Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the April 2, 2012, opening of the new Child Development Center, CDC, at Beale Air Force Base in Yuba County, CA.

I am so pleased that this facility has at long last become a reality for the families stationed at Beale, and I was proud to have fought to secure the funding required to build it.

When I visited Beale in 2004, I saw firsthand the critical need for a new CDC on base. The old CDC built in 1967 was in dire need of replacement. The aging facility was too small to accommodate eligible children and was found to contain safety hazards including asbestos and lead. The men and women serving our Nation at Beale deserve to know that their children are being cared for in a safe and nurturing environment. The new CDC will provide this peace of mind.

The Silver-LEED-Certified 37,566-square-foot facility will increase the number of children served from 175 to 280, relieving the burden on many military families who currently rely on childcare located 20 miles off base. It will have a total of 21 classrooms for children ranging from infants to preschool age and employ 70 staff members. The new CDC is also centrally located and easily accessible from anywhere on the installation. This new CDC will go a long way to ensure we are meeting the needs of the families stationed at Beale.

As cochair of the Senate Military Family Caucus, I know that when a servicemember wears a uniform, the entire family serves. That is why we must do everything we can to lessen their burden and provide for their needs. The new CDC at Beale symbolizes America's commitment to our incredible military families and is one more way we can show our gratitude for their service.

Madam President, I was absent from the vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2204, the ``Repeal Big Oil Subsidies Act.'' Had I been present, I would have enthusiastically vote ``aye.''

Madam President, I wish to explain my opposition to H.R. 3606, a bill that would undermine regulation of our financial markets and leave investors vulnerable to fraud.

The underlying spirit of this legislation is one that I support: improving the ability of smaller companies, especially startups, to raise capital. Small companies are essential to our economy, and it is critical that they be able to raise capital efficiently. Our financial regulations should be up-to-date and pragmatic, realistically reflecting the size of new public companies in modern times, and new methods of reaching out to potential investors.

However, I am deeply concerned that the bill goes too far in rolling back investor protections. These rules were created for a reason, often after hard lessons learned from scandals like Enron and WorldCom. They protect ordinary people from losing their retirement savings to corporate fraud and mismanagement, and help our markets function efficiently, ensuring that investors of all types have meaningful and accurate information. All companies benefit when investors have confidence in the safety and fairness of the marketplace.

SEC Chair Mary Schapiro and SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar have raised concerns that this bill will hinder securities law enforcement and reduce investor protection. Bloomberg News editorialized that it ``would be dangerous for investors and could harm already fragile financial markets.'' The New York Times Editorial Board said this legislation ``would undo essential investor protections, reduce market transparency and distort the efficient allocation of capital.'' CalPERS and CalSTRS have expressed concerns, as have Americans for Financial Reform, AARP, AFL CIO, AFCSME, Consumer Federation of America, the Main Street Alliance, the Sustainable Business Council, and many other well- respected organizations.

It is a mistake to rush this important piece of legislation when the possibility of a genuinely bipartisan compromise exists. The Reed- Landrieu-Levin amendment, which was blocked by Senate Republicans despite bipartisan support from 54 Senators, would have greatly improved the bill. It would have allowed smaller companies to raise capital more easily, without going as far as the underlying bill in providing exemptions for companies with annual gross revenue of up to $1 billion. I thank my colleagues for their efforts in drafting that carefully balanced proposal.

I am pleased that the bipartisan Merkley-Bennet-Brown amendment became part of the bill. It will allow companies to reach investors through social media, but with sensible rules to reduce fraud and provide meaningful regulatory oversight. Nevertheless, significant investor protection problems remain in the other sections of the bill, and I cannot support its passage.

I was also disappointed that reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which was offered as an amendment by a group of bipartisan cosponsors, was blocked by Senate Republicans.

The Ex-Im Bank keeps American businesses competitive worldwide, especially in countries with challenging economic and political conditions, and sustains American jobs in the process. The Bank's investments helped to support 290,000 export-related American jobs last year, including 21,025 in California. As the economic recovery continues, now is not the time to take away this support and put our companies at a disadvantage.

This bill clearly was rushed; this bill is risky for investors, and that is why I voted no.

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

Mr. President, you know very well, because you are such a leader on the issue of jobs for America, that the Senate passed a very important bill last week. It is called MAP 21, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century. What it did was reauthorize our transportation programs as they relate to highways, our bridges, and our transit systems.

This was a very difficult bill to get done because it took a lot of compromise. My friend in the chair knows this. He comes from Vermont where they have had a lot of issues with rebuilding their roads after disasters, and he knows how important it is, especially in those rural areas, to make sure we have a good transportation system both in our roads, our freeways, and our mass transit.

We got this bill done. It was remarkable, 74 votes. Actually, it would have been 75 votes. One of our colleagues was at a funeral and he was for the bill. So three-quarters of the Senate supported that bill. We excitedly found out some House Members were very happy with it and they have introduced it and that bill, MAP 21, is sitting over in the House. There is a lot at stake, and they are not moving this bill.

They could take that bill off the desk and they could pass it in 15 minutes. I served in the House. I know the rules. It is not like the Senate, where we can filibuster and do amendments and all the rest. It is a very quick process. They have not done that. Instead, they are talking about putting together a bill just with the Republican Party and not including Democrats in that at all. So they would have a very partisan bill, and they are not interested in going to the Democrats. They want to turn that bill into some offshore oil drilling, drilling in the Arctic, drilling in the lakes, drilling, drilling, drilling, when it has nothing to do with the bill and would only add contentious, nongermane issues to what is a very clear statement by the Senate, in a bipartisan way, that in order to be a great nation and in order to have a strong economy, we need to move goods, we need to move people.

This idea of a national transportation system came to us from a Republican President named Dwight Eisenhower. He was a war hero and a general. He knew logistics, and he knew that if someone is in a war zone and they have to move their artillery, they have to move their equipment and all the rest, they need to have a logistics plan. When he became President, he knew: We are moving products from one State to the next. It is commerce. We had better get it right. And he started the highway system.

