Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Well, Mr. President, this is a big day for those of us who believe strongly that we need to focus on job creation, a better business climate, a bill that will, in fact, not only protect jobs but create new jobs. That is the bill we are hoping will get the go-ahead at 2 o'clock, what we call MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, S. 1813.

This has been--if I could use an analogy that fits--a long road to get to this point so we can, in fact, make sure we have an adequate road system, an adequate highway system, an adequate transit system, and that we make sure, as a world leader, our infrastructure--our bridges, our roads--keep up with the demands put upon them. There are many demands put upon them because we are a great nation with commerce and heavy-duty vehicles on our roadways and railroads that cross over roadways that create potential problems, and, certainly, we have a robust transit system that needs to keep up with the times.

Last night, I received a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and I was very pleased to see it because they support the bill Senator Inhofe and I, on a bipartisan basis, were able to get through our committee on a unanimous vote.

It is a rare moment in history, frankly, when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor unions all come together, with everyone on the same page, to say: Let's move forward with a bill. In these days of controversy and debate--and, Lord knows, I am immersed in many of them--this is one where we have been able to carve out a very important consensus, not only in the Environment and Public Works Committee but in the Banking Committee--where Senators Johnson and Shelby work together--to get a piece of this bill done.

In the Finance Committee--where Senators there are led by Senator Baucus--they were able to hammer out a tough and important agreement to fund this bill because it has some shortfalls due to the fact that the highway trust fund has been going down because cars are getting better fuel economy--and that is a good thing--but the bad, unintended problem is the trust fund now has fewer dollars, so we run short of what we need to keep our bridges and highways and transit systems going.

So what a moment it was to see not only our committee but the Banking Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Commerce Committee, with a couple of exceptions on a couple of provisions--they did their job as well, and we are trying to work with them to resolve whatever matters remain in that portion of the bill.

But I want to quote from the letter from the Chamber of Commerce that I received last night. I want to share a couple lines with everyone. I am quoting:

The Chamber strongly supports this important legislation.

Investment in transportation has proven to grow jobs, and the

need for Congress to act on transportation infrastructure is

clear.

Another quote:

Passing transportation reauthorization legislation is a

specific action Congress and the Administration can take

right now to support job growth and economic productivity

without adding to the deficit.

Those two quotes I think show we have done our job well.

This is a bill that is paid for. This is a bill that, because of the way it was written, is a reform bill, which I will go into. But it also protects the jobs we currently have, which is 1.8 million jobs in the transportation area, and also, because of the way we have boosted a program called TIFIA--which I will talk about, which is a highly leveraged program--we have the capacity to add over a million new jobs. Mostly these jobs are in the private sector. That is where they are, and that is what we are focused on in this legislation.

I mentioned Senator Inhofe before, my ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I expect him to be in the Chamber shortly. I cannot tell you of the trusted partnership we were able to develop with him that went not only for his relationship with me in working on this bill, but the staff-to-staff relationships which have blossomed into friendships and trust. I think what we have shown is that each of us can be a tough but fair partner. Our staffs understand where we are coming from. But we have a bigger goal in front of us than our differences; that is, our agreement that it is our responsibility to fix our aging roads and highways and bridges--our infrastructure--to put people back to work, to boost our economy, and, as Senator Inhofe has talked about very often, with examples that are in many ways heart breaking, we have problems with safety in our Nation. We have bridges that are crumbling. We have seen them with our own eyes. We cannot turn away from this because we may have disagreements on lots of other things.

It has been a long but a very worthwhile journey to get to this stage because the payoff here, if this bill eventually becomes law, is, as I said, protecting 1.8 million jobs and creating up to another million jobs.

Again, I want to mention the Commerce Committee. I did not thank Senators Rockefeller and Hutchison for their work on this as well. So we have four committees that are involved in writing this bill. Each committee has voted out their bills. If all goes right today, and we get a resounding go-ahead, I hope we begin with amendments on the EPW portion, and then move to add the different other bills to this bill, until we have added all four--all the committees together--and then I hope we will have a resounding vote and get to a conference committee. We have major differences with the other body, but I think we can work them out for the good of the people and the thousand organizations that back us in this bill, in this effort.

I also have to thank Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader. He brought this bill to the floor. He exerted the right kind of pressure on all of our committees. He encouraged us. He understands clearly that, as we try to get out of this recession--and we have seen beneficial results from our actions in a number of areas--this is going to mean a big boost for jobs.

I want to also say that within my committee we have what we call the big four: it is the chairman and the ranking member--myself and Senator Inhofe--and then it is the chairman of the Highway Subcommittee and the ranking member there; and that is Senator Baucus and Senator Vitter. So I honestly think if you look at the big four, and you look at our philosophies, and you look at where we are from and the differences we bring to the table, we cover the whole Senate in terms of

the range of ideologies but are tied together by a belief that this is something that needs to get done. And Senators Baucus and Vitter were with Senator Inhofe and me every step of the way, for which we are very grateful.

I mentioned, I alluded to a thousand organizations that have been involved on the outside pushing us to get this done. My hat is off to them. They make up a broad coalition. I have spoken frequently with them to give them an update on how we are doing, and I have to tell you they truly represent America. Over the course of this debate, if I have the time--and in many ways I hope I do not have the time because I hope we can get this done and not spend a whole lot of time on it because I think the committees have done such a good job, but if we have excess time on the floor, I intend to read as many of those organizations into the Record as I possibly can because that coalition is remarkable in its reach.

They were led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is an unprecedented coalition. They came together regardless of ideology and differences. Every time I look at this list, I am reminded that essentially it is America. It is America: business, labor groups, State organizations, city organizations, and organizations from all 50 States.

We received a letter from these thousand organizations recently, and I am going to quote some of what they said. They said:

There are few federal efforts that rival the potential of

critical transportation infrastructure investments for

sustaining and creating jobs and economic activity. . . .

