Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. It is my understanding that the authorization provided for under this resolution would expire 1 year after its enactment; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. I want to say thank you very much to Chairman John Kerry for his work on this. I also want to thank the others who helped work on it. I know other Senators did, in addition to Senator McCain. On our side, I know Senator Durbin, Senator Cardin, and others had a lot to say. This is important. I so appreciate the Senator's willingness and his staff's willingness to work with us, because words matter, intent matters, and I think we have cleared it up. I am feeling a lot better about this resolution. I yield back my time to Senator Kerry.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, is it in order for me to ask some questions of the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee at this time?

Mrs. BOXER. I want to say to my chairman, whom I sit next to on the Foreign Relations Committee, how much I admire his work in the arena of foreign policy, and everything he has given to become one of the most informed human beings on the planet in terms of the challenges this country faces. I want to thank him so much for his hard work on a resolution regarding Libya. I also want to make sure today, by asking him a couple of questions, that the clear intent of this resolution, S. J. Res. 20 regarding our engagement in Libya, is that it does not authorize whatsoever, any troops on the ground, any boots on the ground, any ground forces of America in Libya. So I am going to ask him a couple of questions, and assuming those questions are answered the way I hope they will be, I will be much at peace with this resolution. My understanding from reading this resolution is that while it does not explicitly prohibit the use of U.S. ground forces in Libya, it also does nothing to authorize the use of U.S. ground forces in Libya. Is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. I also wish to ask this: Although there is no authorization in this resolution for the use of ground forces in Libya, for which I am pleased, are there any circumstances where ground forces could be deployed?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, we have spent many days talking about the importance of the bill before us which would reauthorize the Economic Development Administration. The EDA is a proven success. I think it is instructive that no one on the other side is speaking out against it. It is amazing to me they do not speak out against it, but I have a feeling we may not get this cloture vote. I hope I am wrong. As I look at ways for us to be bipartisan, there are a couple of areas where I think we can come together. One would certainly be deficit reduction. We Democrats know how to do it. We did it under Bill Clinton, and we are the only party in 50 years to pass a budget that actually brought us to a surplus. We can do that with our friends on the other side, and I am glad there are talks going on. The other area is job creation and job preservation. The other side says they want to do it with us. This is a golden opportunity for them to join with us. We have seen--and Leader Reid knows this because he has selected various jobs bills to bring to the Senate floor. It was not by chance this bill came. He wanted committee chairmen to say which bills had bipartisan support in their committees. We voted this bill out nearly unanimously. We had one objection in a time when things are pretty contentious. Why is it? I will tell you why it is. One of the best ways to tell you is to quote Senator John Cornyn, who said a $2 million EDA grant for a water tower in Texas will ``pave the way for creation of new jobs and business opportunities.'' That says it all. We have 27 Republicans who went on the record saying the EDA was a good job creation bill. We know that historically $1 of EDA investment attracts $7 in private sector investment. So while this is a $500 billion bill, if you see that it is $7 for each $1, it is into the millions in terms of the job creation that will follow. As a matter of fact, we know the jobs created will be between about 250,000 and 1 million over the life of the bill. One million jobs. All we need is a cloture vote. This EDA started in 1965, and it has been supported by Democrats and Republicans. I gave you an example of Senator Cornyn and what he said. These are just some of the people who are supporting us: the Conference of Mayors, the Public Works Association--it goes on into all of our States--the University Economic Development Association--why do they support it? They know this particular program is a spark plug. Put in $1 and attract $7 of private sector investment. People get to work again. I am just hopeful that we do not see this bill die today. This is a moment in time we can show that we mean what we say. Senator Crapo said the EDA business grant will help ``keep Idaho firms on the cutting edge.'' Senator Lugar said EDA funding is ``essential in our efforts to improve the quality of life and the standard of living for Hoosier families.'' It goes on. Senator Collins has some beautiful statements. Twenty- seven of our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, have always supported this legislation. The last time it was signed into law was by George W. Bush, yes, and it passed this Senate unanimously. If this bill goes down because our friends on the other side keep wanting to offer--they have offered tens of amendments. It is up to about 100 amendments: one about the prairie chicken, another one about a lizard-- all fine but do not belong on this bill. This bill is about jobs. I hope our friends will vote with their hearts and will look back on their press releases. I certainly think if they did that, they would cast an ``aye'' vote, and we would pass this bill and do something for jobs in this Nation. Thank you very much. I yield back my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays. Cloture Motion

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I am very pleased the Senator took to the floor to speak to the American people about what they are going through in his State. I am not as familiar with the condition of the nuclear powerplant, so I will not go there. I trust my friend's judgment. There are some serious issues raised--a different design of the plant--and the fact that it is close or identical to the design of the plant in Japan that had all the issues. Here is the point. I support the Senator. I was proud of the way he questioned the issues. I will pose a question to the Senator. Isn't it true that there is a lot of talk around Washington about how States rights should be protected?