Since that time, we have had bipartisan support for transportation legislation. Whether it was Bill Clinton or whether it was George Bush or George Bush's father or it was Jimmy Carter or it was Ronald Reagan or it was Richard Nixon, we have had bipartisan support.

The American people must be really happy to hear that we were able to carry out that bipartisan spirit. Senator Inhofe and I, working in our committee; Senator Hutchison and Senator Rockefeller, working in their committee--these are Republicans and Democrats working together-- Republicans and Democrats in Finance, Republicans and Democrats in four committees worked on this bill and voted it out.

We asked the House to take up the bill and pass it. So far we have heard nothing at all to lead us to the belief that that is what they are going to do. This entire program expires at the end of next week. If they just send us an extension without funding, if they send us an extension without change in law, it is going to wreak havoc in our States. We already have letters from the States saying that they are very fearful because this is the construction season. You cannot enter into an agreement if you only have a short-term agreement to keep the highway program operating for 30 days or 90 days or 60 days. We call on them to pass this bill.

I did a press conference today with Democrats, Leader Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and friends over there who work on transportation issues-- Nick Rahall, the ranking member of the committee, and Mr. Bishop, who has introduced the Senate bill, and Mr. DeFazio from Oregon. We had one message, and the message was this: Speaker Boehner, do what every great Speaker has done before you--reach out to the other party, come to the table and get 218 votes and pass this. So far we do not hear anything like that. I am very worried and I am concerned. Why?

Mr. President, 1.4 million construction workers are unemployed. That would fill 14 football stadiums. Fourteen Super Bowl stadiums filled with unemployed workers--that is what we have in construction because we have had such a downturn in housing. We ask Speaker Boehner respectfully, take up the bill. Put these people to work. Our bill will save 1.9 million construction jobs, and it will create up to 1 million more. We can take this 1.4 million, hire 1 million workers, and you would bring down that unemployment rate--way, way down. It is 17.1 percent.

How about our businesses? Our businesses need help. Mr. President, 1,075 organizations--the vast majority of them are businesses--have begged us to do this bill. We say to Speaker Boehner respectfully, listen to more than 1,000 organizations. Pass the bill.

I am going to read an amazing array of editorials. I will not read them in whole, I will read them in part. The idea is that maybe Speaker Boehner isn't listening, maybe he is not paying attention, but the country is.

Here is an editorial--not from a blue State but from a bright red State called Oklahoma, the Tulsa World:

Bipartisanship in the Senate Moves Transportation Bill.

This is what they said:

With rare bipartisanship, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday

passed a much-needed and much-delayed national transportation

bill that could create jobs and fund road projects. . . .

They finish by saying:

House Speaker John Boehner has called for the House to

either take action on its bill or close it. That could clear

the House to consider the Senate bill.

The country's infrastructure has been ignored for too long, and it is in dire straits. This is an important and necessary extension of the Transportation bill. It will make needed improvements to our transportation infrastructure and, just as important, it is a real job- creator.

This is an editorial from Oklahoma--far from a blue State. They want us to finish our work, and they are calling on Speaker Boehner to do it.

Here is another red State, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

What an exciting thing to see the U.S. Senate pass a

surface transportation funding bill last week on a 74 22

vote. Such bipartisan support for maintaining and improving

this crucial part of the national infrastructure makes it

almost seem like the good old days in Washington. . . .

At one point, [House Speaker John Boehner] said he would

put the Senate bill before the House. . . .

Now he says:

It's beginning to look like Boehner doesn't have a clue

what the House will do. . . .

If the Star-Telegram is right and Boehner doesn't have a clue as to what to do, I would like to respectfully ask him to take up the Senate bill and pass it.

We just passed a bill they sent us with 73 votes. Our bill passed with 74. We did it. They should do it. In their bill that we passed, there is not one estimate of how many jobs will be created by it--not one. We are hoping there will be. It is the IPO bill. This one is 3 million jobs, unequivocal. They name a bill the ``JOBS bill,'' they send

it over here, and it gets 73 votes. We are going to pass it. We took it up. Now they should pass the bill we passed. They call it the ``congressional follies'' if he doesn't act.

This is from the Oregon Register Guard. It is entitled ``A Solid Transportation Bill.''

By an impressively bipartisan 74 22 vote, the U.S. Senate

on Wednesday passed a two-year blueprint for transportation.

The House should pass this massive bill swiftly after setting

aside an outrageous Republican version that would link

highway, bridge and other transit spending to an expansion of

oil drilling from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. . . .

It praises our bill and points out that our bill is supported by labor and business, and it will create 3 million jobs.

I am going to read a few more of these. I hope somebody in Speaker Boehner's office is watching, I really do, because we are showing what is happening in the country. Everybody is calling on Speaker Boehner to pass the bill.

This is the Sacramento Bee. Who could say it better? ``Stop dithering, pass transportation bill.''

The Senate's two-year bill, while not ideal, would provide

states stability through the end of 2013. It also would give

lawmakers a year to work on long-term funding. . . .

Some House Republicans are saying they won't act on a

multiyear bill until . . . after the Easter break.

That is unacceptable, that is what I think.

They quote something I said, and I am going to repeat it because I think it is important.

This was a bill that brought us together, and Lord knows,

it's hard to find moments when we can come together.

Isn't that true, Mr. President? It is hard to find times when we come together, when we came together, three-quarters of the Senate.

Speaker Boehner, what more do you want? You had 22 Republicans vote aye. Take up our bill and pass it.

Here is another one: ``Highway bill would boost stability.'' How important is that as we climb out of this recession?

A two-year, $109 billion highway bill that passed the

Senate this week buoys the hope of interest groups like

roadbuilders and the travel industry that the House can be

prodded by the senators' action to pass its own bill before a

March 31 expiration. . . .

The bill has no earmarks.

This is from Mississippi, another red State.

Mississippi could derive major benefits from a part of the

bill called the RESTORE Act amendment, supported by Wicker

and Cochran. It would establish a restoration fund for

Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas--

Et cetera--the gulf coast--to restore the damage caused in the calamitous oilspill.