They wrote:

In 2011, political leaders--Republican and Democrat, House,

Senate and the Administration--stated a multi-year surface

transportation bill is important for job creation and

economic recovery. We urge you to follow words with action:

And this is what they asked us:

Make Transportation Job #1 and move legislation immediately

in the House and Senate to invest in the roads, bridges,

[and] transit systems that are the backbone of [our] economy,

its businesses large and small, and communities of all sizes.

Again, it is important to note, our surface transportation bill creates or saves millions of jobs, benefiting millions of American families across the country. What a great signal it will send, as we struggle to get out of the slowdown and we begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel. This will be a very large light because there are very few other things we can do here that have the reach of a transportation bill.

Let's talk about the construction industry. According to the most recent unemployment figures, there are 1.5 million construction workers out of work, with the industry facing an unemployment rate of 17.7 percent. Construction workers are out of work.

I show you a chart I have in the Chamber. The national unemployment rate is 8.3 percent. We want to see that come down. But look at that construction industry unemployment rate: 17.7 percent. These are real people with pride in what they do. And we know the housing industry has had a horrible time. It has stalled out, and it is in a horrible trough.

So if we can take those construction workers and offer them an opportunity to build the roads, the bridges, the highways, the transit systems, it will put them to work and we will get that 17.7-percent rate down.

I do not know if we have a picture of that stadium. This is a picture of the Super Bowl stadium. From what I understand, it seats about 100,000. That is what we see here. If we had 15, 15 of these pictures, 15 Super Bowl stadiums' worth of people, that is how many people are unemployed in construction.

I use this not only because I watch the Super Bowl, although my Niners did not get in and it was upsetting, but because this is a picture, a visual. Imagine every one of those people unemployed times 15. It is a visual. I think it is important that we keep in mind we are talking about real people who have lost real jobs because of this recession and especially the housing downturn.

This is a chance to put them to work. There is an urgent need to get this legislation through the conference committee and onto the President's desk because the current transportation authorization extension expires on March 31. I wish to say to colleagues who may be watching or staff who may be watching: You may have a lot of amendments in your mind, in your heart, and everybody has a right, and I support your right. But please think very hard before you start bringing down amendments that will slow us up. Those thousand organizations know we need to keep our eye on the ball, and these organizations are in all our States. They represent millions and millions and millions of American families. So let's not add extraneous matters, please. Let's not have frivolous amendments, killer amendments. We all can offer these. I have several I could offer in a heartbeat. But this is not the place to have our ideological disputes. This is a bill that is a jobs bill. This is a bill that is good for our businesses. This is a bill that will save 1.8 million jobs and create up to 1 million more at a time when we must have that kind of wind at our back.

There is another reason. Not only does the highway bill expire in March, but we also know the trust fund is running out of money for projects already in the pipeline. So we have to find a reliable and stable source of funding. Senator Baucus and his Finance Committee have come up with a way to responsibly fill this shortfall. I cannot thank them enough, the Democrats and Republicans on that committee. Thank you. Because what you have done is to have come up with some very good ways to pay for the shortfall, and those ways do no harm.

We must push forward for another reason which I alluded to before. America's aging infrastructure is crumbling. Let me just tell America this: Some 70,000 of our Nation's bridge are structurally deficient-- 70,000 of our Nation's bridges are structurally deficient, 50 percent of our roads are not up to standard.

If you are in your home and you have little kids and someone who is an expert comes up to you, an engineer, and says your house could easily crumble, we all know what you would do. You would get out of there, fix it, and then move the family back in. This is no different. If somebody tells you your house is crumbling, you have to fix it. If somebody says to us, our Nation's bridges are structurally deficient and over 50 percent of our roads are not up to standard, we have to act.

My dear friend and colleague who is going to manage this bill with me has arrived. I will tell him, I am about 5 minutes away from finishing my opening statement and yielding to him. But he is more eloquent than anyone I have ever heard on two issues; one, what is the role of government. He makes the point, which I am not going to take away from him, as to how infrastructure fits into that.

He also is eloquent on the point of safety. Because he has seen with his own eyes what happens if we do not get our infrastructure sound and safe. We have a deteriorating part of our infrastructure, and it needs to be fixed.

We cannot be an economic leader if we cannot move people and goods. We cannot thrive as a nation if our people are trapped in traffic and our businesses are trying to move goods and they are trapped in traffic. We lose 4.8 billion hours from work and we pay the price for that in loss of productive time and in dirty air.

As to our bill that was passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I wish to say to my ranking member who was not here and his staff was not here at the time that I started, I praised him to the sky--and staff--because regardless of our differences on many issues, we have been able to put this country first in this bill.

I am so grateful for the spirit of cooperation we have brought to our work, which was captured in the Banking Committee where Senators Johnson and Shelby got together, and in the Finance Committee where many Republicans joined our Democratic friends to figure out a way to fund this responsibly, and in the Commerce Committee where we have one or two little hiccups, but I do believe we are going to resolve them. I am proud we were out there first showing we could do this.

People said all over the Senate: If Boxer and Inhofe can do this, anything is possible.

MAP-21 is a reform bill, and I am proud about that. It consolidates 90 programs into less than 30. It focuses

on key national goals. It gives greater flexibility to the States to invest in their top priorities. It eliminates earmarks. It establishes performance measures to improve accountability. It accelerates project delivery, and it provides resources for a new national freight program.

This bill is responsible. It continues the current level of funding plus inflation which, as I said, protects 1.8 million jobs. The TIFIA Program, which Senator Inhofe and I agreed to increase, which stands for Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, is also embraced by Chairman Mica over on the House side.

So Republicans and Democrats agree that by making more funds available through TIFIA, we can mobilize up to $30 billion more from the $1 billion we have placed in that fund and create up to 1 million jobs.