Mrs. BOXER. Building on that, isn't it true that the NRC--as we have learned by reading their founding documents--is an independent commission; isn't that a fact?

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, given those two points, plus the ones my friend made, it seems untenable that the NRC, which is supposed to be an independent agency, would assert itself into a matter between the State of Vermont and a private company. I just say, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, how strongly I support what the Senator is trying to do, which is to allow his State to, frankly, have a say over something as important as the economics surrounding energy. My friend knows we work hard in this day and age to make sure America can leap forward and save energy and lead the world and invent alternatives. In light of what happened in Japan, this becomes more and more important. I hope my friend will take heart and know that this chairman of the committee stands with him on this battle.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Laura Ellen Ziskin, one of Hollywood's most influential film producers, activists, and philanthropists. Laura Ziskin passed away on June 12, 2011, at her home in Santa Monica, CA, after a 7-year battle with cancer. She was 61 years old. A native of the San Fernando Valley, Laura Ziskin was born on March 3, 1950, to Mae and Jay Ziskin. In 1973, Ziskin graduated from the University of Southern California's School of Cinematic Arts and began working in the entertainment industry first as a game show writer, and then as a personal assistant to producer and director Jon Peters, with whom she would work on the 1976 Barbra Streisand remake of ``A Star Is Born.'' Over the next three decades, Laura Ziskin became one of the world's most successful female producers. Ziskin's fame quickly grew with her production of 1985's ``Murphy's Romance,'' 1988's ``D.O.A.,'' 1990's megahit ``Pretty Woman,'' and 1991's ``What About Bob?'' Ziskins films were both critically acclaimed and well received, with ``As Good As It Gets,'' 1997, ``The Thin Red Line,'' 1998, ``Fight Club,'' 1999, and the recent blockbuster Spider-Man films. In 2002, Laura Ziskin would also become the first woman to ever produce the Academy Awards--again repeating the feat in 2007. Laura Ziskin devoted her time and celebrity to improving the lives of others. She gave her support by serving on the boards of organizations such as the National Council of Jewish Women and Education First and was honored by many others, such as the Big Sisters of Los Angeles, the Women's Image Network Award, the Producers Guild of America, City of Hope, and her own alma mater, USC's School of Cinematic Arts. I was also proud to present her with a ``Woman Making History'' Award for her wonderful work. When Ziskin was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2004, she immediately became heavily involved in creating a new model for cancer research. In 2008, she founded the nonprofit Stand Up To Cancer, SU2C, in collaboration with friends and colleagues, Katie Couric and Sherry Lansing and the Entertainment Industry Foundation, among others. Ziskin used her film production skills to be a driving force for raising funds for cancer research and support services, including by producing television specials in 2008 and 2010 that aired on major international networks. Throughout her illness, Laura never quit either her professional or charitable work. She touched the lives of countless individuals and families who struggle with cancer by giving them hope that one day, there will be a cure. In one of her last blog postings, she urged others to take a stand. She wrote, ``Take a stand--for yourself, for a loved one . . . for anyone in the fight. Let's make everyone diagnosed with cancer a survivor.'' Laura Ziskin is survived by her partner, Alvin Sargent, her daughter, Julia Barry, and her son-in-law, Eli Dansky.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from Nevada, my friend, the majority leader, Senator Reid, for his remarks, And I want to thank him for filing cloture on the EDA bill. He said the Economic Development Administration was started by Richard Nixon. Actually it was continued by Richard Nixon. It was started by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and supported by Presidents whether they were Republican, Democrat, liberal, moderate, or conservative. Congress has supported this legislation. The last time the EDA was authorized, it was authorized by a voice vote in the Senate when George W. Bush was President and he signed it into law. So one has to ask one's self: Why do we find ourselves in the middle of a filibuster? Why do we find ourselves with 91 amendments filed to this little bill that takes a $500 million authorization and, because of the effect it has on the private sector, draws in private sector matching funds 7 to 1 and means it is a $3 billion a year, basically, jobs bill? This is a jobs bill. Every Republican and every Democrat I know around here says: jobs, jobs, jobs. But they are killing another jobs bill. I think the American people have to understand, this list of amendments that has been filed--Senator Reid went through a few