Here we have newspaper after newspaper.

I will be finished in about 6 minutes.

Here is another Chicago Sun-Times editorial: ``For a Better Commute, Pass Transportation Bill.''

How about this:

The U.S. Senate just delivered a gift to the House: a

bipartisan transportation bill at a time when America really

could use a lift. Here's hoping the House Republicans don't

mess it up. . . .

News for them: Right now, they are messing it up. All they have to do is take our bill from the desk and pass it, and, guess what, that would mean 3 million jobs; thousands of businesses relieved that they know they can enter into contracts to build our roads and fix our bridges. There are 70,000 bridges in a state of disrepair, deficient, meaning they could have serious consequences. We saw bridges collapse. That is not a game. And infrastructure is aging.

I love this editorial. Essentially, it says:

A spokesman for Speaker John Boehner tells us that ``the

hope is that the House can coalesce around a more

responsible, long-term extension'' of the transportation

bill.

That is a hope. That is a prayer. They tried it for more than a year. Guess what. They got nowhere. They will not talk to the Democrats over there.

I served in the House for 10 years. It was a wonderful experience. Tip O'Neill was a great Speaker. They have had a lot of great ones over there, but Tip O'Neill knew that the way to get things done was to get to 218. He didn't care if the people voting were Democrats or Republicans; if he saw a need, he got to 218. He would go to his friend Bob Michel on the other side, like I went to Jim Inhofe, and they worked together the way we did.

Speaker Boehner, reach your hand out to Leader Pelosi. She is ready to go. She will work with you.

Here is one from Ohio. This is the State of Speaker Boehner, from the Akron Beacon, an editorial: ``Road to Compromise.''

On Wednesday, 74 Senators, Republicans and Democrats,

joined together in a real accomplishment. They approved a

two-year, $109 billion transportation bill. . . . The timing

couldn't have been better. Authorization for federal highway

spending ends on March 31. Without action, construction,

repair and maintenance will halt across the country.

What will the House do? It should take the cue of the

Senate, and quickly approve the legislation that won

bipartisan support. . . .

This is Speaker Boehner. You know, in Speaker Boehner's State, at a minimum, 55,000 jobs are at stake--at a minimum. That is without our new program that leverages funds. That could be doubled, but right now there are 55,000 jobs we protect and we could create about another 40,000. In Leader Cantor's State, it is 40,000 jobs and we could create another 30,000. I don't know what they are thinking about over there. I honestly don't know. What are they thinking about?

Here is one. This is from Florida, an editorial: ``Pass This Transit Bill.''

How could you get it clearer?

In an all too rare display of bipartisanship, the Senate by

a vote of 74 to 22 last week passed a transportation bill of

vital interest to South Florida and the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, House members apparently haven't gotten the

word. The Senate bill extends funding for federal highway,

mass transit and other surface transportation projects for

two years. That would save or create three million jobs. . .

.

Speaker John Boehner appears to have recognized that this

version favored by some GOP hard-liners in his caucus doesn't

stand a chance of becoming law, but there's no immediate plan

to go forward with a reasonable compromise.

This uncompromising approach is why public approval of

Congress stands at 10 percent or below in recent polls. Mr.

Boehner should urge the members of his caucus to set aside

their job-killing intransigence and accept the bipartisan

Senate version. . . .

Let me repeat that.

This uncompromising approach is why public approval of

Congress stands at 10 percent or below in recent polls. Mr.

Boehner should urge the members of his caucus to set aside

their job-killing intransigence and accept the bipartisan

Senate version before funding runs out.

Let's hold this here. I am going to conclude here because I know Senator Franken has been waiting and I so respect his right to speak. But I did want to point out that this particular editorial comes from the newspaper that is home to the chairman of the committee over there, John Mica, the chairman of the T and I Committee, Transportation Infrastructure, and this is what they say:

Congress is gridlocked again--surprise!--this time over

Federal transportation funding.

Last week a bipartisan majority in the Senate passed a $109

billion measure that would maintain Federal funding for

highway and mass transit projects for two years. But a five-

year bill . . . drafted by . . . John Mica, has stalled amid

opposition from Democrats and some Republicans.

Rather than let transportation projects grind to a halt,

lawmakers should pass the Senate bill as the only bipartisan

vehicle available. Then, they should get started on fixing

the problems . . . [in the long run]--before the next bill

becomes due.

Let's put up the last one. This is from the Tampa Bay Times. This is a part of Florida that is pretty red, so I will close with this one.

House Should Fix Partisan Potholes and Pass Transit Bill.

With new signs every week that the recovery is taking hold,

Congress should be relishing the chance to pass a

transportation bill. But House Republicans are more keen to

continue waging ideological wars in the run-up to elections

than to bring some much-needed relief to America's commuters

and to workers hard hit in the construction industry. The

House should follow the Senate's lead and pass a

transportation bill without further delay. . . .

So everybody seems to be getting the message, but I am not so sure Speaker Boehner or Leader Cantor are listening, and they have to listen. Because if they don't listen and as a result of their inability to pass this bill--or not want to pass it--what will happen is there will be another jolt to this economic recovery. Because we are talking 3 million jobs at stake. Thousands of companies are hurting, and I am hearing from States all over this great

Nation that they are in chaos because they don't know what the House is going to do.

So we took up a House bill, we didn't play partisan games, we passed it in a couple days, and it got 73 votes. Our jobs bill for highways and transit and roads and bridges got 74 votes. I say they wanted us to do this, we did it. How about they take a look at this bill. How about they save 3 million jobs. How about they do the people's work before they go off on their break. They owe it to the American people. Boehner, Cantor, Mica, all of them owe it to the American people. They said it is a priority, and they do nothing. They are dithering, as the papers have expressed. Today, they can stop dithering. Tomorrow, they can get our bill ready for a vote. Next week, they could pass it, we can go home, and we can all celebrate with our businesses and our construction workers and know we have done something great for the American people.

Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what an incredible milestone Senator Mikulski has reached. The words of her colleagues and the love they feel for her are coming through. It is a wonderful thing for me to be part of this tribute. I don't know how many Senators would have the Governor of their State here--Your Honor; and the former distinguished, incredible Senator Paul Sarbanes is here. That in itself, Senator Mikulski, is testimony to your status among all of us.

So many of us are here in the Senate because Barbara Mikulski knocked down the barriers one by one--the first Democratic woman ever elected to the Senate in her own right, the first woman to serve in both Chambers, the longest serving woman in the Senate. Now she has made history once again. This past Saturday, after 12,858 distinguished days of service, no other woman in history has served in Congress longer than Senator Mikulski--ever.

Some trailblazers make history, and they are content to stand proudly alone. ``Aren't I great? I did it.'' But not Senator Mikulski. She always made clear that she was honored to be the first Democratic woman, but she never wanted to be the last.

I will never forget her saying:

Some women stare out the window waiting for Prince

Charming. I stare out the window waiting for more women

Senators.

Well, 17 women, Republicans and Democrats, now serve in the Senate. I know all of us have stories to tell about how Senator Mikulski helped us along the way, reaching out to mentor us, encourage us, lead us and organize our regular meetings filled with folders and pens and pencils, and organizing dinners. She and Senator Hutchison teamed up. We are so fortunate to have

them working together. We get together now and then. Just in the heat of debate, we sit down and break bread together.

When I considered running for the Senate in 1992, Senator Mikulski was the very first person I went to see, after my husband. I was conflicted. I had a good House seat. I was told I could hold it for as long as I wanted, and I was not sure I should give it up for the Senate. I was considered a long shot. Senator Mikulski told me the following: ``If you run, and I want you to run,'' she said, ``it will be the toughest thing you will ever do and the best thing you will ever do.'' And she was right.

Those of us of a certain age have probably seen the play or the movie ``A Man For All Seasons.'' Today we celebrate a woman who is truly a Senator for all seasons. Some Members have passion, others have policy skills, some are brilliant negotiators, others great advocates for the least among us, some are very serious students of history, and others are flatout hilarious. But I do not think our country has ever seen so many incredible traits combined in one Senator. Whatever the issue, she will address it. Whatever the problem, she will solve it. Whatever the wrong, she will fix it. Whatever the need, she will meet it. Whenever and wherever people without a voice need a champion with a keen mind, a sharp wit, and an unparalleled ability to speak from the heart and get things done, Barbara Mikulski is there. A lot of us have been there with her, and we have watched her and we love it and we marvel at her. And she does it with a sense of humor that is unparalleled. Anyone who has ever listened to a speech or interview with Senator Mikulski has heard her utter these incredible quips, which I fondly called ``Mikulski-isms.''

She has called us women into battle by asking us to go ``earring to earring'' with our opponents. She has challenged us to square our shoulders, suit up, put our lipstick on, and fight. She has said often that women do not want to talk about gender but an agenda that helps America's families.

When asked by Glamour Magazine how she felt about being named Glamour's Woman of the Year along with singer Madonna, Senator Mikulski replied, ``She's got her assets, I have mine, and we both make the best of what God has given us.''

When asked about the different perspective women bring, she often says, ``Women, we are not so much about macro issues but, rather, the macaroni and cheese issues.'' Who else could say that better?

When discussing the challenges women face in politics with a group of female parliamentarians from around the world, this is what Barbara Mikulski explained to them when they asked about what is it like and is it tough. She said:

Let's put it this way. In an election, if you are married,

you are neglecting him; if you are single, you couldn't get

him; if you are divorced, you couldn't keep him; and if you

are widowed, you killed him.

Then there was one of my favorite Mikulski moments. This is a treasured moment. The women of the House still hadn't managed to integrate the House gym, so we were relegated to this tiny room with old-fashioned, hooded hair dryers and hardly any room to move. But there were very few of us, and we decided to make the most of it by having an aerobics class. Of course, coming from California, I organized it.

In came Geraldine Ferraro, Barbara Kennelly, Olympia Snowe, Barbara Mikulski, and me. Our instructor started the class by asking us to stretch our arms way up, and we do.

Groans.

``Put your hands on your hips.''

More groans.

Now she says, ``Bend from the waist.''

Suddenly, a voice bellows from the back of the room: ``If I had a waist, I wouldn't be here.''

We all turned around to see Senator Mikulski, and we just cracked up. Needless to say, that was the end of the aerobics class.

As funny as she can be, I can't think of anyone more resilient than Barbara Mikulski. I remember when she was mugged a few years back, one evening outside her home in Baltimore. A man pushed her to the ground and grabbed her purse. It was terrifying--for the mugger. He had no idea whom he was dealing with. At 4 feet 11, Senator Mikulski fought back and defended herself, just like she defends the people she represents, just like she defends women and families, just like she defends equal pay and equal rights and civil rights and the health care of our citizens and the dignity of our seniors.

The truth is, the Senate used to be a very lonely place for women, but Senator Mikulski changed that. From the day she was first sworn in, she has carried the challenges, the hopes, and the dreams of millions of women with her. Barbara Mikulski has inspired generations of young women everywhere. She has given them the confidence that they can do it, too, because even as we celebrate this incredible milestone, I know Senator Mikulski's greatest hope is that a young girl growing up today will be inspired to follow in her footsteps and one day to break her record. When that happens, it will be because Barbara Mikulski--our dean, our cherished leader, our Senator for all seasons--opened the doors of the Senate wide enough to let the women of America walk in.

Thank you, Barbara Mikulski.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life, work, and legacy of Richard Milanovich, longtime chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Chairman Milanovich, my good friend and California neighbor, died in Rancho Mirage on Sunday at age 69 after a courageous fight with cancer.

During his quarter century as tribal chairman, Richard Milanovich worked tirelessly to bring prosperity and security to the Agua Caliente. All the while, he worked closely with surrounding communities and local governments to ensure that Agua Caliente's success would benefit not just the tribe but also the entire Coachella Valley.