I wish to thank the mayor of Los Angeles and the Chamber there and the workers there who brought the idea of leveraging to my attention. I wish to say that Tom Donahue, of the U.S. Chamber, president there, Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL and many business and labor groups throughout our Nation supported this TIFIA Program to stretch taxpayer dollars in a safe way.

Again, they have done that in the House bill as well, which is very good for us.

I am proud of this bill and the reforms in it. I am proud of working relationships we have established across party lines in our committee. I could say, very honestly, there are a lot of things this bill does not have that I am sorry about, that I wanted to see in there. I am not going to detail those. But I know Senator Inhofe feels the same way. But there were certain things that were lines in the sand for each of us, and it was a give and take that resulted in this compromise which is a good bill--a good solid bill.

We put those controversial issues aside for the good of the Nation. I will close with this. Ever since Dwight Eisenhower started us on a path to build the Interstate Highway System, transportation has been a bipartisan effort. I asked my staff to research some of the comments made by President Eisenhower in 1963 when he established the Federal Interstate Highway System.

Actually, he wrote his autobiography in 1963. He established the System in 1956.

This is what he said:

More than any single action by the government since the end

of the war, this one would change the face of America with

straightaways, cloverleaf turns, bridges, and elongated

parkways. Its impact on the American economy--the jobs it

would produce in manufacturing and construction, the rural

areas it would open up--was beyond calculation.

It is very important to note how bipartisan this is. Ronald Reagan in 1982, ``More efficient roads mean lower transportation costs.''

He said:

Lately driving is not as much fun as it used to be. Time

and wear have taken their toll on America's roads and

highways.

He said it well. So we have Democratic Presidents, Republican Presidents, Democratic Senators, Republican Senators all working in a bipartisan way. Votes on these bills have been overwhelming, 79 to 8; 372 in the House to 47--all of our President's signing these laws. Historically, major surface transportation legislation has received overwhelming bipartisan support.

In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Equity Act, ISTEA, with a Senate Democratic majority, passed by a vote of 79 to 8. The House, with a Democratic majority, passed it by a vote of 372 to 47. President George H.W. Bush signed it into law. At the December 18, 1991, signing ceremony, President Bush said:

ISTEA is ``the most important transportation bill since

President Eisenhower started the Interstate System 35 years

ago . . . this bill also means investment in America's

economic future, for an efficient transportation system is

absolutely essential for a productive and efficient

economy.''

In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, with a Senate Republican majority, passed by a vote of 88 to 5. The House with a Republican majority, passed it by a vote of 297 to 86. President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, SAFETEA-LU, passed the Senate, with a Republican majority, by a vote of 91 to 4. The House, with a Republican majority, passed it by a vote of 412 to 8. President George W. Bush signed it into law.

Elected officials are not the only people who recognize the importance of maintaining our transportation systems. The American public also supports rebuilding the Nation through infrastructure investment.

According to a poll released last October by CNN, 72 percent of Americans--and 54 percent of Republicans--support ``increasing federal spending to build and repair roads, bridges and schools.''

Roads and bridges are neither Democratic nor Republican, and all elected officials need to leave partisanship on this issue at the door. Bipartisanship is the only way to get the job done, and Senator Inhofe's and my partnership in this effort is proof positive that it can be done.

Senator Inhofe and I do not agree on many issues, but we found common ground on this one. We agree that we must invest in our aging transportation systems, we must boost the economy, we must put people back to work, and we must pay for it in a way that is not divisive or partisan. Neither Senator Inhofe nor I got our wish list in this bill, but we do have a bill that both of us can support. At the end of the day, that is what matters.

The American people deserve to have their elected officials work together to solve our pressing problems, and that is what we did. The bill before us is thoroughly bipartisan, and therefore nobody will think it is perfect, but it is a very strong commitment to our transportation systems and to the health of our businesses, workers, and communities that depend on it.

I say today is a good day. I have tried to thank everyone I can think of who had anything to do with it. It is my privilege now to yield the floor and look forward to the comments of my ranking member.

Wait a minute, the Senator is not managing.

Well, we are both managing the time.

Well, I do have some remarks I would like to make.

I thank the Chair.

I think Senator Inhofe and I will have to talk about how we are going to yield back and forth, but at this point I had not finished my remarks and I wanted to respond to his.

We are here as partners on this bill. We are not partners on a lot of things. And I didn't say, when I opened my remarks, where we are not partners, but my friend did, so I am going to respond to his opening comments in which for some reason he wanted to open by saying that the one place we differ--and he is right on this--is that he blames President Obama for the deficit. Now, I want to put this on the record: I do not. Let me tell you why. When Bill Clinton was the President of these United States, he turned over a booming surplus of $236 billion to George W. Bush, and it didn't take him but the blink of an eye to turn those surpluses as far as the eye could see into raging deficits, and he left President Obama a $1.4 trillion deficit, for which my colleagues on the other side blame President Obama. Not only did George W. Bush leave him this kind of deficit, but he left him the worst recession since the Great Depression, a total collapse of Wall Street, bleeding jobs--800,000 a month. Yet we have turned it around. The President has shown magnificent leadership--saved Detroit.

My friend further said that another place we disagree--and he is right--is that President Obama is driving manufacturing overseas. No. The Tax Code, which the Republicans support, which rewards companies for moving overseas, is very much responsible for that.

So that proves the point. We get mad at each other. He is annoyed now that I am saying these things, and I was annoyed at him for saying what he said. But the great news today is that we are here to pass a bill.

My friend said I had a problem with liberal Members in my own party. I have to say there was concern, for sure. He is right. But once I explained to them that the ranking member and I have to work together, they were terrific about it. And I think some of my colleague's Republican friends said the same. They said: OK, we have to make this happen. So I congratulate all Members on both sides of the aisle who put aside these really tough differences we have, and you just saw a little bit of it.