of them. There is even one that relates to the prairie chicken. With all due respect, there may be a lot of issues surrounding the prairie chicken, but it has nothing to do with an Economic Development Act bill. It goes on and on. It talks about protecting free choice for workers to refrain from participating in labor unions. This sounds familiar from a Governor from the Midwest. It talks about amending the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Let's face it, we were not born yesterday. I wish I were, but I was not. The fact is--the print on this list is too small to even show up on the screen--we have a three-page list of amendments. We have 91 amendments filed to this bill--which is a jobs bill, which is a simple bill to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration's programs. EDA is a great job creator. In our committee, every single Democrat and Republican, save one individual, voted for this bill. So it is bipartisan. It has been supported by Presidents since Lyndon Johnson. It has created, over time, millions of jobs. We know this particular bill, at its current funding level, would support up to 200,000 jobs a year or up to a million jobs over 5 years. And they are good jobs. How does that happen? Because the EDA goes into local communities that have high unemployment rates. They bring together the local governments, the State government, the private sector, the nonprofits, and they say: What do you want to do here to attract industry, to attract consumers here? What do you want to do to rehabilitate this community? Sometimes they say: We need a new road. We need a new water project. We want to build an industrial park for new businesses. And this is what EDA does. So they are locally controlled ideas and a coming together of the Federal Government, the local government, the State government, and the nonprofits in a beautiful package that has resulted in millions of jobs over time since it started. Here is what I want to say today as I go through my statement. The first thing I want to say is, we know what the other side is doing. They are killing these jobs bills by a frivolous list of amendment after amendment after amendment that has nothing to do with the bill. This is not the first time. In this very spot, a few weeks ago, stood another Senator with a southern accent, Mary Landrieu from Louisiana. She is the chairman of the Small Business Committee. She had a fantastic bill called SBIR. It is a small business innovation research program that has been in place since the 1980s, brought to us by a Republican Senator named Warren Rudman. Again, it is a bill that has always been without controversy. What did they do to that bill, my Republican friends? Death by filibuster, death by amendment, kill that jobs bill right here on the floor. If you put that in the context of everything the Republicans have done since they picked up more seats around here, and they took over the House, here is the list: They still have not appointed conferees to the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, bill conference. That bill will create 280,000 jobs. It modernizes our airports. It gets rid of the old ways we track planes and brings our air traffic control system into the 21st century. Senator Rockefeller has worked so hard. It is sitting over there waiting for conferees. I am a conferee here on this side. I am waiting to go get this bill done. It is essential. It has a passenger bill of rights attached to it, which is so important. It will make sure our systems work properly. It will put in place safety features. Jobs, jobs, and jobs. They have not done a thing. The patent bill. I had some problems with the patent bill because I did not like one or two provisions. But the bottom line is, the patent bill is expected to create 300,000 jobs. It is sitting over in the House. No action. So since they took over, they have passed a bill to destroy Medicare, destroy education--it is known as their budget. But when it comes to jobs, there is no beef. And we are perplexed. This bill has attached to it--the EDA bill--now an ending of the ethanol subsidy. I happened to vote for that. The fact of the matter is, whether you supported it or you did not, it is going to save billions. So now the EDA bill is not only a jobs bill that leverages billions of dollars to create jobs from the private sector, but it reduces the deficit because it has this amendment on ethanol. I would say to my friends who may be listening from their offices, when we come back next week, vote ``yes'' to cut off debate and get this bill done. Get this bill done. I have talked about the fact that Senate Republicans have supported this program continually. I wish to tell you some of the things they have said about the EDA. Remember, I am quoting Senate Republicans who are trying to kill this bill by loading it up and filibustering it. Twenty-six of the current Republican Senators have made positive statements about EDA or put out great press releases in their States, and I agree with what they said. For example, Senator Cochran of Mississippi praised the EDA grant intended to help spur economic development in northeast Mississippi. He said: This region has