Richard grew up in the Palm Springs neighborhood known as Section 14, where members of the Agua Caliente dreamed of a better future. Richard's mother, LaVerne Saubel, was a member of the Nation's first- ever all-female tribal council. In 1957 the council successfully lobbied Congress to enact legislation allowing the Agua Caliente Band to govern itself, though it would take another 20 years for them to gain full control over tribal lands.

At age 17, Richard left home to join the Army. After serving in Europe, he returned to California and worked in Los Angeles as a door- to-door salesman, honing the persuasive powers that served him so well in later life. Returning to Palm Springs, he joined the tribal council in 1978 and began his lifetime of service to the tribe.

The Agua Caliente owned parcels of land all around Palm Springs, Cathedral City, and Rancho Mirage. As a tribal councilor and then as chairman, Richard turned this checkerboard pattern of land ownership into an asset. He forged mutually beneficial land-use agreements with all three local governments and then worked together to develop commerce and improve infrastructure. After taking over a rundown spa in downtown Palm Springs and turning it into a thriving resort, the Agua Caliente developed casinos and other businesses that brought prosperity to the tribe and hundreds of jobs to the community.

Chairman Milanovich became a State and national leader in business and public policy, but he never forgot his roots or the long-term interests of his people. He worked to ensure that the Agua Caliente preserved its proud heritage while succeeding in the modern world and diversified its interests to maintain growth and prosperity.

Like many other Californians, I am very sad to lose Richard Milanovich's voice for his tribe and for the communities he loved so much. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family, especially his wife Melissa and their six children, and his many friends in the Coachella Valley and across America. He will be deeply missed.

Madam President, today I honor the life of James Kimo Campbell, a longtime resident and pillar of the Marin County community, who passed away on February 16, 2012, due to complications from Lou Gehrig's disease. Over the years, Kimo worked with numerous nonprofit organizations and was a tireless advocate for a healthy environment and just world.

Born in Los Angeles in 1947, Kimo was raised in Hawaii, where he attended the Punahou School before going on to begin a career in journalism at the College of Marin and study history at the University of California at Berkeley. As a student, he was recognized by the Marin Independent Journal for his outstanding journalism and later worked for the Journal and several other area papers as a freelance journalist.

As with many of his generation, Kimo became involved in the protest movement of the 1960s and was drawn to political activism that laid the foundation for his later involvement in philanthropy and community service. At the age of 27, Kimo Campbell was elected to the board of trustees for the College of Marin and served in that capacity for the next 16 years, before being named to the College of Marin Foundation's board of directors, where he remained committed to supporting the school's mission.

The time Kimo spent in Hawaii during his youth left a lasting impression on him. Through his publishing company, Pueo Press, Kimo shared his affinity for his home State by publishing books dedicated to the topic. Through the Pohaku Fund, he supported the promotion of environmental protection, social justice, and respect for the culture of his beloved Hawaii.

Kimo will be deeply missed by all of us lucky enough to have known him. I send my heartfelt condolences to his wife, Kerry Tepperman Campbell, as well as his children, Mahealani and Kawika.

Madam President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Harold C. Brown, Jr. The longest serving supervisor in the history of Marin County, Hal was a pillar of the community who embodied the best characteristics of civic leadership: accessibility, honesty, integrity, and compassion. Mr. Brown passed away on March 2, 2012, after a long battle with pancreatic cancer.

Hal grew up in San Francisco, graduating from Lowell High School and receiving a degree in business from the University of San Francisco before moving to Marin County in the early 1970s. While working in the insurance industry, he became involved in his community and began serving on the board of his neighborhood association. In 1982, Gov. Jerry Brown appointed him to replace me on the Marin County Board of Supervisors, following my election to Congress.

For the next 29 years, Supervisor Brown served the people of Marin with extraordinary dedication and focus. He would often say that he had the best job in the world and that he loved the camaraderie of working with others to solve the county's problems: improving fire safety in a county known for towering redwood trees, developing the Safe Routes to Schools Program to promote walking and biking as a safe and healthy way for children to get to school, and working to prevent floods.

His dedication to his community extended beyond his work as a county supervisor. Supervisor Brown established the Marin Valentine's Ball in 1997 as an annual auction and fundraiser to support children, families, and older adults in need throughout the county. Even in the face of his illness, Hal hosted the 16th annual ball this past February and refused to stop serving the people and community he had represented for decades.

I send my deepest condolences to his family, including Gloria Brown; his children, Michael and Chris; and his grandchildren. The county of Marin has lost a true public servant, and he will be missed by all of us lucky enough to have known him.

Madam President, it is hard to believe we are having this debate about protecting women from violence in 2012, but we are.

But then again, we have spent much of this year fighting attempts to limit women's access to contraception and preventive healthcare; we have seen a woman called names for fighting for women's health.

Here we are again on the floor because the women of the Senate are not going to stop standing up and speaking out to protect the health and lives of women in our country.

Let's be clear: The Violence Against Women Act has always been bipartisan. It has always had overwhelming support.

And I would know. In 1990, then-Senator Joe Biden came to me and asked me to be the House author of his bill, the Violence Against Women Act. At that time, violence against women was a silent epidemic and I was so grateful that he asked me to help bring this issue out of the shadows.

It was a slow but steady path to victory, and by the time it passed as part of the 1994 crime bill, I was a member of the Senate, proudly working by Senator Biden's side to get the votes we needed. It was one of my most memorable moments in the Senate. We finally had a law to help local law enforcement and the legal system combat violence against women and provide essential services for women struggling to rebuild their lives.

The results have been breathtaking. Since the Violence Against Women Act became law, incidents of domestic violence have decreased 53 percent, reporting of domestic violence has increased as much as 51 percent, and more victims are coming forward and getting life-saving help. One survey found that more than 67,000 victims were served by domestic violence programs--on one day alone.

So it was no surprise that in 2005 the Senate voted unanimously to reauthorize this important law. Not one Senator objected to its passage. It has always been bipartisan. So why the change now?