I am not going to get into the climate change area because my friend believes it is the greatest hoax and I believe it is a scientific fact.

We could go on and on with these arguments. It would be interesting. It would be like ``Crossfire.'' Do you remember that show where two people got up there and argued? Yes, we could do that in every way. But in this bill we have decided to fight for what we believe in but at the end of the day get a bill we believe is fair.

Did my friend want me to yield?

You made the point. I was happy when you made the point because it gave me a chance to argue with you, and we both enjoy that, and we will continue. Our friendship is deep. We each know when we talk to each other that it is from the heart. But when it comes to this particular issue, we both agree we have to get a bill done. So much is dependent upon it.

I just received a letter from the Americans for Transportation Mobility. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to which I am referring.

I want to tell you who signed this letter. And my friend may not have seen it. The American Public Transportation Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the Associated Equipment Distributors, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, the Associated General Contractors, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers' International Union of North America, the National Asphalt Pavement Association, the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Now, I have to say----

Yes, but let me make one statement. This list I have just read represents America--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

Yes, I yield.

I am finishing this, and then I will yield the floor and am happy to have him speak. I felt this was opening time for the chairman and the ranking member to lay down their case, and I am not about to let an attack on the President of the United States of America go unanswered. I am not going to do it. So if we are going to go down that road, we are going to have a give-and-take. If we are going down the road I hope we will go down, it is about getting this bill done.

So let me talk about this letter, and then I will yield the floor. And I say to my ranking member, we will decide how to divide the time, and we should. That is fine with me.

They say in this letter:

We commend the Senate committees that helped craft S. 1813,

a bi-partisan bill for stabilizing federal transportation

funding mechanisms for the near-term and avoiding draconian

cuts amounting to one-third of total federal investment in

highway, transit and safety programs.

They are talking about the fact that the highway trust fund is a third of where it should be. That is why we are so happy that the Finance Committee, on a bipartisan vote, is replacing these funds.

The letter goes on to talk about what would happen if we didn't do this bill.

Cuts of this magnitude would accelerate the deteriorating

performance of the nation's surface transportation network,

greatly undermine U.S. economic growth and competitiveness,

and result in the real loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs

across the country. This bill includes important policy

reforms that would improve the delivery of transportation

improvements by consolidating programs, reducing red tape,

and leveraging private sector resources.

Additionally, this great coalition, which is comprised of the chamber of commerce, the unions, and business, says:

The ATM coalition will strongly oppose any amendments to

reduce the funding levels established in this legislation,

and remains committed to working with Congress to find

reliable revenue streams sufficient to support the long-term

growth and the fiscal sustainability of the Highway Trust

Fund.

This next quote from their letter is so important:

Without the certainty of a multi-year bill, current

problems become harder to solve as highway and transit

conditions worsen and land, labor, and materials get more

expensive. Absent passage of a multi-year reauthorization,

there will be continued uncertainty and erratic funding for

critical infrastructure investments and the public and the

private sectors would continue to respond by delaying

projects, withdrawing investment, and laying off employees.

We encourage you to support the motion to proceed to S.

1813.

Of course, Mr. President, that is the motion we will be voting on today at 2 p.m.

They continue:

The ATM Coalition stands ready to bring together business,

labor, highways and transit stakeholders to provide Congress

the public support to pass an adequately funded multi-year

surface transportation bill by March 31, 2012.

On the issue of the enhancements, we already had a vote on enhancements before, and we turned back proposals to do away with enhancements. So what we did in this bill is we said to the States: Guess what, you have much more flexibility.

I have to tell you--and I won't do it now, but perhaps Senator Paul is going to speak about these enhancements--we know for sure that these enhancements--and I think that is the wrong name because they are really safety projects--have saved lives because they fund things such as pedestrian paths and safe passageways for kids to get to school. So while my colleague and I may differ, I strongly believe Congress stands behind--I should say the Senate stands behind continuing to fund these safety projects, and we have given the States far more flexibility. So I hope we will defeat any amendment to remove the ability of our States to determine which of those safety projects they want because we have the facts behind us--13 percent of traffic fatalities involve pedestrians and bicyclists. I feel we give our States the opportunity, and if Oklahoma doesn't have any of these problems because it is a much more rural State than California, I am happy with that. But we have to understand that these are safety projects, and I hope we will defeat any amendment that tries to reduce the ability of the States to fund these projects.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, if I could ask my friend through the Chair, would it be possible for me to have 2 minutes prior to his statement, and then following my remarks the floor will be the Senator's.

Madam President, I wish to take 2 minutes to respond to Senator Barrasso, who offered a second opinion. I hope my colleague will also talk about that.

I have to say it is stunning to see the assault on women's health that is taking place from the Republican Party day after day after day. First, they tried to stop women from getting breast screenings. Then they tried to stop us from getting cervical cancer screenings. Now they are going after our ability to get birth control.

I have to say this: We know that for a full 15 percent of women, birth control is pure medicine. They suffer from debilitating monthly pain, endometriosis. We have stories of women who couldn't afford birth control pills and a cyst got out of hand resulting in the loss of an ovary. We know that birth control is used for a very serious skin condition. So if they want to stand here and say that women don't have a right to our medicine, that is their right but don't put it into the frame of religious freedom.

We know President Obama said he was going to do what 28 States have

done; that is, to make sure women who work in this country have the ability to get access to birth control pills through their insurance. That is as simple as it gets. Twenty-eight States do it. I never heard a word out of them--never. And eight of those States had no exception when President Obama made an exception for 335,000 churches.

So let's not stand here and talk about the overreach of the Federal Government and the rest of it. The fact is our States have been doing this for years. More than 50 percent of women in this Nation have the ability to get contraception. It is about health. It is the Institute of Medicine that said it is critical. It will cut down on tens of thousands of abortions when families plan their families.