suffered during the economic downturn, but the Three Rivers has been diligent about working to help create jobs. . . . This is what he said about an EDA grant. Senator Cornyn of Texas said a $2 million EDA grant for a water tower will ``pave the way for creation of new jobs and business opportunities'' in Palestine, TX. But they are filibustering this bill. Senator Crapo says EDA business grants will help ``keep Idaho firms on the cutting edge in various fields. . . .'' He says: This can make Idaho firms successful, which translates into more jobs and revenue in Idaho. So my Republican friends, while they are trying to kill this bill by filibuster, have said laudatory things about the EDA. You explain it to me. I think I have an answer as to why they are doing it. But I will continue. Let's see what Senator Wicker said when he got a grant: These federal dollars will fund rail improvements and help bring new jobs and economic growth. . . . I am glad the federal government has taken this step to continue its investment in South Mississippi's recovery. These are all the Republicans who are killing this bill with a filibuster. Senator Collins--a $1.1 million grant to fund renovations at Loring Development Authority. She and Senator Snowe praised the EDA. They said: This investment by EDA will allow for improvements and upgrades . . . which in turn, will help encourage further business growth. Loring will continue to be an economic driver for the region, creating good jobs in Aroostook County. This is just a small sample of more than 26 Republican Senators who have praised the EDA. Yet each one of them seems to be supporting endless debate, amendments that have nothing to do with the bill. But they all have a chance to do the right thing on Tuesday and vote to cut off debate. We have had some tough amendments to this bill already. It has gone a couple of weeks. It is time we had a clean vote because--guess what-- jobs are what it is all about. I am going to not go on too much longer, but I felt it is important to explain to the American people--who, by the way, give Congress an 18-percent positive rating. Hello. Is it no wonder? We are doing nothing about jobs. Every time we try to do something, it is stymied. I laid out what they have done, the Republicans. End Medicare as we know it. By the way, pass a slew of abortion bills. It is unbelievable to me. And these straightforward jobs bills go nowhere. So do not tell me you are for jobs and then come down to this floor and offer amendment after amendment on the prairie chicken, on the border fence, on issue after issue that has nothing to do with this EDA bill. EDA creates a job for every $3,000 invested. That is incredibly good. We invest $3,000 and a good-paying job comes about. Why? Because the matching funds come in. This is the time we have a chance to create 200,000 jobs a year over the 5 years of this bill. So here is the thing. Again, we need, in these tough times, as we are going to get our arms around this deficit--and here is the thing I find interesting: There is lots of talk about how to cure the deficit from the other side. But they forget some of the easiest ways to do it. One is, say to billionaires: Thank you very much. You have gotten millions back a year. Let's go back to your rate that you had when Bill Clinton was President. You made a fortune then. You will still make a fortune and help out with this deficit, millionaires and billionaires. Oh, they do not want to do that, our friends on the other side. They want to destroy the EPA. They want to destroy the Department of Energy. They want to destroy the Department of Education. They want to destroy Medicare. That is their answer. Why? To pay for tax cuts for the richest of the richest of the richest. Explain to me how that helps the middle class in this great Nation. Another way. You want to cure the deficit and the debt? End the wars. End the combat mission. Bring home the troops. Let's work diplomatically in Iraq and Afghanistan. I met with the Afghanistan women who are struggling there. They do not want combat troops. They want help to get a peace and reconciliation process going. It is time to end the wars. Our highway trust fund, which is so critical, is short $6 billion. And it is difficult. That is the trust fund that pays for the highways, for the bridges that are falling down, for the infrastructure improvements for our transportation system. And I know it is hard to find $6 billion. But we are spending $12 billion a month on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bring the money home. It is time we spend it in this country for our people. We are not going to walk away from our responsibility. We are still going to have the counterterrorism going on. We are still going to protect our personnel who are there. We are still going to work for peace and reconciliation. But you want to talk about the ways to cure this deficit, it is not that hard. We did it before, we can do it again. The Democrats balanced the budget under Bill Clinton--the only time it was done in recent history--and we created 23 million jobs, not by threatening Medicare and Social Security, and the Department of Education, and the EPA, and the Clean