After all these years, after all the victims who have been helped and the criminals who have been prosecuted, why on Earth are some Republicans holding this up? What is it about this bill that they suddenly don't like?

Is it the funding for shelters to protect women from harm, abuse, even death? Do they object to provisions that ensure that abusive spouses will be arrested after committing family violence? Do they object to measures that declare that all people in the United States should have the same right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender? Do they oppose safety provisions that protect women on public transit and in public parks? Do they object to the fact that the bill consolidates programs within the VAWA office--reducing administrative costs?

It is hard to imagine that anything other than politics is at work here--and victims of domestic violence deserve better.

The women of America are watching us. They expect all of us--men, women, Democrats, Republicans and independents--to come together as we have before to stop domestic violence, to punish the perpetrators and help the victims rebuild their lives.

Madam President, I rise today to support the nomination of Michael Fitzgerald as the Senate prepares to vote on his confirmation to become a district court judge. I had the great privilege of recommending Mr. Fitzgerald to President Obama for nomination. He is a respected member of the Los Angeles legal community. He will make an excellent addition to the Central District of California.

Mr. Fitzgerald served as a Federal prosecutor, where he handled cases involving international drug rings and money laundering, including what was at the time the second largest cocaine seizure in California history. Since he has left the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Fitzgerald has been in private practice handling complex criminal and civil cases. He received a rating of ``unanimously well qualified'' by the American Bar Association.

He is a historic choice, and a vote on Mr. Fitzgerald's nomination is long overdue. He was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously 133 days ago on November 3, 2011. It really should not take this long to confirm such a highly qualified nominee as Mr. Fitzgerald, especially because this seat has been designated a judicial emergency. So we have a seat that has been designated a judicial emergency, and we have a highly qualified gentleman who is ready for this challenge and who was voted out of the committee unanimously last year, 133 days ago.

I want to close with great hope that we will confirm Mr. Fitzgerald. With that, I want to, in advance--and I hope I am proven right-- congratulate him and his family on this momentous day. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join with me in voting for this highly qualified nominee.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

Madam President, I was listening with interest to my good friend from Alabama, a man I work with very closely on a number of issues. But on this one, we see the world a little differently. He has made his point that Democrats held up a lot of judges and so on. I understand that. But there is no comparison. Facts are stubborn things. We need to look at the facts when it comes to voting on judges.

I just wanted to share, before I talk about the highway bill, this one chart: ``Judicial Nominee Wait Times.'' These are the facts. This is not made up. These are the facts. With President Clinton, we see the wait time. With Bush, we see the wait time. Obama, we see the wait time--way over 100 days. So we are going from 10 to 20, to over 100 days.

This tells the story. If people want to know why our majority leader has decided to bring up all these judges today, it is because of this. We have emergencies in some of our courts where they do not have the judges. These judges are so well qualified. We have one amazing judge awaiting to be confirmed from our Central District. I think he is about third on the list. He received a great vote out of the committee. These nominees have put their lives on hold.

This may sound odd, but my favorite part of the Constitution is the preamble. I read it a lot. When I go into

the schools, I talk about it to the children. We discuss what it means. When it says, ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice . . .'' that is the first reason. We want to form a more perfect Union, and the first way to do it is to establish justice.

How can we have justice if it is so delayed? How can we have justice when it is politicized? I think this says it all. So as we go from a bipartisan bill into this, unfortunately, the partisan waters, I think it is important to the people of the country to understand, we do not want to pick a fight at all. We want to get things done around here. Democrats want to get things done. We have proven it by reaching out to our Republican friends on the highway bill and many other things-- payroll tax. On the judicial nominees, we want to do the same.

I wished to just make that simple point before I get back to the reason I am on the floor; that is, to complete work on the Transportation bill.

Transportation

The Chair is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. She has been instrumental in getting this bill to the floor. People asked me yesterday--some of the press people--what it has been like to get this bill to the state it is in now, passing the Senate. I say: People like to say, watching a bill become law is watching someone making sausage. I said: It is a lot messier than that. It truly is. This bill was almost derailed because someone wanted to talk about contraception. Then we had issues that had nothing to do with the bill, dealing with offshore oil drilling and issues dealing with pipelines and issues dealing with extraneous matters.

But we got through it all. We got through it all for one main reason; that is, the desire of the vast majority of Senators, certainly not all--there are some on the fringes who do not want to do this bill--but the vast majority of Senators want to get this bill done. Why is that?

It is because this is a bipartisan program that has been in place since Dwight Eisenhower was President, a Republican President, who clearly stated--because he was an expert on logistics as a general-- that we have to move people and we have to move goods efficiently in a first-rate economy.

So I think everyone--not even most people--sees that. Yes, we have a few colleagues in the far corner of the right who want to do away with the highway program. But thank goodness they did not succeed on their vote. They got too many votes for my liking, but that is where it is. But we were able to say strongly, no.

This is a program the Federal Government should play a role in because this is one Nation under God. If one has great roads in their State and the next-door neighbor has not paved any roads, they are kind of stuck. That is why we have a national highway program.

One more reason we got where we are, which is very close to being done with this bill, successfully done, is that we had more than 1,000 groups behind us--way more than 1,000--and they represented Americana. They represented everyone one from the construction workers who are struggling and suffering with a very high unemployment rate to the businesses that employ them, that want to be able to provide the work and want to be able to do what they do best, which is building things. So for all those reasons, we have gotten to where we are. There is one more reason.

I wanted to take my last few minutes to talk about those Members who worked together on this bill, the various chairmen. This is an unusual bill. It is a jobs bill, a huge jobs bill, and 2.8 million jobs hang in the balance. We have had to deal with four different committees together. We have Senator Inhofe, my ranking member, who was extraordinary. He is a hero when it comes to this bill--talking to people on the floor yesterday, from the heart, with the facts, urging them to help us pass this bill. My hat is off to my ranking member Senator Inhofe.

