Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am honored to pay tribute to the life and service of Officer Jermaine Anthony Gibson of the Cathedral City Police Department who was killed in the line of duty on March 19, 2011. Officer Gibson will be remembered for his compassion, valor, bravery, and service in the field; and as a wonderful coworker, friend, and family man. Jermaine ``Jay'' Gibson was born on August 3, 1982, in New Orleans, LA. He relocated to Richmond, CA, with his mother and brother in 1989. While attending Pinole Valley High School, he began 4 years of service as a police explorer--first with the Richmond Police Department and later with the Vallejo Police Department. After high school graduation in 2001, he continued his education at the Basic Law Enforcement Academy at Napa Valley College and graduated as a member of the academy's class 50 in 2002. Jermaine Gibson enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 2003, and from 2006-2007 served concurrently as a level 1 police reserve officer with the Desert Hot Springs Police Department. He was honorably discharged from the military as a Marine corporal on June 15, 2007. In recognition of his meritorious service, he was awarded numerous commendations-- including a Good Conduct Medal, a Marine Corps martial arts Tan Belt, a pistol expert badge, two rifle expert badges, and two Purple Hearts for injuries sustained during combat in Iraq. After returning to civilian status, Officer Gibson joined the Rialto Police Department on August 19, 2009, as a full-time sworn officer. Sixteen months later, he joined the Cathedral City Police Department, where he served until the end of his watch on March 19, 2011. I extend my heartfelt condolences to his family, especially his wife Jessica and their six-week-old son Jermaine Jr.; his mother Cheryl; and his brother Taurean.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Soledad Canyon High Desert, California Public Lands Conservation and Management Act of 2011. This bill would resolve a 21-year-old mining dispute between the City of Santa Clarita and CEMEX USA, and have numerous other benefits for communities in Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CA. In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management awarded CEMEX two 10-year consecutive contracts to extract 56 million tons of sand and gravel from a site in Soledad Canyon. The City of Santa Clarita strongly opposed CEMEX's expansion of mining in this area. After two decades of conflict and nearly a decade of litigation, the two parties announced a truce in early 2007, and started working out an agreement. This legislation would implement the terms of that agreement. It would require the Secretary of the Interior to cancel CEMEX's mining contracts in Soledad Canyon and prohibit future mining at this site. The BLM would sell lands near Victorville, CA that are currently on its disposal list, and would use the proceeds to compensate CEMEX for the cancellation of its mining contracts. Local land use authorities, such as the City of Victorville and County of San Bernardino, would have the right of first refusal to purchase many of these parcels, which would help satisfy their future development needs. Some of these funds would also go towards the purchase of environmentally-sensitive lands in Southern California. My legislation would settle a 20-year-old dispute to all parties' satisfaction, complement future development plans in Southern California, and help secure important lands for conservation. That's why it has won the support of a diverse group of interests, including the City of Santa Clarita, CEMEX, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and the Sierra Club. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure the passage of this important legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Soledad Canyon High Desert, California Public Lands Conservation and Management Act of 2011. This bill would resolve a 21-year-old mining dispute between the City of Santa Clarita and CEMEX USA, and have numerous other benefits for communities in Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CA. In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management awarded CEMEX two 10-year consecutive contracts to extract 56 million tons of sand and gravel from a site in Soledad Canyon. The City of Santa Clarita strongly opposed CEMEX's expansion of mining in this area. After two decades of conflict and nearly a decade of litigation, the two parties announced a truce in early 2007, and started working out an agreement. This legislation would implement the terms of that agreement. It would require the Secretary of the Interior to cancel CEMEX's mining contracts in Soledad Canyon and prohibit future mining at this site. The BLM would sell lands near Victorville, CA that are currently on its disposal list, and would use the proceeds to compensate CEMEX for the cancellation of its mining contracts. Local land use authorities, such as the City of Victorville and County of San Bernardino, would have the right of first refusal to purchase many of these parcels, which would help satisfy their future development needs. Some of these funds would also go towards the purchase of environmentally-sensitive lands in Southern California. My legislation would settle a 20-year-old dispute to all parties' satisfaction, complement future development plans in Southern California, and help secure important lands for conservation. That's why it has won the support of a diverse group of interests, including the City of Santa Clarita, CEMEX, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and the Sierra Club. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure the passage of this important legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am here because I want to urge a no vote on all these amendments that essentially stop the Environmental Protection Agency from doing their work as it relates to air pollution. I am here to do that because never before have we ever interfered in the enforcement of the Clean Air Act. It has worked because we have seen tremendous advances in our clean air. Pollutants cause or contribute to asthma, emphysema, heart disease, and other potentially lethal respiratory ailments. We know from the work of the Bush administration and that of the Obama administration that the endangerment finding that said greenhouse gases were dangerous for our health predicted that ground-level ozone would increase if we did nothing, and we would have more cases of asthma and coughing, and people staying home from school, and staying home from work. The EPA's endangerment finding is key. Here is what they told us: Severe heat waves are projected to intensify, which can increase heat-related deaths and sickness. Remember, this is relating to carbon pollution, greenhouse gases, exactly what my colleagues are trying to either slow down cleaning up or stop cleaning up, in an unprecedented assault on our nation's health--unprecedented assault on our nation's health. We even had a Senator stand up here and say, EPA does not have the right to regulate carbon pollution, greenhouse gas emissions. I would urge that person, and everyone else saying it, to read the Clean Air Act. It is so clear. And, by the way, the Bush administration did not want to enforce the Clean Air Act, and they went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said no. It is very clear in the Clean Air Act that, yes, Congress meant we should control this type of dangerous pollution once an endangerment finding is made. And that was made. What the McConnell amendment does-- and my friend Senator Inhofe was actually the author of the full bill, the same thing--is essentially say that the EPA is overridden. They repeal the endangerment finding. That is like my coming here