Air Act, and all of the things they are going after here, but by doing the right thing by our children and our grandchildren and making the right investment, to become energy independent. So for me, the argument of not being able to do anything because of the deficit, something is wrong with that. You have to cure the deficit problem and make the investments that make sense. Here is an investment that makes sense. For every dollar of EDA investment, you get $7 in private sector investment. That is what we ought to be doing. I said this before, I will say it again: For every one job we create, it costs us approximately $3,000 per job. These are good jobs. It is a smart program for us. That is why it has lasted since the 1960s. I said before, up to 200,000 jobs a year could be created here, 1 million jobs over the life of this bill. What are we doing loading down a beautiful bill such as this with all of these extraneous amendments? We will look at a couple more charts. If you want to know how many jobs were created between 2005 and 2010, 450,000 jobs, and 85,000 jobs were saved. So we are not talking about some ethereal idea of a new jobs bill. This is a jobs bill that has worked, and it is a jobs bill that should not be filibustered. It should not be stalled. It should not be loaded up with things that have nothing to do with it while the American people worry and give us an 18-percent approval rating. I am surprised it is that high at the rate we are going. Look at some of the folks who support this: the United States Conference of Mayors, the American Public Works Association, the National Association of Counties, the AFL-CIO, the Council on Competitiveness, the Association of University Research Parks, the National Association of Development Organizations, the National Business Incubation Association, the State Science and Technology Institute, and an arm of the Chamber of Commerce has come in with a letter. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. It is a letter from an arm of the Chamber of Commerce. I will tell you, it is rare when you get the AFL-CIO and an arm of the Chamber of Commerce singing from the same book. They do not want to see filibusters. They want to see jobs. They do not want to see filibusters. They want to see progress. They want to see us work across party lines. So I kept asking during my remarks, why would they do this to us? Why would they do this to the American people? I have an answer. I wish this were not true, but it has been stated by some of the Republican Presidential candidates and it has been stated by the Republican leader here: Their priority is defeating Barack Obama. Their priority is defeating our President. Their priority is not job creation, it is not business creation, it is not fair tax policy, it is defeating this President. When you look as it through that lens, then you say to yourself, wait a minute. If we got something done around here and the President had a signing ceremony--as we used to do in the good old days when we worked together--and he had a Republican here, a Democrat here, and an Independent there, and we all came together as we always have-- unanimous consent. We passed this in 2004 by unanimous consent. They are afraid if we did that, the President would take out his pen and he would sign this bill and we would create jobs. I hate to say it, but I am not making it up. That is what they have said. I hope over this weekend when we go home and we meet with our people, and they say, Senators, you have got to do something about jobs, I hope the public will say to us, be we Democrats or Republicans: Do not filibuster jobs bills. We cannot afford to lose more jobs. We need to create jobs. The EDA bill is a jobs bill. It was created as a jobs bill. It has been a jobs bill since 1965, signed by Presidents, passed by Congress, never loaded down with amendment after amendment that is not germane, that weighs it down. I hope the people at home will pay attention to this. I will say this: There is a pattern. This is not the first bill. I told you about the small business bill, same thing; FAA bill, sitting over there, no conferees; patent bill, sitting over there, no action. And millions of jobs are at stake. I just found this out about the small business bill that they killed here a few weeks ago. Each year that bill provides support for 6,000 businesses, and over the lifetime of the program it has provided almost 26,000 awards to firms in California to help them get started. That bill was filibustered to death. I do not get it, except if what I say is true and that is what the motivation is, and all I can come up with. I have looked into the hearts of my friends and wondered how could they do this. They voted for this bill in committee. Why would they load it up like this and put all of these amendments on it? There is only one reason, to not make progress. And who gets hurt by that? They think the President. But I have news for them. America is going to wake up, because I am going to be here every day talking about this. I know my colleagues are going to be here talking about it. Jobs, jobs, and jobs. I hope this bill gets cloture and we can move on with it on Tuesday. That would be