Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 30th anniversary of Marin Agricultural Land Trust, MALT. Located in Marin County, CA, MALT was the first land trust in the United States to focus explicitly on farmland preservation. Since its founding in 1980, MALT has successfully protected more than 41,800 acres of California's land on 66 family ranches and farms. Thirty years ago, in response to a changing economy and increasing urban expansion, biologist Phyllis Faber and dairywoman Ellen Straus recognized that in order to preserve Marin's 150-year-old tradition of family farming and protect the county's tremendous natural resources, ranchers and environmentalists would need to work together. Phyllis and Ellen cofounded MALT, bringing together a diverse coalition of ranchers and environmentalists who came together to pursue their vision for conserving Marin's pristine farmlands. By providing an alternative to the sale of farmland, MALT has protected thousands of acres of open grasslands, fertile floodplains, oak woodlands, and mixed evergreen forests that would otherwise have been sold or developed. Working in areas stretching from the salt marshes of Tomales Bay to the Douglas-fir forest crowning Hicks Mountain, MALT continues to be an environmental and community leader. In addition to establishing easements, MALT runs a variety of stewardship and educational programs, including its Farm Field Studies Program in which more than 1,700 students from 35 schools recently participated. MALT also coordinates hikes and tours, giving residents opportunities to explore and experience Marin's stunning agricultural landscapes first hand. MALT is also doing its part to reduce greenhouse gases and integrate the agriculture industry into the fight against climate change. As a founding member of the Marin Carbon Project, MALT is working with project partners in an attempt to sequester carbon in Marin's rangeland soil using agricultural management strategies. Due to the dedicated efforts of its 5,000 members, staff, volunteers, funders, and partner agencies, MALT has helped revitalize local agriculture while preserving the ecological value of the land. Each year, Marin County produces millions of dollars in livestock, livestock products, feed, and crops, without diminishing the county's biological vitality. Over the past year, despite difficult economic times, MALT achieved permanent protection for a goat dairy, a small-scale sheep ranch, and a grade A Holstein dairy that has been in operation since 1933. These crucial projects were funded through a combination of grants from public agencies and donations from private individuals. The Marin Agricultural Land Trust's vision and commitment to protecting California's ecological, environmental, and agricultural endowment should be commended. Please join me in congratulating MALT for its three decades of hard work and wishing MALT much more success in the years to come. I look forward to future generations having the opportunity to enjoy Marin County's rich agricultural tradition and natural beauty.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to honor the memory of a very special man, Frederick ``Fred'' Hill of Sonoma County, who died on February 9, 2011. He was 75 years old. Fred Hill was a man of many talents and will be fondly remembered for his diverse work in the literary world. Born in Philadelphia, PA, Fred went on to attend Brown University. Following graduation, Fred served in the Army before getting a job as a travelling textbook salesman with Knopf. He later worked for Little, Brown as a Western States salesman and then as head of the company's international division. Throughout this transformative time of travel and networking, Fred realized his gift: he loved writers, he loved publishers, and he was uniquely gifted in his ability to interact with and explain one to the other. Fred relocated to the San Francisco Bay area in the late 1970s. In 1979, after 5 years as general manager at Sierra Club Books, he rented an office on Union Street and opened his own agency, which is now run by his business partner, Bonnie Nadell. Fred remained on Union Street, in one office or another, until he decided to move his business to Glen Ellen, where he resided with his partner, Peter Gilliam. The job of a literary agent is all encompassing, as their success depends on their client's success. Authors bestow a great deal of trust to their agents, and I know personally that Fred Hill was an outstanding agent. He was able to be encouraging and yet be critical where warranted. Fred worked diligently to advance the products and interests of his clients, and could always be counted on to excite virtually anyone about a client's book. Fred's clients ranged from best-selling novelist Richard North Patterson to nonfiction writer Michael Murphy. He also worked with an extensive list of food writers, including Carol Field, Hubert Keller, David Lebovitz, and Gerald Hirigoyen. Those who knew Fred Hill recognized him as a uniquely innovative and brilliant man. His work in the literary world will be remembered fondly by all those whose lives he touched. He will be deeply missed. Fred is survived by his partner of 31 years, Peter Gilliam.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Boxer pertaining to the introduction of S. 388 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and unless Senators Rockefeller or Hutchison want to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I came to the floor to briefly voice my very strong support for this FAA reauthorization bill and to thank my chairman, Jay Rockefeller, for his leadership. Many people have said this, but it is worth repeating. This is a jobs bill. The FAA reauthorization act is going to modernize our air transport system. As many have said far more eloquently than I could ever say, we are looking at a system that has its roots in the 1940s and the 1950s, and we need to move beyond this and get a 21st century system. That is what NextGen is going to do--give us a much better way to handle all of those flights, all of that congestion. It is going to be, in addition to a jobs bill--280,000 jobs nationwide--it is also going to be a bill that focuses on safety. The growth that will be spurred on by this bill is crucial, because this industry also accounts for nearly 11 million jobs and more than 5 percent of U.S. GDP. I want to talk about two issues I have a great stake in for the people of California and, frankly, for the people of this country. The first issue is the passengers' bill of rights. I am so grateful to our leader on the committee, Senator Rockefeller, and his ranking member, Kay Bailey Hutchison, for ensuring that this bipartisan legislation--I wrote it with Senator Snowe--is included in the FAA bill. We have all heard the horror stories of travelers trapped for hours without adequate food or water, some not even able to access their medicines; planes filled with screaming kids; upset passengers and unsanitary conditions from overflowing toilets. In fact, it is a situation that, if anyone has ever been in it, makes an indelible mark, and, frankly, it makes you less likely to want to fly in the American skies because you have a chance at being one of those unfortunate people to get trapped in such a situation. I thank Kate Hanni, a constituent of mine who was trapped in one of these aircraft for hours on the tarmac and got off the plane and said: I need to do something about this. She is the one who lobbied very hard, a citizen's lobby, to get a passengers' bill of rights. I am grateful the Department of Transportation, under President Obama, took the first step by adopting key elements of our passengers' bill of rights through regulation last year. Secretary LaHood, who heads the Department of Transportation, sent a strong message and basically said airlines must give passengers the option of deplaning if they have been stranded on the tarmac for more than 3 hours. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there have only been 12 tarmac delays of more than 3 hours from May to October of 2010, after the Department of Transportation instituted this rule, compared to 500-plus in the same period a year earlier. So by putting in a regulation that tells the airlines they cannot keep people on planes past 3 hours and, if they do, they have to give them an option to get off, we have turned things around. We have seen 12 tarmac delays compared to 500. We want to codify these consumer protections. We want a law. We don't know what the next President will do. We don't know what could happen. We need a law that says they cannot keep people on an aircraft for more than 3 hours unless they are about to take off in the next 30 minutes or the pilot says there is a danger in taking passengers back to the gate. We have very commonsense loopholes. But we don't have any loopholes on this: they have to have adequate water, food, and access to clean restrooms if there is any type of delay. We also set up a consumer complaint hotline within the DOT which would give passengers the means to communicate directly with the agency about delays. Someone will be on the other end when people are exhausted and upset and need to have redress. The passengers' bill of rights has broad bipartisan support. It passed the Senate 93 to 0 last March. We believe we now have to see it through. I understand some of my friends on the other side of the Capitol in the House have said no to the 3-hour time period. We are going to have to fight hard for it because the bottom line is, if we don't have an end time, we could go back to the same delays. The last issue I wish to bring before the Senate that is important not only to my State but to every State is the issue of having more direct flight options into Washington, DC, Reagan National Airport than we have now for many cities across this great Nation. We have now 38 million people in California. We have an economy that is about the seventh largest in the world. We have one direct flight from Los Angeles into Washington National Airport. If one lives in San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, Fresno, or any other city in our great State, they do not have an option of flying directly into our Nation's Capital. That is not good for business or jobs in California. It is not good for business or jobs in Washington or Virginia. We need to encourage more domestic tourism. That creates jobs for our communities. Tourism in my State generated $90 billion and supported 881,000 jobs in 2009 alone. It makes a difference flying into the airport right here in DC. We can be in the Capitol in 15-20 minutes, depending on traffic, compared to getting off in Dulles, a great airport but not easy. Once we get off the plane, we have to get into a special train, and we walk and we go up escalators. We go on moving walks. It is quite good for exercise, but it is not good if one is interested in getting somewhere in a reasonable amount of time. Then the drive could be anywhere, on a good night, from 50 minutes to an hour and a half. That makes a difference to travelers, particularly those who are working or have work in this area. I know there is a compromise on which my chairman and ranking member have been working to open some more slots so we can get more options in our State and other States that are likewise deprived. I will be supporting that compromise. It is crucial. We need to have a bill that includes increasing service for citizens beyond this kind of artificial perimeter that was set up. We can't afford to wait any longer as opportunity lies in the balance. We are not going to overrun Washington National. Nobody wants to do that. We only want to do what makes sense and allow more freedom for the airlines to pick the routes for which they have a demand. We have one direct flight into all of California. Boy, one can never get on that either. It just doesn't make any sense. We have multiple flights out of Dulles. There is not a balance there at all. Again, this is a jobs bill. This is a consumer bill. This is a bill that is going to help commerce. I strongly support it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice of thanks to all involved in the whole slots issue. I know at the last minute Senator Wyden was actually shuttling back and forth between one side of the Chamber and the other. I think it turned out well. It could not have happened without the support of the chairman and ranking member. Coming from the largest State in the Union, we have one flight into Washington, DC. It makes no sense. It is not good for the economy. It is inconvenient. It adds a lot of congestion on the highways. We are very pleased that we are on our way to passing a good bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Casey, Tester, Manchin, Warner, and Wyden. I want to explain it. I hope we will see action on this bill in the near future because we are on very delicate ground right now as we try to resolve the budget issues before us. We have two sides to the legislative branch--the House and the Senate. I think we have very different approaches to this deficit problem which is quite real. Both sides should be respectful of each other. But the messages I am getting via the media in terms of the language being used on the other side is: We don't really much care what the Senate thinks. It is kind of ``our way or the highway'' type of rhetoric. The problem with this is that the type of cuts that are coming from the House side, from our Republican friends over there, a columnist tells us will cost 800,000 jobs to this Nation. Mr. President, 800,000 jobs will be lost if we do not make some changes to what they have done. As someone from a State that has a very tough economic climate and trying to climb out of this recession, that is just extreme. It is just extreme. Are we willing to make cuts? Yes. It is my belief both sides have to sit down and work this out. We believe there are cuts to be made. They have come out with cuts. We need to work together. But here is what troubles me, and this is why I introduce this legislation. What troubles me is there seems to be more and more threats of a government shutdown. In the early days of the new House leadership we did not hear that. Now we are hearing it. In Politico, one of the headlines recently said: ``McConnell won't take shutdown off the table.'' That refers to our Republican leader. In Reuters, Republican majority leader Eric Cantor ``refused . . . to rule out the possibility of a government shutdown.'' Republican Senator Mike Lee said: ``The 1995 government shutdown was just an inconvenience.'' I have to tell you, it is a lot more than an inconvenience when senior citizens cannot get help getting their Social Security or veterans on disability cannot get their help. Hospitals close down. Projects shut down. These are real people out there. A lot of contractors in the private sector rely on the government operating, such as road projects, bridges being repaired, and the rest. It is radical to say that a government shutdown is an inconvenience. It is a failure. A government shutdown is a failure of those of us who are here to act like adults and resolve our differences. CNN said: Top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee said he's not ruling out the possibility of a government shutdown. The way Speaker Boehner spoke today had, to me, kind of a ``take it or leave it'' tone to