and saying, I want to repeal science that says that smoking causes lung cancer. Okay? I want to play doctor. I want to play scientist. It is absolutely a dangerous precedent because it involves our people. Climate change is expected to worsen regional smog pollution, which can cause decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, increased emergency room visits, and premature deaths. Why on Earth do my colleagues want to repeal an endangerment finding--by the way, Senator Murkowski tried and it failed, and it is going to fail here today. But the fact is, why should we play doctor? I know some of us have a great elevation of ourselves; a couple have doctorate degrees, but most of us are not scientists and doctors. We act as if we are. I am too humble to repeal science. That is what they do here. Let's look at the health successes of the Clean Air Act. In 2010 alone, the act prevented 160,000 premature deaths, 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, and 3.2 million lost days of school. I am telling you, the Clean Air Act has been a great success. The number of smog-related health advisories in Southern California has dropped from 166 days in 1976 to zero days in 2010. Why on Earth would we want to mess with a law that has been working? It has been working. I defy anyone to point out a law that has worked as well as this one. We went from 166 days in Los Angeles, where people were told not to go outdoors, to zero days in 2010, because the EPA--by the way, created by a Republican President, Richard Nixon--does its job. Look at the bipartisan support for the Clean Air Act. First of all, it passed the Senate 73 to 0, the House 375 to 1. The conference report was approved unanimously, and now, suddenly, I cannot find a Republican to say they fully support the Clean Air Act. What has happened to my friends on the other side of the aisle? This was a bipartisan issue. It certainly is with the people. In 1990, we had a bipartisan vote signed by President George Herbert Walker Bush: Senate, 89 to 10; House, 401 to 25. That is why so many people in this country still support the Clean Air Act. Let's look at the results of that bipartisan poll we have. Bipartisan support. It was created, the EPA, by Richard Nixon. Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush signed the reauthorization, and 60 percent of the people in this Nation--and this is a poll that was taken February 14 of this year--say that the Environmental Protection Agency should update Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution limits. Listen. Stricter air pollution limits. The polluters do not like it. They are crying all the way to the bank. They had the biggest profits they ever had, the oil companies. They do not want the EPA enforcing the law. By the way, my colleagues name this amendment something like The Gas Reduction Price Act or something like that. They say this is going to help us stop gas prices from rising. It has nothing to do with that. Every time we move forward with Clean Air Act authorities, there are predictions from all the polluters about how horrible it will be, and we never had such a period of prosperity since Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act. Sixty-eight percent say: Congress, stay out of the Clean Air Act standards. Leave them alone. Don't change them. The McConnell amendment and the others, all interfere. Sixty-nine percent say EPA scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards. This McConnell amendment and the others all put Congress in the middle. The people are smart. They don't want politicians deciding what to do about their health. They don't come to us when they have asthma. They don't come to us when they get cancer. They rely on physicians. They rely on scientists. But we are playing doctor today. We are going to repeal or try to repeal the endangerment finding that went along with the EPA deciding to move forward and enforce decreases in carbon pollution. On March 14 the Washington Post had a very interesting article, an op-ed piece signed by Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator from 2001 and 2003, and William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator from 1970 to 1973, two Republican former heads of the EPA. They wrote: Today the agency President Richard Nixon created in response to the public outcry over visible air pollution and flammable rivers is under siege. The Senate is poised to vote on a bill that would, for the first time, disapprove of a scientifically based finding, in this case that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. This is signed by two Republican former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency. The McConnell amendment is radical in the extreme. We have never before played doctor around here and repealed a scientific finding that said a certain type of pollution is a problem. They also said: It is easy to forget how far we have come in the past 40 years. We should take heart from all the progress and not, as some in Congress have suggested, seek to tear down the agency that the president and Congress created to protect America's health and environment. If we are interested in bipartisanship, why don't we look at the facts. The fact is, the American public supports EPA and the Clean Air Act. The fact is, Richard Nixon created the EPA. The fact is, George Herbert Walker Bush signed the Clean Air Act amendments. The fact is, it is very clear in the Clean Air Act that carbon pollution, any pollution related to climate change, is covered. This is a reality check from someone who believes we should not go down this dangerous path of playing doctor, playing scientist, overturning the Environmental Protection Agency, which enjoys almost 70 percent support among the people of this greatest of all nations. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, when Senator Baucus talked to me about his amendment, it sounded quite reasonable to make sure we codify the tailoring rule of the EPA, which exempts broad swaths of American businesses from their work on enforcing carbon pollution reductions. But as it came out--and I discussed this with him--it goes further. It harms the promotion of clean, renewable biomass, effectively stopping EPA's ability to use the Clean Air Act to encourage this kind of alternative energy. It also undermines the Clean Air Act's New Source Review Program for carbon pollution, which ensures that the biggest polluters use modern pollution control technologies. It basically says the EPA cannot go and enforce it using the New Source Review unless there is another pollutant involved. So as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have deep concerns. The Baucus amendment is opposed by leading public health organizations: the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Trust for America's Health, as well as clean energy business, environment, and conservation organizations. For that reason--although I fully understood the initial intent, and I thought it was laudable--this has transformed into an amendment that I do not support and the leading public health organizations do not support. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Baucus amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Senator Inhofe and I will speak for 30 seconds each. Is that in compliance?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the Stabenow amendment suspends full implementation of the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon pollution for 2 years, which is going to cost jobs and harm America's competitiveness. Worse than that, I think around here ``delay'' is sometimes a code word for ``never.'' A 2-year delay could become a long-term delay. It becomes more expensive, and in the meantime our air gets dirtier. I will close with this: 68 percent of the people believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards. Yet this amendment, and all of the others, do just that. Let's stand with the people, with the American Lung Association, with the physicians who have taken a stand against all of these amendments, and allow EPA to do its job. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about the possibility of a government shutdown and to say that such an alternative will be very hurtful for the people of this country. I was here when the government was shut down before by another Republican Speaker, and I can tell you that my small businesspeople around Yosemite National Park, for example, who count on tourism still remember the sting of losing over $200 million because people had to cancel their trips. That is one example. I know Superfund site cleanups were halted in their tracks. We had issues at the borders. We had a whole series of problems. It seems to me it is a reckless way to go, but it also seems to me the House Republicans want us to have a government shutdown. Why do I say that? I say that because Republicans gave the Speaker of the House an ovation when he informed them ``to begin preparing for a possible shutdown.'' An ovation. I would hope we would reserve our ovations for our leaders when they tell us that because of our work in funding the National Institutes of Health, we now have a cure for cancer. I would like to have an ovation about that. I would like to have an ovation for our firefighters and our first responders who are brave every single day. I would like to have an ovation for them. I do not think having an ovation because we might have a government shutdown is appropriate, but it was an honest response. That is what they want. One has to ask why. Why do they want this? Because they want to cut $100 billion from the President's budget, when Democrats have already agreed to meet them with $73 billion in cuts? There are three parties to these negotiations: the President, who is a Democrat; the Senate, which is Democratic; and the House, which is Republican. Since when does one-third represent a majority? Since when is one-third allowed to say: My way or the highway? Apparently, that is what they are doing. They put H.R. 1 before the House that has all these cuts--but not just cuts, political vendettas attached, such as zeroing out funds for Planned Parenthood. Nothing to do with abortion funding because we cannot use Federal funds for that, but the other work of Planned Parenthood in preventing unwanted pregnancies, the work they do to ensure people can have contraception, the work they do to make sure there is not a spread of communicable diseases sexually transmitted. The work they do--and, yes, no matter what the rightwing says, to do breast cancer screenings. There was a big article in the paper: Senator Boxer is spreading a big lie that Planned Parenthood does breast cancer screenings. They do breast cancer screenings. Although, I understand, one of their clinics does mammograms, they definitely say to someone, if they find a suspicious lump in that breast cancer screening, they will help people get the help they need. They do Pap smears. They make sure they talk about the dangerous spread of HIV/AIDS. Five million people go to those clinics. They want to shut them down. They want to shut down title X--the whole program--which is family planning. On the one side, they do not want abortions. Nobody does. On the other side, they turn their backs on family planning. This does not make sense. That is what was in H.R. 1. Also, in my State, $700 million would have been cut in Pell grants, which meant 1 million California students who rely on these grants could no longer rely on them and, therefore, would have to drop out of college. That is what was in H.R. 1. That is what they want us to accept. Head Start--everybody knows Head Start. It is a success story. The fact is, H.R. 1 would slash it by $1.1 billion and would lay off 55,000 teachers and staff and more than 218,000 low-income children would be cut from the program. In my State, 24,000 low-income kids would lose access to Head Start. They are doing all this while they are giving huge tax breaks to the billionaires. It is wrong. They would cut community health care centers--457,000 Californians. That is a big number. There are some States that have fewer than that. But 457,000 Californians would lose their health care if they went to community health care centers. Twelve centers would close. Why on Earth would anyone want to do it? They want to do it. We can figure out other ways to get to those cuts. There are other ways to do it. What amazes me is that Democrats are the ones who balanced the budget with Bill Clinton. We took deficits as far as the eye could see and turned them around, balanced the budget, and created surpluses. Now we are being lectured that if we do not do it the exact way our friends want, which is to hurt children and education and environmental protection and, by the way, safety issues, such as making sure our airplanes do not develop holes in them, an important point, they go after all of this. There are cuts to afterschool programs. That breaks my heart because I know 11,000 kids in California would be shut out. We all know kids need help after school. If they are alone, they get in trouble. If they get in trouble, it costs us money. These cuts are ridiculous. We can sit together and work together and do it in a much more fair way, if people pay their fair share. If everybody takes a little bit of a nick, we can get there. We have shown them how to get to $73 billion worth of cuts. That is just for the next 6 months. They are demanding $100 billion, their way or the highway. This is a ridiculous situation to be in. I am going to say again, if you control one-third of the power in this trio where you have the President is a third, the Senate is a third, and the House is a third, and you are in the House and you are the only one run by the Republicans, by what measure do you have the right to say my way or the highway? I don't think the American people would think that is right. They want us to work together and that is the message of the President. I have to tell you, this budget by the Republicans, H.R. 1, that we voted down here, would lead to nearly 900 fewer Border Patrol agents nationwide. Everyone wants to make sure our border is safe. Nine hundred would be gone. How about a $1.3 billion cut in the National Institutes of Health, working as they are to develop new treatments and cures for cancer and Alzheimer's? If you ask the average family what they fear, they will mention we fear that somebody in our family is going to suffer from one of these diseases. It is outrageous. They are going to kill an Energy Department loan program when we know we cannot be dependent on foreign oil. We need to find those alternatives. Energy research and development is slashed by almost $2 billion. Transportation infrastructure is slashed. There are Draconian cuts at the Environmental Protection Agency. And then all these riders. There are a whole bunch of them, as I know you are aware, on the Environmental Protection site. Here is the irony. The Republicans want to destroy the EPA, which was created by Richard Nixon, a Republican President. Former Administrators of the EPA Ruckelshaus and Whitman wrote a beautiful op-ed in the Washington Post--I believe it was the Washington Post, or the Times, I am not sure which--in which they clearly say this is a bipartisan matter. Yet the Republicans, in H.R. 1, want to stop the EPA from enforcing the clean air law, which will make our skies dirtier. Our kids will get asthma, premature deaths, and all the rest. Big surprise, we voted it down here. It only got 44 votes. It is radical. We can meet them way more than halfway--we already have--without hurting