So as long as our colleagues on the other side want to make women a political football in this country, there are many of us here, women and men alike, who are going to stand sentry and say: You can't do this to the women of this Nation.

This is the 21st century, and we are arguing about birth control instead of how to get out of this economic malaise when we are finally seeing light at the end of the tunnel? Oh, no. I am hoping we go to a highway bill this afternoon, but we have to now have this diversion about an issue that was resolved, frankly, in the 1950s and in the 1960s.

So I thank my colleague for this opportunity. Senator Barrasso has a right to a second opinion, but I think his opinion is off the mark.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware because he and the occupant of the chair are very important members of this great committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee. As one or our most senior Members, he has taken a tremendous interest in everything we do. I look to his leadership on a number of issues, including controlling mercury, which is dear to his heart and mine. He is a leader on nuclear plant safety and has been extremely helpful. I thank him for the good role he plays on that committee.

We will have a number of amendments. It is going to be delicate with the amendment process. That is fine. I encourage everybody, if they have an amendment, to go for it. But we have an agreement that the leadership on the committee--we are either all going to go for an amendment or not. We don't want to stymie this.

I appreciate the Senator alerting us that he is going to offer those two amendments. I urge the Senator to get them to us so we can share them with Senator Inhofe.

We have received another letter of support, which I am proud to put in the Record. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

It is from the Transportation Construction Coalition. They are urging all of us for an ``aye'' vote on the motion to proceed to the Transportation bill. They have said wonderful things about our bill--that they like the steps we have taken to accelerate all the reviews and flexibility for the States, greater authority for our States, and the fact that we did this in a comprehensive way and in a bipartisan way. I am very grateful.

What I would like to do is read the names of these organizations because it shows you the depth in America of the support for this bill: The American Road and Transportation Builders; Associated General Contractors; the American Coal Ash Association; the American Concrete Pavement Association; the American Concrete Pipe Association; the American Council of Engineering Companies; the American Subcontractors Association; American Iron and Steel Institute; American Society of Civil Engineers; American Traffic Safety Services Association; the Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers Association; Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association; Associated Equipment Distributors; Association of Equipment Manufacturers; Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute; International Slurry Surfacing Association; International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers; International Union of Operating Engineers; Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust; Laborers' International Union of North America; National Asphalt Pavement Association; National Association of Surety Bond Producers; National Ready Mixed Concrete Association; National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association; National Utility Contractors Association; Portland Cement Association; Precase/Prestressed Concrete Institute; the Road Information Program; and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

The reason I read these 29 organizations--there are 1,000 organizations behind our bill--I want colleagues to understand how people have come together from all sides of the aisle--union workers, nonunion workers, the businesses and union businesses. Everybody has come together--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--on our committee. The reason is that we are coming out of a very tough and deep recession where housing was hurt deeply, and we are having a very tough time coming out of the housing recession. Construction workers have a 15-percent or more unemployment rate, compared to an 8.3-percent unemployment rate in the rest of the workforce. If you put them into Super Bowl stadiums, they would fill 15 Super Bowl stadiums. Imagine that.

We have an obligation to come together on behalf of jobs and the aging infrastructure that needs to be fixed. We have bridges collapsing and roads that are not up to par. We have problems in this Nation, and we can stop them and solve them only if we come together.

I will end here because my colleague would like the floor, and that is fine. I think we will have an opportunity at around the 2:15 hour or so to come together united and give a great vote of confidence to this bill, to move it ahead with an overwhelming vote. Maybe I am dreaming, but I hope for well over 60 votes to go forward. Then let's get to the amendment process and let's not offer extraneous amendments that have to do with everything but transportation. Let's keep this focused. Then we can get to conference and get a bill to the President.

In closing, if our bill is the law of the land, we would save 1.8 million jobs and be able to create up to another million jobs. There is a lot riding on this bill. I hope we will come together this afternoon.

Thank you for your indulgence.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues. This is a tremendous vote here to move forward with one of the most important jobs bills we could do in this session, because we are talking about protecting 1.8 million jobs and the possibility of another 1 million jobs being created through an expanded TIFIA Program which leverages local funds at very little risk to the Federal Government. So this is a good vote.

I wish to take this opportunity now to thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but also to thank the over 1,000 groups out there-- everyone ranging from left to right and everything in between; from workers organizations, to businesses, to the Chamber of Commerce, to the AFL-CIO. It is rare we can walk down the aisle together.

But now the true test comes. We have a lot of work to do to complete this legislation, to make it real, to give that certainty out there, get those jobs going. We have a lot of work to do. We have the Banking Committee which, under the able leadership of Senators Johnson and Shelby, has a title we have to add. We have to add a title from the Finance Committee. We want to add the title from the Commerce Committee. Then we would have all four committees represented in this legislation. Then we can move to get a strong vote and get it to conference, and, I have to say, tell the House side that we have a truly bipartisan bill that deserves their consideration. But if we start seeing amendments that go to issues that are unrelated to this-- the hot-button issues of the day, the issues where we have the ideological divide--we are going to slow this down.

I guess I wish to say to my colleagues on the Democratic side and the Republican side: Please do not mess up this bill and load this bill with extraneous matters. Senator Inhofe and I are very happy to look at germane amendments. We are ready to look at those. We have made an agreement that if we don't agree, we are going to oppose it. We are working together. But extraneous matters don't belong on this bill unless they have overwhelming support and they are not controversial. I am very hopeful, but I have seen bills come to the floor and get loaded down and at the end of the day the American people lose. We cannot afford to lose this bill.