it. I have to tell you, that budget over there not only threatens 800,000 jobs, but they legislated on appropriations. They legislated on an appropriations bill. They decided that women should not have access to a full range of reproductive health care. They are bringing in the issue of abortion on a budget bill. I think the issue of a woman's right to choose and her reproductive health care and getting Pap screenings and cancer screenings is important, and we should debate that. If people want to repeal Roe v. Wade, let's debate that here. What they have done with the Clean Air Act--and I know my friend sitting in the chair cares so much about this issue. The Clean Air Act was brought to us by Richard Nixon. It had bipartisan support. What they do is prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon pollution-- pollution that is dangerous for our families, that endangers the lives and health of our families. That is what the Bush administration said when they were in charge, let alone the Obama administration. Rather than bringing to the floor a bill to repeal the Clean Air Act--I would welcome that debate, and I know my friend would as well--they do this through the back door and tell the Environmental Protection Agency they cannot protect us from pollution. That is not what the American people expect to be in a simple budget document. We have to cut some programs. Let's cut some programs. Let's not change abortion law on it. Let's not bring up how to repeal the Clean Air Act on it. Let's not eviscerate law settlements. They have done a range of things which require debate. I would love to put these questions to the American people. I can tell you that people in my home State think government has no business in the issue of a woman's health. Stay away. That is what they say. We will make up our own minds. Some of us are pro-choice, some of us are not, but don't tell us what to believe. That is the thought of the majority of the people in my State. They do not want Big Brother and the government telling people what to do. Yet they put it on a budget bill. That doesn't make any sense. Let me tell you, the people in my State want clean air. In all the years I have been in office--and the President and I have been around a while and holding different offices--not one of my constituents has ever came up to me and said: Barbara, we need dirty air. The air is too clean. The water is too pure. The lakes are too pristine. The beaches are gorgeous. No. They want us to make sure we protect them from pollution so their kids can breathe the air and not get asthma. So our friends on the other side have these gargantuan cuts, and in addition to these cuts--which will cost us, according to Senator Inouye, 800,000 jobs--800,000 jobs--they have legislated issues that are contentious and don't belong on a budget bill. Here is the deal. I am worried they might say to us: It is our way or the highway. I am worried about that. That is what I am starting to hear. They may lead us into a government shutdown if we fail to act like adults and resolve this and keep the contentious issues off the budget and cut reasonably and sensibly so we don't cause more unemployment. If we can figure that out and meet each other halfway and everything else you do when you compromise, we will be fine. But if that isn't the case, I wish to be sure Members of Congress suffer just as much as any Federal employee. So I have written this bill, with my colleagues, to say that in the event of a government shutdown or a failure to lift the debt ceiling and we start defaulting on our commitments, Members of Congress will not get paid because Members of Congress don't deserve to be paid if we can't act like adults and negotiate this. I am so tired of the hypocrisy I have seen. I know it is a strong word, and I am not leveling it at any particular individual, but I have to tell you, there are Members of the House who said ObamaCare is terrible, but then they took it for themselves. So what price are they paying? They vote no on health care for everybody else, but they keep government health care. It is wrong. A lot of them are sleeping in their offices. Tell me one other person who is allowed to sleep in the office of their corporation they work for. As far as I know, there is nobody. They do not pay any rent. They sleep in their offices. So they do all these things: They do not help the housing crisis. They sleep in their offices. They would not vote for health care, but they take government health care. Now they might shut down the government. Yet while Federal employees will not get paid, they will get paid--no way, wrong, not fair. They have to pay a price for all their extremism. So I hope we will pass this bill and send it over to the House and the House can decide if they think this is right. This is what I would like to take to the American people. Because if they shut down the government or they fail to raise the debt ceiling and we start to default and they pay no price, it is not fair. We cannot stamp our feet and say: It is the way I want it or I am taking my marbles and I am going home--or my teddy bear or my blanket or whatever. You can't do that. This is the greatest country in the world. As my friend, Senator Sanders, who is in the chair, so beautifully said last night on a news show--and it was so well done--the middle class is hurting. Real income is going down. As we look at these budget cuts, we have to think about that. I am thinking a lot about it, and I am seeing hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost by the middle class, not by the wealthy few. They are not going to be touched by this. So this is a very simple bill. I will read what it says: Members of Congress and the President shall not receive basic pay for any period in which there is more than a 24- hour lapse in appropriations for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure to enact a regular appropriations bill or a continuing resolution, or if the Federal Government is unable to make payments or meet obligations because the debt limit has been reached. So simple. So I am calling on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take the option of a government shutdown off the table. I hope this legislation will nudge them in that direction. Let them think about what it is like not to get paid. Because if they shut down the Federal Government, a whole lot of folks would not get paid. A lot of people in the private sector would not get paid and a lot of people on pensions would not get paid. The only people who would be exempted, pretty much, are Members of Congress, and we have to put an end to that dichotomy. I thank the Chair for all his leadership on behalf of the middle class and the working poor and I think the hypocrisy has to end. I feel we have to come to this floor and start telling the American people the truth. The truth is: The cuts over there on the other side are going to hurt the middle class. They are extreme. They have added language that doesn't belong on a budget bill. Even though they said they were about jobs, jobs, jobs, and maybe they were--how to lose another 800,000 jobs, maybe that is what they meant--nobody thought the first thing they would do is come in and attach abortion language and family planning language and eviscerate the EPA's ability to clean up carbon pollution on a budget bill. So we have to start letting the American people know because they are busy and they do not get to read all the ins and outs of what happens here. We have to put it in straightforward language. Today is a very good day in the Senate. We have been brought together, and a lot of that credit goes to Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison. I