our people and still getting the budget cuts we need. I am here to say it has now been 35 days, 35 days since the Senate passed S. 388. What is S. 388? S. 388 says, if there is a shutdown, Members of Congress and the President will not receive their pay. Why do I think this is important? Because most people do not know that, although our staffs will not get paid, although many Federal employees will not get paid, Members of Congress have a special protection built in because we are paid under a statute and so is the President. So 35 days ago we sent over to the House a very simple bill. It said if there is a shutdown, basically that means failure on our part to keep the Government going--what could be more basic than that--we should not get paid and we should not get paid retroactively. Our colleagues over there have taken no action. If you ask them, they will say: Yes, we did, we put that in another bill and passed it. You know what the other bill is? The other bill is an illegal bill. The other bill would make our Founders roll over in their graves. This is what the bill they embedded ``no budget, no pay'' in says. Follow me--and I especially hope the young people listening to this debate will follow me because you have learned how a bill becomes a law. It goes through a committee usually. It doesn't have to. It goes to one House, they pass it; the other House passes it; so you get the House and the Senate, and then it goes to the President. He either signs it or vetoes it. If he signs it, it is law. If it is vetoed, two- thirds can override it. Guess what, they put ``no budget, no pay'' into a bill that says the following: If the Senate has not acted by a date certain on H.R. 1, this horrible bill that I talked to you about, that bill will have been deemed to be the law. It is a new deal: ``we deem.'' In other words: I have 20 bills that I have introduced, today I deem them law. I have some great bills. One is a Violence Against Children Act, very important. Another would help many of my transportation folks. I deem them all law. How is that legal? It is illegal. They are saying if we do not act on H.R. 1, again, it is deemed the law. It doesn't even pass the smell test, the laugh test, and they have embedded in it ``no budget, no pay.'' So, big surprise, we are not going to pass it over here in that form. I am saying this is a maneuver, and a little dance by Speaker Boehner and Eric Cantor, who is the leader over there, to make it look as though they are not for them getting their pay but to do nothing about it. Let me tell you what I have done. I have written a letter. It has many colleagues on it. I will read the letter. We are sending it by the end of business tonight. Dear Speaker Boehner: We write to discuss a meeting with you to discuss House passage of S. 388, legislation to prohibit Members of Congress and the President to prevent any Members of Congress from receiving pay. Over 1 month has passed since the Senate unanimously passed our bill. Despite written requests for immediate House consideration, you have failed to schedule a vote on stand-alone legislation that would treat Members of Congress and the President no differently from other Federal employees during a shutdown. Our bill is simple. If we cannot do our work and keep the Government functioning, we should not receive a paycheck. If we can't compromise and meet each other halfway, then we should not get paid. As we noted in a previous letter, while appearing on the CNN program ``Crossfire'' in 1995, Mr. Boehner offered his support for a bill identical to S. 388, so it is unclear why he has not scheduled a vote on stand-alone legislation. Embedding ``no budget, no pay'' in a bill that has no chance of passage isn't fooling anybody. We request a meeting with Speaker Boehner as soon as possible, whether in person or via conference call, to discuss how we can work together to immediately send this legislation to the President. Here is a bill that passed here without a dissenting vote. It is basically 100 to nothing. In a time when we cannot agree on the color of that wall, we agreed to pass this ``no budget, no pay'' legislation. But Speaker Boehner, who got a standing ovation--maybe it was a sitting ovation; it didn't say standing ovation--but he got an ovation for talking about preparing for a shutdown, has not done one thing to make sure his Members and he do not get paid in case of a shutdown. I think it is appalling. It is embarrassing. I am stunned. The reason I am pressing this is I believe that people should be treated equally. I believe that if they are cavalierly applauding and giving an ovation to Speaker Boehner when he talks about planning for a shutdown, I believe they want a shutdown and they have no skin in the game. They pay no price. They get paid. We had one of them over there complaining he didn't get paid enough money. He gets paid over $170,000. It wasn't enough money. Sorry, boo- hoo. There are people in this government who get paid $60,000, $40,000, $30,000, and they are not going to get paid. Sorry. I am going to keep coming to this floor, 36 days, 37, 38, 39, 40-- this is just plain wrong. I want to say who has signed our letter. You can see it is a good selection of the caucus, from liberal to conservative: Joe Manchin, Claire McCaskill, Michael Bennet, Ben Nelson, Bob Menendez, Debbie Stabenow, Jay Rockefeller, Kay Hagan, Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden, Mark Warner, Sherrod Brown, Tom Harkin, Chris Coons, Jon Tester, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Senator Mikulski and Senator Begich. Myself and Senator Casey are the first two names because it happens to be our bill. It is the Boxer-Casey bill. In closing, I want to spread the word from here over to the House side that we are serious, those of us who signed this letter. We are keeping this issue in front of the American people because I assure you, if you walked out and asked anyone who happened to be walking down the street who was not involved here, who didn't work for the Federal Government, and you said this: In case of a shutdown because the two sides fail to negotiate an agreement, the only people who are assured of their pay would be Members of Congress and the President, what do you think? I think the average person would say that is wrong; they should pay a price. This is a basic function of theirs, to keep this government running, to keep this country going. I could tell, because I remember the last one, the pain and the hurt from people who wanted to get on Social Security, to veterans who trying to figure out their disability payments, frankly to everyone who calls your office or my office in deep trouble because they are having problems with a Federal agency, they need the help of a Federal agency, they want to make sure to get their Medicare taken care of, their Social Security taken care of, or they are contractors who have private employees and they are fixing the road or fixing a bridge. This is wrong. We are trying to find out exactly who would be affected, but I can tell you right now is not the time to lose, for example, inspectors who are inspecting the safety of our aircraft. I hope they would stay on, but we do not know. What about those who are inspecting our nuclear powerplants? You know, we have 23 reactors that are the same exact reactor as the ones that have these problems in Japan. We don't want to stop those inspections; they have to move forward. We don't want to have the USGS; that is, the U.S. Geological Survey, close down in the middle of making new earthquake maps. I care about this a lot. I have two nuclear powerplants that are on or near earthquake faults. I say to my friends on the other side, I know my message is not pretty to you. It is not pretty to say you don't deserve to get paid in case of a shutdown, but that is my message. Once the American people wake up to this, that we are getting paid but our staffs are not getting paid, I think there is going to be an outcry. So I ask the Speaker on behalf of all those colleagues whose names I read to take up S. 388 without delay. It is sitting at the desk. What does it say? Members of Congress and the President should not be paid in case of a shutdown. That is pretty simple. I know my colleagues are on the Senate floor. Let me guess, Senator Blumenthal and Senator Lieberman, might you be here to discuss what happened last night? And I am going to--since my remarks were not happy, I am happy to give up the floor at this time and listen to their remarks. I congratulate both of them on a great victory. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 10 minutes.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the order?