a wonderful thing, if we do that. That is a change in the atmosphere. Then we can pass this bill and get on with the next jobs bill and pass that bill and get on to the next jobs bill, and the spirits of the people will be lifted. Look, we know government does not create the jobs. The private sector creates most of the jobs. But the beauty of bills such as the SBA bill, that small business bill, is private sector jobs. The beauty of this bill? Private sector jobs. So it would lift the spirits of the people instead of having them watch this, watch me, and think: They will never get together and do anything. Then I will not be shocked if our ratings--the Congress--hit the bottom of the barrel. They are already close. I hope the people will insist on our passing these jobs bills. Things are tough out there. People are unemployed, they are underemployed. Businesses are sitting on mounds of cash. They have learned to be able to be profitable without hiring more people. Things are shifting. The sands are shifting between the middle class. Thank God this President rescued the auto industry and that we had a majority here to stand with him to do that. Thank goodness we took some of the steps that we took to get banks lending again when credit was frozen. But you know what. Our progress is being stymied because partisanship has taken over the process. Partisanship means when you get bills out of a committee, people who voted for them suddenly disappear. They are nowhere in sight, and they file all of these amendments to bring down the bill. We can only hope that when we come back next week there will be a change of heart. I certainly hope so. I have been here a long time. I have been in the House 10 years, here a lot of years, since 1993. I have served with Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. But I want to say this. I fought hard when election time came. I just had one. It was tough. You know that, Madam President, 2010 was tough. Every time we have elections they are tough. That is the time that politics is in your blood, it is in your veins. You are out there, you are working hard, you are fighting for your life. But when we are here, we have to do the people's business. And however we feel about who we want to be President, who we admire, who we did not admire, that ought to be left somewhere else. I hope it will be left somewhere else. I hope that on Tuesday we vote for cloture on this EDA bill. I would hate to see this die. I would hate to see this die. Because when you deal a death blow to the EDA, you deal a death blow to 1 million jobs. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a wonderful member of our Senate family. After 20 years of public service, Gerry Counihan is retiring from his post as Senate elevator operator. In 1991, shortly after earning a degree from Franciscan University, Gerry began his Capitol Hill journey working in the mailroom for Senator John McCain. Gerry then moved on to become a Capitol tour guide in 1997, where he distinguished himself with his enthusiasm and strong work ethic. Ted Daniel, former director for the Capitol's visitor services, hired Gerry, and remembers that on Gerry's first day he came to work thoroughly prepared, standing head and shoulders above his peers. It was this passion and ``can-do'' attitude that led Gerry to become an integral part of the tour guide team that every day bring history to life for visitors. Gerry even made Capitol history himself. He gave the first public tour following the fatal shooting of two U.S. Capitol Police officers in 1998. And when the Capitol reopened to visitors following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Gerry again was chosen to lead the first tour. Sadly, in 2007 Gerry was a victim of a home invasion as he was getting ready for work one morning. He suffered a near fatal assault and the mailman found him 3 hours later on his neighbor's steps where he had gone for help. Gerry spent 5 weeks in the hospital relearning basic skills, not certain he would ever walk again. While in the hospital, he met Special Olympics founder Eunice Kennedy Shriver. He describes her as ``marvelous'' during his time of need. With an abundance of emotional and medical support, Gerry was able to overcome this significant challenge and return to Capitol Hill as an elevator operator. I know I am not alone when I say that this is one of the best hires to date. Gerry's welcoming demeanor and caring and protective character have been appreciated by all Senators. He will certainly be missed. Gerry's story is one of strength and determination. While his positions on Capitol Hill may have varied, he always strives to be the best at what he does and never lets circumstances bring him down. Having woven his way into all of our hearts, Gerry is an integral piece of the social fabric of Capitol Hill. We will remember him always. I wish Gerry Counihan nothing but the best as he moves on to his next endeavor at the Department of Health and Human Services. I hope that he knows he is an inspiration to many and will forever be a part of the Senate community and the Senate family.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I wish to yield time to Senator Brown.