am proud to serve on their committee. We are doing a good job and working together. We have worked out our problems. We had problems with new flights out of National, and no one thought we could resolve it. But we were happy to work together--Republicans, Democrats, people from the East and the West and the Midwest--and we showed we can do something here today. As a result, we are about to pass a very good bill. My own bill of rights is in this bill, and I am thrilled about that. It was a Boxer-Snowe bill. It has been incorporated in here. It says if you get stuck on an airline, you should be able to expect that you will have water and nourishment and that the toilets will not be overflowing and that if the plane is stuck for 3 hours, you should be able to have the option to get off that flight. So listen, there are good things we can do. We have proven it here today. But I am getting increasingly nervous about the threats of a government shutdown. I think if Members know it isn't just pain that is going to be inflicted on someone else but they will have pain inflicted on themselves and their families as well, maybe they will take that option off the table.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Casey, Tester, Manchin, Warner, and Wyden. I want to explain it. I hope we will see action on this bill in the near future because we are on very delicate ground right now as we try to resolve the budget issues before us. We have two sides to the legislative branch--the House and the Senate. I think we have very different approaches to this deficit problem which is quite real. Both sides should be respectful of each other. But the messages I am getting via the media in terms of the language being used on the other side is: We don't really much care what the Senate thinks. It is kind of ``our way or the highway'' type of rhetoric. The problem with this is that the type of cuts that are coming from the House side, from our Republican friends over there, a columnist tells us will cost 800,000 jobs to this Nation. Mr. President, 800,000 jobs will be lost if we do not make some changes to what they have done. As someone from a State that has a very tough economic climate and trying to climb out of this recession, that is just extreme. It is just extreme. Are we willing to make cuts? Yes. It is my belief both sides have to sit down and work this out. We believe there are cuts to be made. They have come out with cuts. We need to work together. But here is what troubles me, and this is why I introduce this legislation. What troubles me is there seems to be more and more threats of a government shutdown. In the early days of the new House leadership we did not hear that. Now we are hearing it. In Politico, one of the headlines recently said: ``McConnell won't take shutdown off the table.'' That refers to our Republican leader. In Reuters, Republican majority leader Eric Cantor ``refused . . . to rule out the possibility of a government shutdown.'' Republican Senator Mike Lee said: ``The 1995 government shutdown was just an inconvenience.'' I have to tell you, it is a lot more than an inconvenience when senior citizens cannot get help getting their Social Security or veterans on disability cannot get their help. Hospitals close down. Projects shut down. These are real people out there. A lot of contractors in the private sector rely on the government operating, such as road projects, bridges being repaired, and the rest. It is radical to say that a government shutdown is an inconvenience. It is a failure. A government shutdown is a failure of those of us who are here to act like adults and resolve our differences. CNN said: Top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee said he's not ruling out the possibility of a government shutdown. The way Speaker Boehner spoke today had, to me, kind of a ``take it or leave it'' tone to it. I have to tell you, that budget over there not only threatens 800,000 jobs, but they legislated on appropriations. They legislated on an appropriations bill. They decided that women should not have access to a full range of reproductive health care. They are bringing in the issue of abortion on a budget bill. I think the issue of a woman's right to choose and her reproductive health care and getting Pap screenings and cancer screenings is important, and we should debate that. If people want to repeal Roe v. Wade, let's debate that here. What they have done with the Clean Air Act--and I know my friend sitting in the chair cares so much about this issue. The Clean Air Act was brought to us by Richard Nixon. It had bipartisan support. What they do is prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon pollution-- pollution that is dangerous for our families, that endangers the lives and health of our families. That is what the Bush administration said when they were in charge, let alone the Obama administration. Rather than bringing to the floor a bill to repeal the Clean Air Act--I would welcome that debate, and I know my friend would as well--they do this through the back door and tell the Environmental Protection Agency they cannot protect us from pollution. That is not what the American people expect to be in a simple budget document. We have to cut some programs. Let's cut some programs. Let's not change abortion law on it. Let's not bring up how to repeal the Clean Air Act on it. Let's not eviscerate law settlements. They have done a range of things which require debate. I would love to put these questions to the American people. I can tell you that people in my home State think government has no business in the issue of a woman's health. Stay away. That is what they say. We will make up our own minds. Some of us are pro-choice, some of us are not, but don't tell us what to believe. That is the thought of the majority of the people in my State. They do not want Big Brother and the government telling people what to do. Yet they put it on a budget bill. That doesn't make any sense. Let me tell you, the people in my State want clean air. In all the years I have been in office--and the President and I have been around a while and holding different offices--not one of my constituents has ever came up to me and said: Barbara, we need dirty air. The air is too clean. The water is too pure. The lakes are too pristine. The beaches are gorgeous. No. They want us to make sure we protect them from pollution so their kids can breathe the air and not get asthma. So our friends on the other side have these gargantuan cuts, and in addition to these cuts--which will cost us, according to Senator Inouye, 800,000 jobs--800,000 jobs--they have legislated issues that are contentious and don't belong on a budget bill. Here is the deal. I am worried they might say to us: It is our way or the highway. I am worried about that. That is what I am starting to hear. They may lead us into a government shutdown if we fail to act like adults and resolve this and keep the contentious issues off the budget and cut reasonably and sensibly so we don't cause more unemployment. If we can figure that out and meet each other halfway and everything else you do when you compromise, we will be fine. But if that isn't the case, I wish to be sure Members of Congress suffer just as much as any Federal employee. So I have written this bill, with my colleagues, to say that in the event of a government shutdown or a failure to lift the debt ceiling and we start defaulting on our commitments, Members of Congress will not get paid because Members of Congress don't deserve to be paid if we can't act like adults and negotiate this. I am so tired of the hypocrisy I have seen. I know it is a strong word, and I am not leveling it at any