Mrs. BOXER. Is there any time limit on Senators?

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I also wish to take some time to talk about a real crisis looming in front of us, which is the possibility of a Federal Government shutdown. I have lived through a Federal Government shutdown, and I can tell you, whether you are someone who is trying to get on Social Security or Medicare, whether you are living near a toxic waste dump that suddenly doesn't get cleaned up, whether you are concerned about enforcement at the border--I could go on and on--there will be a lot of suffering. If you are a Federal employee who works for a living, you will not get paid. Mr. President, for me, the issue is, if Federal employees do not get paid, then why on Earth should Members of Congress get paid? We are Federal employees. We work for the government at the pleasure of the people. Sometimes they are not so happy about it and they don't get much pleasure, but the fact is that we are elected and we work as U.S. Senators, and our paychecks come from the Federal Treasury. Why should we get paid if we fail to reach an agreement to do the basic work of keeping this government open? Years ago, when we faced this, it was with Speaker Gingrich, who brought it on. I hate to say that, but I am very concerned that we are going to see a repeat from the Republican House. Let me tell you the reason. We had an election--and, boy, I noticed that one in 2010 because I was in it. My Republican friends in the House are fond of saying ``we won.'' They did take back the House. They did. They won the House. Guess what. They did not take back the Senate. The Democrats have a clear majority here. The President is still the President, and he is a Democrat. People will have their say, and we will get to that in 2012. Here is the point. There are three parts of the government that are involved in the budget showdown, the budget dialog. Those three parts are the House--and we know where they are. They came up with $60 billion worth of cuts. And then you have a bill that they wrote, H.R. 1, that not only had $60 billion worth of cuts but all of these extraneous legislative riders that proclaimed the EPA has to stop the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay; that EPA can no longer enforce the Clean Air Act relating to certain types of pollution; that there will be no more money going to Planned Parenthood--no matter that they serve 5 million people and do all the necessary things to stop women's health problems, such as STDs--no, they are zeroed out. So there is a vendetta against them and against National Public Radio. That is what is in H.R. 1. H.R. 1 was voted on here, and it did not pass. Now we are sitting down with our colleagues to try to work on the budget, not these extraneous riders. If you want to repeal the Clean Air Act, have the guts to come here, put it on the floor, send it through the committees, and let's see where you get. You won't get very far. That is why they are trying to do it through the back door. Let's have a budget bill. I believe that the Democrats, although we control two-thirds of the government--a third is the House, a third is the Senate, and a third is the White House--we are willing to meet them about halfway. Well, that is fair. That is more than fair. But we have rallies by the extreme rightwing. They have every right to do it, and I welcome them with open arms, but they do not speak for the majority of the people. I want to get back to why I think it is important that these Members of Congress who are talking very openly about a shutdown have some skin in the game. Let them have to suffer no paychecks. Why should others suffer no paychecks, whether you are someone who works the parks or someone who works at Social Security or Medicare or someone who cleans up toxic waste sites or someone who works on the border. There isn't going to be any penalty for them. I can only say that it has been 30 days--here it is on the chart-- since the Senate passed a bill that said: No budget, no pay. No raising the debt ceiling, no pay. That is what it said. We sent it over to the House, and what has Mr. Boehner done with that bill? Nothing. Now, that is plenty of time to talk about doing away with Planned Parenthood and about all these things they want to do to harm women's health. They want to repeal the entire health care bill. I guess now they want to refund the money or get back the money the seniors got to help them pay for prescription drugs. I guess they don't think it is good to be able to keep your kid on your policy until they are 26. I guess they think it is fine for the insurance companies to kick you out when you get sick. When it comes to saying we will not get paid if there is a shutdown, he has not taken up this bill. Thirty days. I intend to be on this floor every day--31, 32, 33, whatever the days are. That is plenty of time. By the way, there is a bill by Congressman Moran. Eric Cantor said we should not get paid. I don't know if you know what they did, Mr. President. They wrote a bill that said we won't get paid, but in that bill, it says H.R. 1 will be deemed having passed if the Senate doesn't pass it by April 6. So they have taken the most extreme bill in American history, with cuts that experts say--including Mark Zandi, a Republican economist--will lose us 700,000 jobs, a bill that is so extreme that it tells the EPA it can't enforce the law, and then they attach to it the ``no budget, no pay.'' Not good enough. H.R. 1 is not passing. They can say they deem it passed. That is like my saying I deem every bill that I write passed. I have written a lot of bills, including the Violence Against Children Act. Bills that I have passed give tax breaks to people who work at home. I have had bill upon bill. I would love to say that if we don't act on it, I deem it passed. What are they talking about over there? It is odd behavior. It is odd. I don't know what else to say. By the way, we have 15 people on our bill. They are: Senators Casey, Manchin, Tester, Nelson of Nebraska, Bennet, Warner, Wyden, Coons, Harkin, Hagan, Menendez, Stabenow, Merkley, Rockefeller, and you, Mr. President, Sherrod Brown of Ohio. We are willing to say, if there is no budget deal, we should not get paid. I do not know whether the American people understand this, but if they did, I think they would be very upset because we have a special statute that protects our pay. Our staff is not protected. To my knowledge, the people who work here are not protected. Members of Congress and the President are protected in the case of a shutdown. There is a special statute. They get paid. All we are saying is that is wrong. If this government shuts down, that is wrong or, if we fail to raise the debt ceiling and we start not making our payments and defaulting and America goes into a cycle we have never seen before, we do not deserve a penny of pay. By the way, our bill says no retroactivity either. The American people