Interestingly, we are on opposite sides on the environmental issues. We really are. We have some very tough arguments and very tough debates. I just see a clean and healthy environment as something we need to do to protect our people. He sees it as a bureaucratic regime to stop business. Through it all, we have never lost respect for one another. We have come together on this issue. There is very little distance, if any, between us. I thank Senator Inhofe.

Senator Baucus is chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of EPW, and, of course, the very strong chairman of the Finance Committee. I can't thank him enough. He had the tough job of filling the gap we had in terms of money for the highway trust fund. This was not easy. He had to find ways to do it that everybody supported--not everybody but most people--and he was able to get the job done.

With many colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I particularly give a shout out to Senator Thune, whom I believed was extremely helpful in all of this.

I also wish to thank Senator Vitter, who was the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of EPW, for his assistance.

On the other key committees, Senator Tim Johnson, chairman of the Banking Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, ranking member of the Banking Committee, could not have been nicer. I called their staffs very often to make sure they would move forward, and they did.

By the way, the EPW Committee was able to vote out a bill unanimously. Everybody supported it, and so did the Banking Committee. I am grateful to them.

I thank Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison, chair and ranking member of Commerce, from the bottom of my heart. They had some difficult bumps in the road. When the bill came out of committee, there was controversy. Working with Senator Cantwell, we figured out how to get a vote on something she cared a lot about. We were able to smooth out that bump in the road. Frankly, they came together like true champions and were able to get over the partisan differences and come up with a bipartisan bill. So we married together four committees' work--that was amazing--into this Transportation bill. It was bipartisan from day one to this day.

That reminds me of how long we have been on this bill on the Senate floor. It has been 5 weeks, and today I believe we are going to see victory.

In terms of Senators, I have to thank our leader Senator Reid from the bottom of my heart. When you are the majority leader--and there have been books written about this--you have to keep the train moving. You have to keep moving with legislation, moving forward. Everything has a deadline and a date. Every committee chair wants their bill on the Senate floor. I know what it is because I have the good fortune of being on the leadership team. He could have easily said: Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe, I have given you 3 weeks, and we are still not off this. But he stuck with it. I am so appreciative, and so are all the working people and the businesses that rely on this bill.

Our whip, Senator Durbin, worked so hard, along with his staff. We love his staff. Day in and day out they would let us know what the votes would be like on the amendments. I appreciate it.

Senator Schumer and Senator Murray in the leadership were pushing this forward.

I also thank Senator McConnell for working with us to get this done.

I also must thank staff by name. I hope I don't leave anybody out. I want them to know somebody asked me what it was like, and I said there is a song called--don't worry, I am not going to sing it--``The Long and Winding Road.'' It was ``the long and winding road'' to navigate this bill. It was very difficult.

I have a chief of staff, chief counsel of the committee, who is beyond extraordinary, and that is Bettina Poirier. I think she deserves an enormous amount of credit. She was able to work with all the staff to bring them along so that their concerns were heard from day one to this day. I thank her. Her counterpart on Senator Inhofe's staff Ruth VanMark is an extraordinary person who has been with the Senator for way more than 20 years. She is a tower of strength and has great respect from the colleagues on her side of the aisle, working with them to make sure they knew what was going on.

This bill is a reform bill. It takes 90 titles down to 30. It is a strong bill and a fair bill, and it is paid for.

David Napoliello, there is so much I can say about him and what that man has brought to our committee. This bill is a testimony to his skill. And James O'Keeffe, who works for Senator Inhofe, is David's counterpart. They have all become very good friends. Bettina, Ruth, David, and James have become almost like family working on this bill.

I am holding a list of the incredible people who work for me and worked with Bettina. I will go through the names: Andrew Dohrmann, Murphie Barrett, Tyler Rushforth, Kyle Miller, Grant Cope, Mike Burke, and Tom Lynch.

I know Mike works with Senator Cardin and the committee, and Tom Lynch works with our committee through Senator Baucus. Also, there is Mark Hybner, Charles Brittingham, Alex Renjel, and Dimitri Karakitsos, who were all just amazing.

Lastly, I thank the leadership staff. This became a bill that was so big and involved so many committees. We could not do it without a leadership team working, of course, with the leadership and with the Senators I mentioned, Senator Reid and Senator Durbin. I mentioned before who did the whip count. So I thank the leadership staff, particularly Bill Dauster, Reema Dodin, and Bob Herbert. I thank the staff directors of the key committees who worked on this, including Ellen Doneski, Dwight Fettig, and Russ Sullivan.

Madam President, that was a long list of people, but I felt compelled to come down and do that. The staff--and the occupant of the chair knows this, as she has achieved some amazing things. I am so proud of the occupant of the chair. She knows that having the staff behind us to make sure that every ``i'' is dotted and every ``t'' is crossed and every followup is done and every problem a Senator's staff might have is addressed is very important. Nobody really knows about this, so once in a while we need to do this. I wanted to do it before we get into the bill.

I ask the Chair, what time do we go back to the bill?

I will then speak more about the bill because we have some amendments.

Can the Chair advise me what the order of votes are on this Transportation bill?

I thank the Chair. I wanted Members to know about the order. It is likely that several of these will not require votes. I think we will expect at least between, I would say, three and five votes. I think that is a fair indication of where we are going. I will be back to discuss those amendments at the proper time.

I yield the floor.

I ask my friend to withdraw the request.

First of all, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up Boxer amendment No. 1816, and I ask the clerk report the amendment by number.

Madam President, I just have to say Senator Paul's amendment is a broad overreach that would endanger the health and safety of the people he represents, whom I represent, and every Senator represents. What I have is essentially a side-by-side amendment that encourages and tells the agencies the Senate supports a very speedy process, which is already in the law, to review and approve health and environmental protections when we have to rebuild.

The current law is flexible. If we look at the reconstruction of the bridge in Minnesota, everybody knows what happened there. It collapsed in August

2007, and the bridge was completely replaced by September 2008, without these Draconian types of measures that my friend puts forward. In other words, he is looking for a problem. The fact is we were able to see that bridge rebuilt in 1 year. That is amazing. No environmental laws were waived. People worked and made sure they all were expedited. So there is a difference between expediting a review, which we support. As a matter of fact, the underlying bill is very strong on that. We expedite reviews without giving up anything for the people. They can still make sure their rights are protected.