particular individual, but I have to tell you, there are Members of the House who said ObamaCare is terrible, but then they took it for themselves. So what price are they paying? They vote no on health care for everybody else, but they keep government health care. It is wrong. A lot of them are sleeping in their offices. Tell me one other person who is allowed to sleep in the office of their corporation they work for. As far as I know, there is nobody. They do not pay any rent. They sleep in their offices. So they do all these things: They do not help the housing crisis. They sleep in their offices. They would not vote for health care, but they take government health care. Now they might shut down the government. Yet while Federal employees will not get paid, they will get paid--no way, wrong, not fair. They have to pay a price for all their extremism. So I hope we will pass this bill and send it over to the House and the House can decide if they think this is right. This is what I would like to take to the American people. Because if they shut down the government or they fail to raise the debt ceiling and we start to default and they pay no price, it is not fair. We cannot stamp our feet and say: It is the way I want it or I am taking my marbles and I am going home--or my teddy bear or my blanket or whatever. You can't do that. This is the greatest country in the world. As my friend, Senator Sanders, who is in the chair, so beautifully said last night on a news show--and it was so well done--the middle class is hurting. Real income is going down. As we look at these budget cuts, we have to think about that. I am thinking a lot about it, and I am seeing hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost by the middle class, not by the wealthy few. They are not going to be touched by this. So this is a very simple bill. I will read what it says: Members of Congress and the President shall not receive basic pay for any period in which there is more than a 24- hour lapse in appropriations for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure to enact a regular appropriations bill or a continuing resolution, or if the Federal Government is unable to make payments or meet obligations because the debt limit has been reached. So simple. So I am calling on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take the option of a government shutdown off the table. I hope this legislation will nudge them in that direction. Let them think about what it is like not to get paid. Because if they shut down the Federal Government, a whole lot of folks would not get paid. A lot of people in the private sector would not get paid and a lot of people on pensions would not get paid. The only people who would be exempted, pretty much, are Members of Congress, and we have to put an end to that dichotomy. I thank the Chair for all his leadership on behalf of the middle class and the working poor and I think the hypocrisy has to end. I feel we have to come to this floor and start telling the American people the truth. The truth is: The cuts over there on the other side are going to hurt the middle class. They are extreme. They have added language that doesn't belong on a budget bill. Even though they said they were about jobs, jobs, jobs, and maybe they were--how to lose another 800,000 jobs, maybe that is what they meant--nobody thought the first thing they would do is come in and attach abortion language and family planning language and eviscerate the EPA's ability to clean up carbon pollution on a budget bill. So we have to start letting the American people know because they are busy and they do not get to read all the ins and outs of what happens here. We have to put it in straightforward language. Today is a very good day in the Senate. We have been brought together, and a lot of that credit goes to Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison. I am proud to serve on their committee. We are doing a good job and working together. We have worked out our problems. We had problems with new flights out of National, and no one thought we could resolve it. But we were happy to work together--Republicans, Democrats, people from the East and the West and the Midwest--and we showed we can do something here today. As a result, we are about to pass a very good bill. My own bill of rights is in this bill, and I am thrilled about that. It was a Boxer-Snowe bill. It has been incorporated in here. It says if you get stuck on an airline, you should be able to expect that you will have water and nourishment and that the toilets will not be overflowing and that if the plane is stuck for 3 hours, you should be able to have the option to get off that flight. So listen, there are good things we can do. We have proven it here today. But I am getting increasingly nervous about the threats of a government shutdown. I think if Members know it isn't just pain that is going to be inflicted on someone else but they will have pain inflicted on themselves and their families as well, maybe they will take that option off the table.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Committee on Environment and Public Works has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 112th Congress. Pursuant to Rules XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules for the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Alice A. Peters, a philanthropist who, along with her late husband Leon S. Peters, generously supported many educational, cultural, and community causes in Fresno, CA. Mrs. Peters passed away on January 24. She was 97 years old. Born Alice Apregan, Mrs. Peters was the daughter of Armenian immigrants who immigrated to Lynn, MA, in 1907 to escape the persecution of Ottoman Turks. In search of a better place to call home, the family moved in 1911 to the San Joaquin Valley of California where many people from their native Bitlis province of Armenia had settled. The Apregan family made their home in the farming community of Del Rey, and Alice attended high school in nearby Selma. She met her future husband during a visit to Del Rey Packing. Their friendship blossomed into marriage in 1943. Leon Peters learned mechanical engineering on the job while working for Valley Foundry, became sales manager before purchasing the company in 1937. He and his brothers turned Valley Foundry into one of the region's most successful businesses. This success allowed the Peters to become stalwart supporters of community causes that have greatly benefited the people of Fresno and the Central Valley. Over the years, Leon and Alice Peters would become synonymous with philanthropy and charity in the Greater Fresno Area. Since its establishment in 1959, the Leon S. Peters Foundation has given to many worthy causes and projects that continue to positively impact the lives of Fresno residents. Mrs. Peters and her late husband donated millions of dollars to local institutions such as the Community Regional Center, the Fresno Chafee Zoo, and the Fresno Art Museum and California State University, Fresno. Mrs. Peters made sure that the vision of the Leon S. Peters Foundation endured after her husband's passing in 1983. In 2002, she donated $300,000 to the Community Medical Foundation, which made possible an Extern Work Study Program for nursing students at community medical centers. She summed up her commitment to philanthropy by saying ``charity work is part of life, we all have to do some of it . . . this is our legacy.'' A woman of great conviction and vision, Mrs. Peters leaves behind a legacy of philanthropy and community service and the admiration of those whose lives she touched over the years. She has made indelible contributions to make Fresno a better place. She