have a right to expect us to work. Social Security checks must continue to arrive. Veterans must receive their benefits. Passports have to be issued. Superfund sites have to be cleaned. Oil wells have to be inspected. Export licenses must be granted. Our troops must be paid. If we fail to keep the government open because of politics, because some group is rallying--I do not care what end of the spectrum they are from--if we cave to that kind of pressure, we do not deserve to be paid. It is as simple as that. We should be treated like any other Federal employee--no better, no worse. This is so deja vu because, in 1995, similar legislation passed the Senate. But guess what. It never passed the House. We have a Member of Congress complaining that he does not make enough money. Let's talk about that, I say to everybody. In a video, tea party-described Republican Congressman Sean Duffy of Wisconsin said he could not pay his bills on his $174,000 salary. Now listen, he has a lot of compassion for himself, but he does not seem to have that compassion for people who earn $50,000 or $60,000 or $40,000 or $20,000--a lot less than he makes. But he says it is real tough to live on $174,000. I know he has a big family. God bless each and every one of them. But let us not be so selfish. If you have compassion for yourself, have it for your fellow human beings. No budget, no pay, Mr. Duffy. I am sorry. If our colleagues over there who are very extreme--and I know there was a big article that Democrats are calling the budget proposals over there extreme. They are. If they are going to stand on that far right line and hurt the women of this country and hurt the families of this country and hurt the children of this country and hurt the seniors of this country and they are not willing to meet us halfway when they only control one-third of the government and they do not agree and this government shuts down, yes, Mr. Duffy, you should not get your pay. We need to have the same pain inflicted on us as is inflicted on others. The Speaker and Eric Cantor can say anything they want over there. They can say whatever they want. Free speech, absolutely. But their actions speak louder than their words. When they say, oh, they don't think they should get paid, but they fail to pass a freestanding bill as we did, they are not serious at all. They put it in a bill that is ridiculous on its face. I never heard of passing a bill that says another bill is deemed law. Yes, it is hard for me to explain that. Anyone who studies how the Federal Government works knows we pass these bills and then we send them to the President and then they are the law. What he says is, even though we already voted down H.R. 1, if we do not pass something else, H.R. 1 is deemed to have passed and then it goes to the President. This makes no sense. It is a new way of passing bills that is made up by the Republicans in the House. It is interesting that the Members whose paychecks the Speaker is protecting are the same ones who are saying we should have a government shutdown. Today we know the tea party is holding a rally demanding a government shutdown if H.R. 1, with all its political vendettas against women and children and families--that, in fact, there ought to be a shutdown if H.R. 1 does not pass, even though a leading Republican economist, Mark Zandi, said it would cost us 700,000 jobs. The Senate voted down H.R. 1. It only got 44 votes. Wake up and smell the roses. It is gone. H.R. 1 will never rear its head again. So if you are rallying for a bill that only got 44 votes, that makes no sense. Why not rally to call on us to come together, to meet in the middle, to compromise? That is what the American people want. Do you think I want to meet the Republicans in the middle and slash the type of programs we have to slash? No; I am very unhappy about it, but I am willing to do it for the good of the country. Then let the American people decide in the next election if these are the priorities they share. H.R. 1 would kick hundreds of thousands of kids out of Head Start. It would stop tens of thousands from getting grants to go to college. How does that make us stronger? It does not. Representative Tom Rooney, a Republican from Florida, said: I don't see how we can avoid a shutdown. I have news for him. We can by working together, by crafting a budget where the numbers are right in the middle, and then any of these political vendettas should come back in the form of other legislation. Congresswoman Martha Roby said yesterday the tea party ``would not settle for a split-the-baby strategy,'' which I guess means she is not for compromising. It is my way or the highway. I want to ask the American people rhetorically: Is that fair? The people who run one- third of the government want 100 percent of it their way. I do not think so. I do not think it would work that way in a family. That is not right. They control one-third of the government and they want 100 percent of what they want. It is not right on its face. Seventy-three percent of the American people say a government shutdown would be a bad thing for our country. So when the tea party says: Shut down the government if we don't get 100 percent of what we want, they are out of touch. We will do our part. I am glad Speaker Boehner is back at the negotiating table, but I have to say, we are not going to get anywhere if anyone says at that table: My way or the highway. That is over. H.R. 1 is gone--because you pass a bill that says if the Senate does not act and pass the bill it is deemed law sounds like an April fool's joke. Today is the 31st. Maybe that is what it is, an April fool's joke. Again, I do not know how they came up with this idea. Where we are is very clear. We are in a situation where we hope the government will not shut down, but yet there are Members in the House who are threatening a shutdown. We have a situation where 30 days ago we passed no budget, no pay for Members of Congress and the President, and they still have not taken it up. We sent a letter to Speaker Boehner. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to Speaker Boehner.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we call on him and say: It has been 30 days, let's get our act together. We need to feel the pain ourselves just as all the others will feel the pain.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today--and I am staying close to the floor today--because I am very concerned that the Senate is going to vote on some very detrimental proposals for the American people which have to do with, for the first time that I can tell in history, telling the Environmental Protection Agency it no longer can enforce the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon pollution. We know carbon pollution is dangerous, insidious, and we know that if, in fact, the EPA is stopped from enforcing the Clean Air Act, our families will suffer, they will get asthma, they will have more heart attacks and strokes, they will miss work days, and they will die prematurely. That is the primary reason I rise this morning.