I want my colleagues to imagine 15 Super Bowl stadiums and imagine in your mind's eye what it looks like, and in all of those 15 Super Bowl stadiums every seat is filled, every seat is filled with a construction worker. That is how many construction workers are out of work--more than 1 million. So we cannot fail these workers. We cannot fail these businesses. These are good jobs. The housing crisis is not yet behind us. We have a long way to go. Construction has slowed down. So we need to make sure our construction workers are back on the job. We need to make sure we fix our bridges that are crumbling. We need to make sure we keep goods moving. This is a 21st century economy with an infrastructure that is not keeping up.

I want to take a moment to thank again the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator Sanders, who is in the chair, is a very important member who is focused like a laser beam on jobs. He focuses on jobs, jobs, jobs. He knows, as I do, that we didn't get everything we wanted in this bill, not by a long shot. But we know there are times you have to put that aside for the good of the people so we get something done; and something done here is protecting 1.8 million jobs and creating up to 1 million new jobs with our expanded

Mr. President, I am honored to salute the life and service of retired CMSgt Luther Jefferson, Sr., who served as a Tuskegee Airman in the 332nd Fighter Group. Chief Jefferson will be remembered not only for his valor and service to his country but also for his compassion, optimism, and generous spirit. He died at his home in Victorville, California on January 19, 2012.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 9, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 9, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a Committee hearing entitled ``State of the Housing Market: Removing Barriers to Economic Recovery.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 9, 2012, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 9, 2012, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 9, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 9, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I am also very proud to be here with my colleagues. I think Senator Murray was eloquent, along with Senator Shaheen and Senator Mikulski. I am here to put it in my own words; that is, here they go again. Sadly, politics has once again entered into women's health care. This time we see an attempt to deprive women of a critical benefit: access to contraception through their health insurance plans.

Just last week, what did we see? A move to punish women by taking away their free breast cancer screenings all because of rightwing politics.

Before that, as Senator Murray eloquently indicated, we saw a Republican move to defund family planning because of politics.

My Republican colleagues almost shut down the government over family planning, and now, if they have their way, millions of women could lose their contraceptive coverage, which could expose them to declining health outcomes and their babies to declining health outcomes and could cost them about $600 a year.

Let's step back and look at where we are.

Some months ago, the Institute of Medicine, which is comprised of a number of leading scientific and health experts, made a decision.

They advised the Obama administration on what preventative benefits should be included for women--specifically for women--in new health insurance plans. That is what this whole to-do is all about. This organization that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with health care made a very clear recommendation to the Obama administration. They said there are a number of preventative benefits that should be included for free for the women of this country: screening for gestational diabetes, HIV screening, cervical cancer prevention, annual well women visits, and access to contraception.

Now, just as these women, our women of this Nation, are ready for these preventative services--services they need, services most of them want--my Republican friends, from

Presidential candidates Romney to Newt Gingrich to the Senate and House Republican leaders--I heard Senator McConnell threaten legislation to take away these benefits--to Speaker Boehner to individual Republicans in both Houses, they are gearing up to repeal one of these benefits: access to birth control--access to birth control.

Now, I believe women in this country deserve respect. Some of them do not want access to birth control. They have a religion that dictates their views, and they have every right to make that decision. Others decide that they need to have access to birth control. So the Obama administration said to the women of this great Nation that they believe there ought to be access. But I think it is very important that the Institute of Medicine said: No exception. They think access to contraception is so important to women's health, they did not want any exception. But the Obama administration made an exception for churches and for religious institutions, and under the Obama administration's rule, 335,000 religious organizations will not have to offer birth control if they have a conscience reason not to do so. That is a compromise.

Remember, the health experts said: No exceptions. The Obama administration said: Well, I want to respect the religious institutions and so I will allow them, if their mission is religious, and the people they serve and the employees they hire are basically of one religion, they are a religious institution, they will not have to offer contraception in the health care benefits to their employees.

But guess what. There is another part of this equation. Women. Women. They have to have their religious beliefs respected. That is why the President also said: If you run an organization that serves a diverse number of people from different religions, and so on, and different beliefs, let them have the right to make that decision if they want to obtain free birth control through their insurance.

Now, here is the thing. This outcry is astonishing to me since 28 States already assure access to birth control. I have never heard any of my colleagues--maybe they did. Maybe they did come on the Senate floor and complain. But more than half of our women--over 28 States, more than half of women have similar access to birth control. So this is not some new benefit. This is just making sure all women, except that very narrow band that work for strictly religious institutions, have the right to have access to free birth control.

The outcry is unbelievable, a political outcry making this a political issue when it is a medical issue. The President compromised. He said: If you are strictly a religious institution, you do not have to do this if you do not want to.

Now, here is the other thing. All organizations that have any religious issue have an extra year to determine if they are going to offer this or how they can do it. They may be able to find a way in that year to get women access and at the same time not violate their consciences. They have an extra year to do that. But, oh, no, we are going to see legislation--I can assure you we are going to see legislation to overturn this, legislation that even goes further than this. And it is going to be a battle on the floor of the Senate, I am afraid.

I am not afraid of the fight; I welcome it because, let's be clear: Virtually all women have used birth control at some point in their lives. Let me repeat this. Virtually all women have used birth control at some point in their lives, including 98 percent of Catholic women. That is a fact. And 71 percent of American voters, including 77 percent of Catholic women voters, support the administration's policy.

So if my colleagues decide they are going to take this issue on in the face of overwhelming support for this policy by the American people, I say we are ready. We are ready to make the case.

Access to birth control is directly linked to maternal and infant health. This is not some theoretical right. It is a right that is necessary. Health experts tell us that women with unintended pregnancies are less likely to get prenatal care in the first trimester, and in some cases they never get it. If there is one thing that should unite us, it is healthy babies, healthy outcomes from healthy pregnancies. That is what we are talking about.