Let's say a highway is washed away in a flood. If we were to follow Senator Paul's advice on his amendment, we would virtually have no studies to take a look at whether it makes more sense to rebuild it perhaps just a few feet away from where it washed out. It might avoid then the cascade of water that washed away in the first place. We may have a situation where they are rebuilding a bridge and as they put the foundation in they find out, through these studies--because they perhaps were never done before--these bridges are old, that there is a drinking water aquifer right below so if you move that a few feet, you resolve the problem. What is the point in not having information and making a huge mistake and rebuilding?

We had a situation right here from an earthquake where we learned so much after the bridge collapsed; that if we used different materials, for example, it would withstand the next earthquake better. We do have earthquakes all the time, unfortunately, in our great State of California.

So it is an overreach. It is radical. We don't want to waive all the protective laws that protect the drinking water of our people, that protect the environment. So I hope we will vote against the Paul amendment--I think it is very important to do that--and support my amendment, which basically is very clear and tells agencies they should use the most efficient and speedy process under the law to review and approve health and environmental protections.

The bottom line is our underlying bill already includes significant bipartisan reforms that will ensure accelerated project delivery, including limiting the number of steps needed to clear a project for construction, easy and early coordination between agencies to avoid delays, incentives for accelerating the project delivery decisions. Amendment 1556, this amendment by Rand Paul, walks away from this bipartisan approach. It launches a sweeping attack on Federal and State health and environmental safeguards.

When we need to rebuild a project and it involves toxic materials such as lead and asbestos, they have to be handled and disposed of properly to protect public health. Waiving all these Federal and State reviews endangers our people, and I hope we will vote no on amendment No. 1556 and yes on amendment No. 1816.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to say to the Senator from Vermont, first of all, thank you for all of his hard work on the Environment and Public Works Committee. The Senator focuses on jobs like a laser beam.

Yes, the Senator is correct. The intent is that this provision would apply to all open disasters which would include the States which were pummeled by Hurricane Irene last year.

I ask unanimous consent the McCain amendment No. 1669, as modified, be withdrawn and the Shaheen amendment No. 1678 no longer be in order, as these issues were resolved

in the managers' package last evening; further, that the Carper amendment No. 1670 and the Hutchison amendment No. 1568 no longer be in order as they no longer intend to offer these amendments.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote and all after the first vote be 10- minute votes.

Madam President, can I ask, what is the amendment pending before the body?

Amendment No. 1810

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I yield back all time.

Madam President, I just wish to ask if it is possible, by unanimous consent, to permit Senator Carper to speak for 2 minutes to discuss an issue Senator Hutchison addressed before.

I would ask unanimous consent if we could take a break from the voting.

Madam President, we have two choices on how to handle rebuilding and maintaining infrastructure, whether it occurs after an emergency or is just in the stream of regular maintenance.

What we have done in this bill is extraordinary, and I think everyone would admit we have speeded up the approval process for all construction in the underlying bill. This was a hot issue. Senator Inhofe and I were coming from different places, but we reached strong agreement, and what we said in our amendment No. 1816 is that we encourage and support what we have done in the underlying bill and tell the agencies that after a disaster to move as fast as they can while protecting the people.

What Senator Paul does in his amendment, it doesn't apply just after a disaster, it is anytime. So you could be fixing any problem that involves the most toxic materials and all the laws are waived. It is an overreach. It is radical. I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the Boxer amendment and a ``no'' vote on the Paul amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Colleagues, I think we are now at the last amendment, so please hear me out. If you care about your constituency, you have to vote no on this amendment. The implication is that the Senator is waiving environmental rules, health and safety rules, after a disaster. It is not true. Read the amendment. It is any kind of reconstruction for any safety purpose.

If you have a bridge in your great State that is over 50 years old, it has lead and it has asbestos. Every health and safety reg that deals with the safe disposal of just those two toxins--let alone PCBs and others--they are waived. One little speck of asbestos in your lungs and you know what could happen.

This is an overreach. In the base bill, in the underlying bill, Senator Inhofe and I have expedited reviews dramatically. We came together on it. It was tough negotiation. Stick with us and please vote no on this dangerous amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311(a)(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Yes. I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311(a)(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I simply want to thank both leaders for their kind remarks. Really, I have to say that Senator Inhofe and I and our staffs really became a close family as we worked through this bill. I am so moved by the way we were able to come together, all of us. Even those on the other side and this side who had amendments that were tough, it was difficult, but we got through it.

I urge a resounding ``aye'' vote. I know you will not agree with everything, but we tried to work with each one of you. I urge a strong ``aye'' vote. Let's get the House to pass our bill. This is a jobs bill, and 2.8 million jobs hang in the balance.

Mr. President, I yield back our time, but Senator Inhofe has something to say.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider and to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks Senator Landrieu be recognized.

Mr. President, I again thank everybody. During our earlier morning business period I praised all of the staffs from both sides of the aisle, all of the chairmen, and all of the ranking members. So thank you so much. It was a great vote, 74 to 22. If Senator Lautenberg had been here, it would have been 75. So what more can a chairman ask.

Thank you very much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 14, 2012, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Sudan and South Sudan: Independence and Insecurity.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 14, 2012, at 3 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 14, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Raising the Bar for Congress: Reform Proposals for the 21st Century.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 14, 2012, at 2:45 p.m., in room SC 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session on March 14, 2012, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ending Homelessness Among Veterans: VA's Progress on Its 5-Year Plan.''

The Committee will meet in 418 of the Senate Russell Office Building beginning at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 14, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining Issues in the Prepaid Card Market.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 14, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Managing Interagency Nuclear Nonproliferation Efforts: Are We Effectively Securing Nuclear Materials Around the World?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 14, 2012, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 14, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.