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the reason I am staying close to the floor today, more than any other reason, is the fact that, for the first time in history, Congress is going to play scientist, Congress is going to play doctor, Congress is going to decide what to do in terms of enforcing the Clean Air Act. This runs counter to the American people. Leading public health groups are saying: Please do not stop the EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act. They are the American Lung Association. I ask: When we think of the American Lung Association, what do we think about? We think about doctors who want to help patients, who do not want to see little boys, such as this boy, gasping for air. It is our job to stand for the health of the people. If I ever had any other reason for being here--and I have been here a while, thanks to the good people of California--it is to make sure our people are protected to the best of our ability. We look at Japan, at what is happening there, and we know how it felt when we had the BP oilspill and how we all did everything in our power to make things better. One way we have made things better over these years, since the Clean Air Act passed--and I will show a graph of Los Angeles--one way we have made things better for the people is the Clean Air Act. We all know we do not always do things perfectly around here. We are only human, and we make mistakes. But I have to say, I was not here when the Clean Air Act was signed. It was signed by Richard Nixon. I have a lot of issues with Richard Nixon on a lot of other issues, but Richard Nixon set up the EPA. That was a Republican effort, and now our Republican friends are literally taking a dagger to the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act is supposed to be based on science, not politics. If the scientists tell us and the health experts tell us carbon pollution is a danger to our families and they pass an endangerment finding and the Supreme Court says, once an endangerment finding is passed, you must act to clean up the air, if that is what happens, Congress should keep its nose out of it for two reasons: One, it will lead to little boys, such as this little boy, having to gasp for air if we interfere with the Clean Air Act; two it works. The Clean Air Act works. On this graph, in 1976, there were 166 days in Los Angeles where people were urged to stay indoors. There was a health advisory. When you can see the air, that is bad, and you could see the air on those days. That is what happened in the 1970s. Through the years, because of the work of the Environmental Protection Agency and local people and State people who worked with them, we wound up with no health advisories in Los Angeles in 2010. What an unbelievable record. Now Members of Congress want to mess with that. It is ridiculous. If it isn't broke, why are we fixing it? It works. They say they are doing it because of jobs--it is going to cost jobs. Well, we know for a fact that was the same thing that was said in the 1970s and we have had the greatest track record of job creation. If we took the job creation from the 1970s into 2010, and we looked at how many jobs there were created, it is huge. We have had, of course, some of the greatest expansions in our history, notwithstanding the fact that we had a very fine Clean Air Act in place. And guess what. When you clean up the air, you create jobs. You actually create jobs. There is no doubt about it. Clean energy businesses are created. We became the world leader in many environmental technology categories, and we are the world's largest producer and consumer of environmental technology, goods, and services. How proud are we of that? We should be proud of it. Instead, we may be facing a series of votes today or Monday--I don't know exactly when-- that would, in fact, interfere with EPA's functioning. Some of the amendments are worse than others. The McConnell amendment is the worst of the worst of the worst. Guess what it does. It says forevermore the EPA cannot ever enforce the Clean Air Act as it pertains to carbon. That is the worst of all. But all of them would stop the EPA in its tracks right now from enforcing the law. Look at the environmental technology industry. It is pretty impressive. We have 119,000 firms that generate $300 billion in revenues, $43 billion in exports, and support 1.7 million jobs. We have small- and medium-sized companies that make up 99 percent of these private-sector firms. That is the issue, because we have small- and medium-sized firms that want to see us keep on cleaning up the air, versus the very large, old energy, big polluters--huge polluters--the chemicals, the oil, the coal, et cetera. I want to work with all companies, small and large, because we are going to need a mix of energy sources, but it has to be cleaner, and that is what the EPA has done over the years with its work. It has made sure the industries get cleaner and cleaner. And every time they say: Don't do it, we will lose jobs. We will lose business. We will go into recession. But the opposite has proven to be true. In a letter dated March 29, numerous clean energy and conservation organizations said: Stopping the EPA from doing its job now means more Americans will suffer ill health; not fewer; more clean energy jobs will be outsourced overseas, and fewer American jobs will be created at home. Health experts oppose amendments that weaken the Clean Air Act. They are against all of these amendments. They say these amendments would interfere with EPA's ability to implement the Clean Air Act--a law that protects public health and reduces health care costs for all. It is an obvious point: If someone never gets asthma, their health is better and costs are lower. Simple as that. So everyone who is a leader on health care ought to understand when people get sick because you voted to weaken the EPA's enforcement of the Clean Air Act, that has a cost. It has a cost to these kids. I will show another picture of a little girl, a beautiful little girl, who is suffering and struggling and gasping for air. That, to me, is the picture of what this debate is all about. Whose side are we on, her side or the biggest, most powerful polluting industries in the country? It is a choice we have to make. The Republicans in the House have taken the worst of these environmental bills and they have put them on H.R. 1, and they want H.R. 1, H.R. 1, H.R. 1--pay back all the big polluters in the country who supported them. But it doesn't make sense on any level. It doesn't make sense on jobs, doesn't make sense in terms of the health of our people, and it is politically unpopular. Let us take a look at a recent poll that was done. This was done all across the country by a Republican polling firm and a Democratic polling firm, and let me show what came out of it: 69 percent say the EPA Clean Air Act standards should be updated with stricter air pollution limits. People want cleaner air. They see their kids gasping. I said the other day, if you go into any school in your State and ask the children how many of you have asthma, probably about a quarter of them will raise their hands. And if you say, how many of you know a child with asthma, it is about 50 percent of the crowd. Asthma is a very difficult condition. I listen to Senator Lautenberg all the time talk about how it is with his grandson, who has bad asthma. His mother, every time she takes him to play a baseball game or she is away from home, has to make a search to see where is the nearest emergency room. This isn't a benign situation. It is a serious situation for children and adults. So that is why the American people are saying, well, wait a minute; we want the EPA to clean up the air. We don't want Congress involved. The American people are smart. Look at what this poll says. Remember, this was taken February 16 of this year. This is the height of politics in this country, fighting this side and that side. The poll says that 68 percent believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards, and 69 percent believe EPA scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards. People are smart. If they have a problem with a tooth, they go to a dentist, they don't go to a Member of Congress--unless they are a dentist. People know scientists and doctors are the ones who should guide us on the Clean Air Act, not politicians. Look, I am proud of my work. I love what I do, and I think I have learned quite a bit about a lot of things, but I don't decide what level of ozone is healthy, what level of small particulate matter in the