Mrs. BOXER. So then I will yield to him for some questions. I can do that under the rules; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. All right. So that is what we will do, unless my colleagues would rather do it the way I said before. If not, I will just yield for questions. Either way. It is up to my colleagues.

Mrs. BOXER. Then Senator Thune would be recognized for as much time as he wishes.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, could we have some indication of timeframe? It is all fine.

Mrs. BOXER. All right. I think I have the time; is that right?

Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.

Mrs. BOXER. I have one more question. I still have the floor?

Mrs. BOXER. I said at the conclusion of my remarks we would turn to Senator Brown. How many minutes remain on each side?

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. I will wrap up in a couple minutes and come back later. I think it is very important to reiterate what I said before. I don't think we are masquerading around here; I think we are trying to do our work. The bill before us was voted out of the committee. It had hearings. It had a vote. It was bipartisan, unlike the amendment offered by my friend who never had a hearing. Let's be clear. We are not masquerading; we are doing our work. I only hope this bill gets better treatment than the small business bill. My friend is speaking for small business. We all know small business is the engine of jobs, and that is why it was shocking to me that the Republicans filibustered the last small business bill that was on this floor. It is outrageous, when we say we want jobs. The reason I am going to vote to table the Snowe amendment or against the Snowe amendment--there are many, but one is process. We haven't had a hearing. It is very far-reaching. But I also wish to speak as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. One of our biggest laws and regulations that stem from it has to do with the Clean Air Act. The way my friend has put forward her amendment, there would be no benefit put into a regulation because of its impact on the health of us and our families. The Clean Air Act has been attacked by those who want to say let's not have regulations for this segment of business and that segment. We just had a vote in California and 60 percent of the people-- Republicans, Democrats, Independents--more than 60 percent said we want to see our health protected. Here is what has happened. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature deaths--premature deaths. Now we are going to come in with some regulation that has never had a hearing, never had a vote, that is not going to take into account the benefit of a health regulation such as that. By 2020, that number is projected to rise to 230,000 cases of premature deaths. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks--1.7 million fewer attacks. We want jobs. We want people healthy. They can't go to work if they can't breathe, because if you can't breathe, you can't work. So let's not get up here and pass something that hasn't had a hearing, hasn't had a vote, and suddenly say we are no longer going to take into account the benefits of some of the regulations we have. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 130,000 acute heart attacks. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 3.2 million lost days at school. So my point is, yes, we want regulations to be sensible; yes, we want them to be flexible; yes, we should work together to make sure our businesses aren't facing undue delays and all the rest and I am very willing to do that. But what I am not willing to do is pass something that has far-reaching impacts. We don't even know what it would mean to the health and safety of our families, and it would absolutely ignore the benefits of regulations that protect our children's health, their safety, their well-being and our working families because a lot of these regulations are meant to protect them. I hope we will vote down the Snowe amendment. I appreciate the passion on all sides. I truly believe we are not masquerading. We have a bill with real impacts, a bill that I have shown has made a major difference in job creation, in business creation, and in bringing hope to our most ravaged communities. It is such a good program that even Senator DeMint, who says he doesn't like this program, certainly throughout his career has praised the progress it has made in his State. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. So is there objection to my unanimous consent request that Senator Thune be recognized immediately after Senator Brown for as long as he wishes?