will be missed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to recognize the important work and accomplishments of City of Hope as it reaches its 10,000th bone marrow transplant, becoming one of the first institutions in the world to reach this milestone. Founded in 1913, City of Hope has helped to improve the quality of life for thousands of men, women, and children by leading research to develop new treatments and cures for cancer, diabetes, and other life- threatening diseases. Nearly 35 years ago, City of Hope helped pioneer the development of bone marrow transplantation as a treatment for diseases such as leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma; this January, City of Hope performed its 10,000th transplant. City of Hope performed its first successful bone marrow transplant in 1976 on a college student from Indiana who was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. Thanks to City of Hope's pioneering bone marrow transfer program, the college student's cancer has remained in remission for more than 35 years, allowing him to live a full life. More than three decades later, City of Hope performed its 10,000th bone marrow transplant on January 13, 2011 on a patient battling leukemia. About 500 bone marrow transplants procedures are now performed each year, and each year thousands of cancer survivors and their families attend a bone marrow transplant reunion coordinated by City of Hope. This reunion serves as a celebration of life and the positive changes that City of Hope's Bone Marrow Transplant program have created in the lives of so many cancer patients and their families, who truly found their hope again when they turned to City of Hope. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in commending City of Hope for reaching its 10,000th bone marrow transplant and for its dedication to the advancement of health care services.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the order right now?

Mrs. BOXER. Is it appropriate that I speak on one of those nominations but also make some comments about the budget?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very happy today to know that we are about to cast a vote on Edward Davila, nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This is a wonderful nominee, and he deserves this up-or-down vote. I am convinced he is going to get an overwhelming vote, and I am going to speak to that in a moment. But the Senator from Tennessee was critical of President Obama's budget, and I wanted to just make a response to that. The Senator from Tennessee is not the only Republican to criticize President Obama's budget. They are all reading out of the same playbook. I just have to say that while no one agrees with everything in that budget--I certainly don't--the basis of the budget is critical, and this is the basis of the budget: The President is addressing the deficit in a very responsible way--freezing domestic discretionary spending--very tough, very tough--cutting billions and billions and billions of dollars of red ink while not jeopardizing the economic recovery that we are in the midst of. To me, it is very interesting because I had the privilege of being in this body the last time we balanced the budget. As far as I know, I don't recall any Republicans voting for Bill Clinton's budget. Maybe there were one or two, I don't recall. But that budget was in balance and we went into surplus. Frankly, we learned how to do it then. What did we learn? We learned that when we are facing a crisis like this--a budget deficit that is growing too fast and an economic recovery that we don't want to disrupt--we have to be responsible. We don't take a meat ax to this economy and cut things just for the sake of telling the American people we met a certain number. Every billion dollars of cuts means real people with real jobs. Then the Republicans are criticizing our President for investing in the infrastructure of this country. Mr. President, you and I know we can't have a great nation if we can't move goods, if we can't move people, if people are stuck in traffic, if we have sewer systems that are overflowing, water systems that are antiquated, and we have millions of people who can't get access to broadband and the Internet. We all know the value of that. So I would say to my Republican friends: Please don't be against something simply because our President is for it. He is reaching out his hand. Don't give him the back of your hand. I am very optimistic we can work together. I am certainly pleased the President has reached out his hand, and Republicans and Democrats have reached out their hands, too, in this Congress. I am pleased to say on the highway bill I am working very closely with Mr. Mica, who is the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the House. I am working with Jim Inhofe, my friend and ranking member of the committee in the Senate. So let's, in our rhetoric, not each go to our corners. Let's welcome this President's budget. Let's take a look at it, let's ask economists what the impact is of cutting so much that we derail our economic recovery. We can do this. We did it under Bill Clinton. We balanced the budget and created 23 million jobs. Under George W. Bush, that was gone in 5 minutes--tax cuts to the people who didn't need it--and with it a horrible economic recession, which this President--President Obama-- stepped to the plate and dealt with, without much help from the other side. A couple helped us, yes. And I am preparing a little presentation on what we did and what was the impact. We had capitalism on the brink of failure, and this President had the courage to deal with it. There were calls from the Republican side of the aisle to nationalize the banks. I remember that. President Obama said: No way. We are not going to do that. Now, has it been rough? Has it been tough? Horribly so. My State is suffering from this mortgage crisis. We have to do more. We all know that. But economists are saying we are moving forward. We have turned the corner. Therefore, I don't understand this chorus of negativity coming from the Republicans toward our President when he was able to take the worst recession since the Great Depression and bring us back to a stable situation. Let's work together. Let's not heat up this rhetoric. We can do this. We did it before. We know how to wrap our arms around this deficit, and we know how to grow jobs. So let's take a page out of that book. It means we take bold steps, but we don't go so far so fast that we derail economic recovery. We can do this. The attack by the other side on the Environmental Protection Agency is unbelievable. I saw a cartoon in the Gannett papers in my hometown. It had a drawing of an elephant, representing the Republican Party. In the elephant's trunk was a can that was obviously poison. It had skull and bones on it, spraying the flowers, the trees, and the air. Under the Republican logo it said: Environmental Destruction Agency. The Republican Party calls it the Environmental Destruction Agency, and they have cut one-third--that is their proposal--of the EPA's budget. Now when I go out to talk to people, not one of them ever says to me: The air is too clean, Senator. Make it dirtier. My kid only missed 2 days from this school year, and I want dirty air. Nobody has ever said to me: I want unhealthful water. Nobody has ever told me they want to live close to a Superfund site. So I say to my friends: Watch what you are doing. You are taking a meat ax to the Environmental Protection Agency that protects the health and the safety and the well-being of our children and our families. If you can't breathe, you can't work. You know that? You lose time from work. So let's be careful. Let's not be radical. Let's not be extreme. That is not what the people send us here to do. They certainly didn't send us here to take away a woman's right to choose. They sent us here to work on this economic recovery. Yet we have proposals over there on the other side that are unbelievable and that would raise taxes on people who have health care policies that include reproductive health care for women. Can you imagine? They want to raise taxes on small businesses that have health policies that cover reproductive health care for women. I don't think that is what this election was about. I thought it was about getting jobs in this economy. So between that and the overreaching on the budget, we have a lot of work to do. I say it with due respect, I really do. But the American people need to weigh in. They are going to need to say how much is too much and what their values are. Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. A Republican President signed these acts. Yet now the Republicans are trying to destroy these important bipartisan accomplishments. You know why? They say it kills jobs. Guess what. We heard the same thing from the people who tried to stop the Clean Air Act--the polluters. They said, it is going to cost jobs. But we had the greatest economic growth after that period. And guess what. Jobs are created when we clean up the air. Jobs are created when we have technologies we can export and when we find ways to make drinking water safe. Frankly, I am energized by this debate because I believe there are differences in the parties. I think that is OK, it is fine. I will be involved in the debate. I am sure colleagues on the other side who disagree will put forward their views. They are trying to take away the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce standards on carbon pollution--dangerous carbon pollution--that the Bush administration told us through their work puts our people in danger, puts our families in danger, puts our country in danger, puts our economy in danger. They are actually trying to stop the EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act. I do not know one constituent who ever told me they thought the air was too clean or the water was too safe to drink.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of California's own, President Ronald Reagan. It has been nearly 7 years since President Reagan passed away, but he is still fondly remembered by so many in California, across this country and across the globe. The first time I met President Reagan was right after I was elected to Congress in 1982. I was invited to the White House as part of a large Democratic freshman class, and I wondered how President Reagan would greet us. After all, he had campaigned hard for a Republican Congress. When we arrived at the White House, he and First Lady Nancy Reagan could not have been more warm and gracious to us. I still have the photo from that evening hanging in my home office. Ronald Reagan showed all of us that you can disagree without being disagreeable, and that even if you have sharply different views on some issues, you can still work to find common ground. President Reagan once said: ``I've always believed that a lot of the troubles of the world would disappear if we were talking to each other instead of about each other.'' He believed if we were all respectful to each other, we could find those areas of agreement. We could get things done. That was an important lesson for me and for all of us that evening because, in the Senate, with the rules of the Senate, the only way to get things done for our constituents and for our country is by working together. I believe he had learned this lesson in California, where as a Republican Governor, he worked with a Democratic State legislature. He brought that same approach from Sacramento to the Nation's Capital. As Governor, in keeping with the values and wishes of most Californians, he helped to establish the Redwood National Park. He regulated auto emissions to reduce pollution. He opposed the State proposition that discriminated against teachers based on sexual orientation. He was willing to reach across party lines and find consensus. He continued these efforts to work across the aisle when he became President. Although there were serious disagreements on important issues, President Reagan worked closely with a Democratic House to ratify and sign important arms control agreements, increase investments in math and science education, and reauthorize the Superfund hazardous waste cleanup program. President Reagan was a conservative, but he was not an ideologue. He fulfilled his campaign promise to appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court, choosing Sandra Day O'Connor as the first female Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, even though she was considered too moderate by many conservatives. Of course, there were many areas of disagreement--from offshore oil drilling to the role of the national government, to the fight against AIDS, to policies in Central America. Those disagreements were deep, but they were never taken personally by President Reagan. He and House Speaker Tip O'Neill were genuinely fond of each other. They often shared a drink after work, and they laughed after a day of locking horns. Their good nature was infectious. It raised the level of comity throughout the Nation's Capital. I believe that President Reagan will be remembered for his focus on freedom for the people behind the Iron Curtain. He saw in Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev a leader he could successfully challenge to step to the plate. And when President Reagan said, tear down this wall, he said it directly to Mr. Gorbachev. He touched Mr. Gorbachev, he touched America, and he touched people all around the world. After President Reagan passed away, Mr. Gorbachev wrote in the New York Times: ``Reagan was a man of the right. But, while adhering to his convictions, with which one could agree or disagree, he was not dogmatic; he was looking for cooperation. And this was the most important thing to me: he had the trust of the American people.'' As we honor President Reagan today, I believe the greatest tribute we can pay is to find a cure for the disease that took his life, took him away from his loved ones and from the world. Ten years before his death, Ronald Reagan knew he was battling Alzheimer's. He knew he was losing the battle. In an act of enormous courage and in a handwritten open letter, he told the American people he was suffering from the illness. He wrote: ``I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life.'' And he movingly wrote: ``I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.'' Even in his darkest hour, President Reagan's eternal optimism shone through. Nancy Reagan stood by her husband throughout his long ordeal and protected him in his most vulnerable time. She has become a leading champion for increased funding for medical research to fight Alzheimer's and other diseases. She has been brave and courageous in her advocacy. In memory of Ronald Reagan, in honor of Nancy Reagan and all of the families who have lost loved ones to Alzheimer's, we must continue to seek a brighter dawn for Alzheimer's victims and their families. As a California Senator, certainly Ronald Reagan is one of our most famous residents as Governor and then as President. I was in the House of Representatives while he was the President. Clearly, there were a lot of disagreements between President Reagan and many of those in Congress such as myself who didn't believe government was the problem, which was his definite belief at that time. We certainly had a loyal opposition, and we certainly