air is healthy, what amount of radiation in the milk is okay. That would be ridiculous. The experts have to determine that. But this Senate is about to vote on a series of amendments which will stop the EPA in its tracks and say we, Members of Congress, know better. EPA Administrators under Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and George Bush opposed attempts to weaken the EPA. Listen to this. This is signed by William Ruckelshaus and Christine Todd Whitman. This is a quote from their op-ed piece--two Republicans. So I say to my Republican friends here, listen to the people whom you respected when they were head of the EPA. What did they say? It is easy to forget how far we have come in the past 40 years. We should take heart from all this progress and not, as some in Congress have suggested, seek to tear down the agency that the President and Congress created to protect America's health and environment. That is powerful. And they went on to say: Today the agency President Richard Nixon created in response to the public outcry over visible air pollution and flammable rivers is under siege. They are right. These two former Republican Administrators of the EPA are right, the EPA is under siege and not because it hasn't done its job. It has done its job magnificently. I have shown that. I will show the stats on how many premature deaths were averted as a result of the EPA's action. I think it will stun you. The Clean Air Act, in 2010 alone, prevented 160,000 cases of premature deaths. By 2020, that number is projected to rise to 230,000. I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here, if you saw a child--maybe your child, maybe your grandchild--about to be run down by a car, and you knew you could save them, you would do it. You would save them. My colleagues, we can save 230,000 people from facing premature death. That is a fact. That is what the science shows. Yet we are going to weaken the very agency that can do this. There were 1.7 million fewer asthma attacks in 2010 because of the Clean Air Act. If we keep going, and we don't interfere with the EPA, by 2020 there will be 2.4 million fewer asthma attacks. Let us take a look at that child again. I am saying to America and to my colleagues, this is a baby who is struggling for breath. If you knew you could save him, if you knew you could save another child from this, you would do it. By leaving the Clean Air Act alone, by letting the EPA do its work, it is a fact--it is not fiction, it is a fact--that more than a million kids won't have to do this. I don't know any colleague, I don't know one, who doesn't love children--love their own, love everybody's, love their constituents' kids, love their grandkids. I hardly know anyone who doesn't talk about our kids, whether it is in the context of our debt or their health or any context. I am saying right here and now if you love our kids, don't support weakening the EPA, because our kids are the most vulnerable to dirty air. Why? Because they are little, because the breath they take in takes up so much of their body. What they breathe in is more potent because they are so little and they are developing. So again, whether it is business groups, whether it is former EPA Administrators, whether it is these incredible groups that have come together with nothing on their agenda except the health of the people-- groups such as the American Lung Association or the Physicians for Social Responsibility--I have given a lot of facts to back up what I have said. And, believe me, they are irrefutable facts. They are facts. The reason given for stopping the EPA from enforcing the law is: Oh, it hurts the economy. I have shown that argument has been made by big business forever and it never was accurate. I guess they have stopped saying the EPA doesn't have a successful track record, because I have shown specifically how many early deaths were averted, how many asthma attacks were averted. Let's go back to that again--how many missed days of work were averted. We have the facts, so they can't argue that. So what do they argue? Oh, it is a recession. Well, let me say, if you want people to work, I have got news for you: If they can't breathe, they can't work. That is a fact. That is irrefutable. The Clean Air Act in 2010 alone prevented 130,000 acute heart attacks. By 2020 it will avert 200,000 acute heart attacks. Again, put yourself in the position of somebody who sees somebody about to be hurt, and you know you could pull that person back from the cliff, or you could pull that person back and make sure they are safe, and don't vote for these amendments because we know it is our constituents who will suffer. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 3.2 million lost days at school. Why is that? Because when a kid is gasping for air, they are not going to go to school. That number is projected to rise to 5.4 million lost days at school. Do you know why we have these facts? Those who are skeptical demanded that the EPA do this study. So EPA did the study and we found out. I would challenge anybody in the Senate to show me an agency that can boast of this kind of result. It explains why almost 70 percent of the American people say to us: Keep your hands off the EPA. Don't mess with success. Let them do their job. Let them protect our health. Let them protect our kids' health. EPA has a great record. They are up against the biggest, most powerful interests in this country--they are. They took a full-page ad yesterday, those big interests: Stop the EPA. OK, I ask rhetorically, why stop an agency that is preventing the deaths of the American people? Why stop an agency that has this kind of track record? I will close with this: There is a series of these amendments, the worst of which is the McConnell amendment because the McConnell amendment says forevermore the EPA can never, ever do anything to protect our people from carbon pollution. It says never, ever can the EPA set standards for tailpipe emissions from automobiles. That is what it does. The American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Trust for America's Health--this is what they say about the McConnell amendment: The McConnell amendment would strip away sensible Clean Air Act protections that safeguard Americans and their families from air pollution. With whom do we stand? This is the question we all ask in our campaigns. Whose side are you on? With whom do you stand? I made a decision, a strong one. I am going to stand with the kids. I am going to stand with their families. I am going to stand with these leaders who are working day and night just to protect our health. I am not going to stand with a rightwing ideological amendment. I am not going to stand with amendments that are ``McConnell lite'' because if it is not broken, don't fix it. No agency is perfect, we know that. The EPA is not perfect, but the record is clear. Actions by the EPA along with local and State officials have saved countless lives. If we leave our hands off of it they will continue to have a stellar record. I will be back on the Senate floor when these amendments come up for a vote. I hope and pray people will think about this very hard before they cast their votes. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 2:15 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``APEC 2011: Breaking Down Barriers, Creating Economic Growth.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Assessing the Situation in Libya.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Tragic Anniversary: Improving Safety at Dangerous Mines One Year After Upper Big Branch'' on March 31, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 31, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``President's FY2012 Budget Request for the U.S. Small Business Administration and the Office of Advocacy.''