the dollars--goes straight to the private sector through our States, through our local entities. Then let's hold our head up high when we go home. So when I go to the supermarket I don't have people coming to me and saying: What is going on over there? Birth control on a highway bill. What, are you kidding? I don't want to have those conversations every time I go to the supermarket. What are these guys thinking, they say. I say: I don't know. I can't speak for them. I think it is an agenda that appeals to the far right of this Nation. It is not a mainstream way to go. In closing now, for those who say Republicans and Democrats never work together, that is not true. Senator Inhofe and I are as far away from each other politically as two human beings can get, but we teamed up and put aside our ideologies, put aside our pet peeves, put aside things that, perhaps in our hearts, we truly wanted to do on this bill, and we met in the middle. He was over here and I was over here and we ended up right in the middle. We said: We can do this, and we proved we could do it. It was a challenge that was put to us by the leadership of both our parties and we met that test and other committees met that test. So here we are. Are we now to say to committee chairs and ranking members, Republicans and Democrats alike, forget about it? It is not worth it. Work your heart out. I pay tribute to my staff, my Democratic staff, and to Senator Inhofe's Republican staff. They worked night after night after night to come together on this bill. Then we were given an assignment 2 weeks ago to resolve the germane amendments and they have come together and they have resolved I don't know how many but dozens of amendments. So is the message, work your little hearts out, have your staff give up their nights with their families and come up with a bipartisan bill and all of a sudden have it subjected to some polarizing amendments that have nothing to do with the subject? Please, let's not see this bill go down. Because if this bill goes down, let me tell you, I, for one, will go to as many cities as I can and counties in this country and tell the truth about what happened. There is no reason for us not to get this done, especially when we have the Chamber of Commerce working with the AFL CIO, we have Republican- leaning business organizations working with Democratic-leaning worker organizations all throughout this country--over 1,000 of them. I talk to them every week to say thank you to them for keeping the pressure on all of us to keep moving forward. When we have that kind of bipartisanship in our committees, when we have that type of bipartisan bill on the floor, when we have that type of bipartisan support in the country, it is time to move forward and get the job done for the American people. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before the Senator from Maryland leaves the floor, I think it is an opportunity to thank her so much for speaking the truth today on the floor of the Senate--just the facts-- and what the Blunt amendment is about and isn't about. Also, I watched her recite the history of trying to bring preventive care and essential health care benefits to our people, realizing that she was in that pivotal position in the HELP Committee. I remember her looking at me one day--because we are very close friends; we are not on that particular committee together--and she said to me: Senator Kennedy asked me--I just get the chills when I think of it--to take on this issue of prevention and work with Tom Harkin and Chris Dodd and step to the plate on these essential benefits and on preventive benefits. She literally raised this issue, particularly on the prevention side--I don't know if the Presiding Officer remembers-- in caucuses, on the floor, in the committee, at press conferences, that we could have a new day in health care in this country because although we spend more than any country in the world, we are not getting the same results because we haven't invested in prevention. As she said, it is not up to politicians to decide what prevention should look like; it is up to the doctors. Under the Senator's leadership and that of Senators Harkin and Dodd and all the wonderful members of the HELP Committee, as well as the Finance Committee--and, yes, Ted Kennedy in the background because he was quite ill, but he sent his messages, and his staff helped--they came up with a list of essential health care services that nobody could ever quarrel with. They also came up with a list of preventive health care services that were so critical to all of us, particularly to women. The great news: Proving to us that when we invest in prevention, we save so much down the line. We all know this is a fact. Access to contraception, by the way, was put on the list not by politicians but by the Institute of Medicine because it is known that if the individual chooses that route to plan their families, that means we have fewer abortions and it means we will have healthier families, healthier babies. And many people take the birth control pill as medicine to prevent debilitating monthly pain. It is prescribed for skin diseases. It is prescribed to make sure cysts on ovaries do not keep growing and growing and possibly lose an ovary. But what has happened--and I guess I want to ask my friend one question before she leaves--is that the Blunt amendment would say that anybody, for any reason, any day, could cancel out that whole list of preventive and essential health care services that she fought so hard for. So when they say this is about religious freedom, no, no, no; that has been taken care of by our President. In terms of any provider that is religious or religiously affiliated, they do not have to provide contraception directly. Even Catholic Charities' response was ``We are hopeful that this is a step in the right direction . . . '', the Catholic Health Association supports the compromise, and so on. So I want to ask my friend, is she aware that when Congressman Issa held a hearing on women's health care, there was not one woman on the panel, on that first panel? Did she see those photos of that panel that was called to speak on women's health?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session on February 29, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session on February 29, 2012. The Committee will meet in room 418 of the Senate Russell Office Building beginning at 10 a.m.