I want to talk about something else we do not hear enough of. I want to compliment Senator Gillibrand on this because she is the one who brought this issue to my attention.

A full 14 percent of women who use birth control pills--that is 1.5 million women--use them to treat serious medical conditions, not to prevent pregnancies. One of those conditions: Debilitating monthly pain, irregular cycles, conditions like endometriosis, serious conditions.

I just learned of a young woman at Georgetown University. Their insurance policy did not cover free birth control. Her doctor told her she had a serious medical condition and she needed to use birth control pills that had nothing to do with pregnancy or anything else, or preventing pregnancy. It was a serious medical condition. The diagnosis was--I may not say it right--polycystic ovary syndrome.

Now, what happened is, she was told: You must go on birth control pills. But we at Georgetown, we will not pay for that benefit. She had to go out and get it. It was more than $100 a month. She could not afford it. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically. In addition, she lost an ovary.

So please do not stand here and tell us that women do not need access to birth control pills or contraception because we have story after story after story.

Let me tell you something else some folks may not know; that is, on many occasions when a woman wants to become pregnant and has irregular cycles and cannot, she will be put on birth control pills. A British scientific study came out and showed that after 5 years on birth control pills, women who wanted to get pregnant had a decreased risk of delayed conception--so they were better able to become pregnant and become mothers. So this is not some simple pat statement. This is about making sure the women of this country--the young women, the middle-aged women of child-bearing age and older woman who have other conditions-- get the medicine they need--and, by the way, get them for free because $600 a year for many middle-class or working poor women is just out of reach.

So I say to my Republican friends who came to the floor previous to our statements, do not punish women again. Do not try to. Under the administration's plan, churches are respected and women are respected. All sides are respected. No one is forced to use birth control; it is up to the women. In 28 States more than 50 percent of the women already have this benefit. Why are you bringing politics into this?

My Republican friends want to turn back the clock on birth control. Some of us remember the days when birth control was illegal. Well, I have news for them. This is the 21st century. Wake up. Look at your calendar. It is the 21st century, and women ought to be respected. Women ought to be trusted, and their families ought to be trusted and respected. We are not going quietly into the night on this one. We will be here. We will fight back. We will fight for women and their families and health care, and we will fight to keep politics out of the equation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I believe my amendment is next.

Madam President, I would be delighted to take a voice vote on this amendment, which I am proud to say was written by myself and Senator Isakson. I am very pleased Senator Collins suggested the modification.

All this amendment does is broaden the mortgage disclosure requirements on all of us--Members of Congress--and it does the same thing for the President, the Vice President, and the executive branch employees who are subject to the advice and consent of the Congress.

I think it is fair, I think it is wise, and I think we have had issues that require this to be done.

With that, I yield back my time to Senator Collins.

Madam President, I ask for a voice vote.

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

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

I call up amendment No. 1489 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I am sure, listening to that, it is hard to understand exactly what this is all about, so let me take a moment.

I want to first thank Senators Lieberman and Collins for all their hard work and I want to thank Senator Gillibrand for writing the STOCK Act.

I come to the floor as the chairman of the Ethics Committee with an amendment that we wrote together, Senator Isakson and I, who is the vice chair of the committee. So this is quite a bipartisan amendment and I don't think it should be controversial or troublesome in any way.

This amendment actually comes from a bill that Senator Isakson and I wrote together after the Countrywide fiasco. If you want to recollect that unhappy issue, it was a situation where Countrywide had set up a VIP program and they literally targeted Members of Congress of the House and Senate to put them into this program and never told the Members of Congress that there was this program, and yet it went forward. And because there is no rule that personal mortgages be shown on the disclosure form, this was quite a shock when it all came out. What we are saying is we want to improve the disclosure requirement on home mortgages.

Right now, if it is at your own personal home, you don't have to show the mortgage, and this would correct that. It would mean that you have to show the date the mortgage was entered, the balance, and a range, the interest rate, the terms, the name and address of the creditor. So it is an omission--but actually it is a pretty glaring omission--in our financial disclosure requirements because, again, of the Countrywide example. We don't want to have a situation--because we are not allowed to get better treatment than anyone else. And the fact that we didn't disclose these mortgages--it was quite a story when it came to light that there was this special VIP program at Countrywide. So this legislation, this amendment, addresses this omission. It requires Members of Congress to make a full and complete disclosure of all the mortgages on their personal residences.

Again, right now this requirement is in place for mortgages that you may have on investment properties but not on your personal properties. It would include Members of Congress and their spouses as well.

In his State of the Union Address, the President spoke about the deficit of trust between Washington and the rest of the country. I don't know that this amendment is going to cure all those problems, but I do think it shows that we are ready to learn from a bad experience, which was the Countrywide experience. So I think the Boxer-Isakson amendment and the underlying bill are sensible steps toward rebuilding our Nation's faith in government.

Again, the rules are already clear that we are not permitted to get any financial arrangements that are better than they are for any other constituent, so I think by this disclosure we are saying that even in our own personal mortgages we have to be aware of this. I think this listing is called for, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying legislation.

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

I very much thank Senator Collins for that question.

Senator Isakson and I, as the chair and vice chair of the Ethics Committee, are applying this to the Members of Congress. That is because the scandal that took place with Countrywide involved the Members of Congress. We are not including staff in this. It also applies to more than one residence, because some of our Members have seven homes, six homes, four homes, two homes. If you have mortgages on any of those properties, you would now have to disclose those.

Mr. President, I would be happy to go on as a cosponsor to Senator Collins if she wants to take on the additional burden of moving this idea forward. I don't have any problem with it.

The point is, I am here--and I have been very open about it because I know what I am talking about when it comes to Members of Congress, because as chair of the Ethics Committee, I don't oversee Treasury. This is not my role, this is not my expertise, and I am very humble about that. I did see what happened here, along with, I would say, every member of the Ethics Committee and Senator Isakson.