worked together when we could. One of the things that was so interesting to me compared to working with other Presidents--because I have had the honor of serving for so long that actually President Obama is the fifth President I have had the honor of serving with. I went to every State of the Union Address, all of which were very impressive. I think the thing about Ronald Reagan that I grew to admire was, as hard as one might debate with him on his vision of what the priorities should be--what should we invest in, what was important--when those debates were over and a decision was made, regardless of who won the day, we just moved on to the next issue. We tried to find common ground, and if we didn't we had the respectful debate. It was never taken personally. Again, there were many things I disagreed with him about. I remember being a young Member of Congress at the time when the AIDS epidemic came out, and I remember I was so frustrated because President Reagan was very compassionate, but he didn't want to discuss the issue of AIDS. We had to work very hard with the Surgeon General at the time, and we finally made a little bit of progress. So, yes, there were many tough debates. Of course, his presence, his very sunny presence, his optimism about the country's future was very important to a Nation that had been torn asunder because of many tough issues that separated the generations. I add my voice on this day when we remember former President Ronald Reagan, someone whom California is very proud of and someone who has obviously gone down in history for the many things he accomplished, particularly his rapprochement with the Soviet Union at that time. It was a big contribution to the world. Thank you very much. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 1, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Improving Federal Contract Auditing.''

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 to conduct a hearing on February 1, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 February 1, 2011, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Iraq: The Challenging Transition to A Civilian Mission.''

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 February 1, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Foreclosure Mediation Programs: Can Bankruptcy Courts Limit Homeowner and Investor Losses?''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 1, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Jack LaLanne, a fitness pioneer who inspired generations of Americans to exercise regularly and eat healthily. Mr. LaLanne passed away on January 23rd at his home in Morro Bay, CA. He was 96 years old. Francois Henri LaLanne was born in San Francisco on September 26, 1914, and was nicknamed ``Jack'' by his brother. He spent his early years in Bakersfield before his family moved to Oakland. As a child, Jack was a self-described sugar addict who had an affinity for junk food. At the age of 15, he heard a lecture on healthy living by nutritionist Paul Bragg at the Oakland Women's City Club that would change his life. Inspired by the lecture to become healthier and more fit, Jack developed a zeal for physical fitness and good nutrition that he would later pass on to millions of people in America and around the world. In 1936, he opened the Jack LaLanne Physical Cultural Studio in downtown Oakland. Mr. LaLanne's devotion to help others adopt healthier exercise and eating habits was apparent as he would often call his clients at home to check why they had missed scheduled workouts. His reputation as a fitness enthusiast grew quickly. In 1952, he began hosting a morning workout show on a local television station. The Jack LaLanne Show was especially appealing to children who he encouraged to exercise with their parents. The television show was eventually syndicated and ran for 34 years in the United States and Europe. Mr. LaLanne's rise to prominence came during a time when many people doubted the benefits of regular exercise and a healthy diet. To overcome this skepticism, he participated in a series of public demonstrations to prove the positive impacts of his teachings. At age 40, he swam from Alcatraz to San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf while towing a 2,000-pound cabin cruiser. At 60, he swam the Golden Gate Channel while handcuffed and shackled and towing a 1,000-pound boat. At 70, he towed a flotilla of 70 boats for a mile in Long Beach Harbor, once again, handcuffed and shackled. A man with an unparalleled fervor for healthy living and an appreciation for life that was an inspiration to so many over the years, Mr. LaLanne accomplished his goal of getting people of all ages and from all walks of life to adopt a more active and healthy lifestyle. He will be missed. I send my deepest sympathies to his family, especially to his wife of 51 years Elaine, daughter Yvonne, son Jon, and stepson Dan Doyle.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007--the act--calls for the Select Committee on Ethics of the United States Senate to issue an annual report not later than January 31 of each year providing information in certain categories describing its activities for the preceding year. Reported below is the information describing the committee's activities in 2010 in the categories set forth in the act: (1) The number of alleged violations of Senate rules received from any source, including the number raised by a Senator or staff of the Committee: 84. (In addition, 9 alleged violations from the previous year were carried into 2010.) (2) The number of alleged violations that were dismissed-- (A) For lack of subject matter jurisdiction or in which, even if the allegations in the complaint are true, no violation of Senate rules would exist: 56. (This figure includes 1 matter that was carried into 2010.) (B) Because they failed to provide sufficient facts as to any material violation of the Senate rules beyond mere allegation or assertion: 25. (3) The number of alleged violations for which the Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry: 12. (This figure includes 6 matters from the previous calendar year carried into 2010.) (4) The number of alleged violations for which the Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry that resulted in an adjudicatory review: 00. (5) The number of alleged violations for which the Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry and the Committee dismissed the matter for lack of substantial merit: 08. (This figure includes 4 matters carried into 2010.) (6) The number of alleged violations for which the Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry and the Committee issued private or public letters of admonition: 00. (7) The number of matters resulting in a disciplinary sanction: 00. (8) Any other information deemed by the Committee to be appropriate to describe its activities in the previous year: In 2010, the Committee staff conducted 4 new Member ethics training sessions; 14 employee code of conduct training sessions; 21 Member and committee office campaign briefings; 43 ethics seminars for Member DC offices, state offices, and Senate committees; 2 private sector ethics briefings; and 10 international ethics briefings. In 2010, the Committee staff handled approximately 11,137 telephone inquiries and 1,227 inquiries by email for ethics advice and guidance. In 2010, the Committee wrote 769 ethics advisory letters and responses including, but not limited to, 540 travel and gifts matters (Senate Rule 35) and 134 conflict of interest matters (Senate Rule 37). In 2010, the Committee issued 3,527 letters concerning financial disclosure filings by Senators, Senate staff and Senate candidates and reviewed 1,727 reports.