This is a bipartisan amendment and we know what we are talking about, and we are saying there was a problem and Members of Congress were courted by Countrywide. Did they court other people? I don't know. But if there is some proof that they did and there is need to go and cover them with a similar amendment, I would be happy to work with my colleague on that. But I am not going to change this particular piece of legislation, because I know what I am talking about here. I know how to fix this. I know we have made a big mistake, and I feel it is our job to clean up our own business. And our own business, when it comes to this, is not good.

Would I wish to look over at what the Bush administration did or what the Obama administration is doing or what other administrations will do? I am happy to do that. But I am here to address our house--our house. Clean it up. Act as a role model.

I do not have any problem with supporting another piece of legislation. Maybe there is a problem over there. I, frankly, do not know what their ethics rules are. I know what our ethics rules are, and I know we have made a glaring omission when Members may have three, four, five, six, seven houses; they may have two, three, four, five, six mortgages and they never have to show them. Let's clean it up.

If my friend believes there is need for another amendment, I am happy to look at it. But Senator Isakson and I are doing something we have long wanted to do. This is not something we just made up. We have had a bill for a long time doing exactly this. This is a moment we would like to get it done.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague for that because it was a little surprising. My understanding, and I hope to stand corrected by the Senator from Maine, if I am wrong, and the Senator from New York, that the whole idea behind the STOCK Act, the bill written by Senator Gillibrand and the bill written by Senator Brown, did not deal with the executive branch. I thought the whole notion behind this was for us to clean up our act. Clean up our act over here. That is the best way to proceed.

I have no problem if my colleague wants to write an amendment, she herself, on this particular issue. If she can make the case that it has been shown that VIP loans were given to members of the executive branch--whether under George Bush or Barack Obama--and I think in the years she is looking at it would have been under Bush, but those are the years the Countrywide scandal took place--if my friend has absolute information for me that shows that members of the Bush administration or the Obama administration got special treatment from the Countrywide scandal, I would like to know about it. I do not know anything about that at this time.

If my friend believes it would be a good thing to do, to offer a separate amendment covering certain members of the executive branch, I am happy to look at it. But it strikes me as bizarre that this has become an issue. It sounds like what is going on from the Republican side is all of a sudden they want to turn attention over to the executive branch rather than focus it on us--which I think is critical. But I am happy to look at any amendment that deals with abuses the Senator can show me were occurring over on the executive branch side during those years that Countrywide was doing its damage. I would be happy to support an amendment. But I think we should keep this amendment clean. I think this amendment should be clean because we are looking at a particular ethics rule and we are essentially cutting out a loophole which has allowed colleagues to not have to list their personal residences when, in fact, we know some of them got special treatment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I can respond?

The Senator can't yield--I would like to have the floor now. She can't yield to another colleague except if it is for a question. I would like to have the floor since the Senator just said I was incorrect. I would like to correct her, if I might.

What I said was, when these bills were introduced, they were directed at the Congress. That is what I said. I talked about the bills. I did not talk about what went on amending them, et cetera. I will repeat what I said was accurate. Both Mr. Brown's bill and Mrs. Gillibrand's bill were, in fact, talking about the Congress.

What I would also like to say is if my colleague wants bipartisanship, she should be happy with this amendment since it is coming from Senators Boxer and Isakson, the chairman and the vice chairman of the Ethics Committee.

We did not investigate the executive branch and Countrywide's going after the people in the Bush administration and the Obama administration. We do not have that information. If she has information that shows there have been sweetheart deals over there, I certainly want to know about it. As I said, if my colleague wants to offer a first-degree amendment that broadens this, I am happy to look at it. Because if it can be shown to me that there have been abuses over there, from the mortgage companies going after these folks over there, I am happy to agree to that. I would have to take it to Senator Isakson because he is, in fact, the coauthor. Also, I have to point out that this same amendment I offered was put forward in a bill by Senator Cornyn in 2008. So there is a lot of interest on this.

I am a person who likes to know what I am talking about. I try very hard. I do not know if there has been abuse from the mortgage companies over to the executive branch. But I know for sure there has been a big problem here with colleagues getting sweetheart deals. I want to put an end to it.

If my colleague wants to strengthen my amendment, she can offer a second-degree amendment. If she can prove to me that there has been abuse and there has been a problem and there is not enough protection, I am happy to support it. But I guess I am a little taken aback as I come here in a bipartisan spirit to offer a bipartisan amendment, I have kind of been the subject of some weird sort of attack for not going far enough with my amendment. I find it bizarre, to be totally frank, and I will continue to stay on the floor until I understand what this is all about. Maybe I have nothing to do with it. If I said something wrong, I would like to know what it is. But I am offering, in good faith, a bipartisan amendment that is a no-brainer, that comes straight out of the Countrywide scandal that we studied in a bipartisan way, in Congress, and we are moving to correct the problems we know exist.

If there are more problems out there and if my friend has proof of that, if she can prove it to us, I am happy to support a first-degree amendment to this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we can go back and forth 100 ways to Sunday. I thought I explained exactly why Senator Isakson and I have a narrow bill. We are trying to fix a problem we know exists. We feel very strongly that for the good of the Senate, in particular--because this is the body we serve in. We love it. We want to make it strong and appreciated and not derided. We had a scandal that touched this body and we had a thorough investigation. It took a long time to get to the bottom of it. We uncovered the fact that Countrywide had a sweetheart deal and they were aiming it at Members of Congress.

We have crafted this amendment to respond to what we know is a problem. I am not in the business of coming down here and legislating on things that I might guess are a problem or, gee, maybe I can throw out a fishing net and catch everybody in it. If there is a problem elsewhere, I am happy to support my colleague if she would like to broaden this. I am not against it. I am saying for me and Senator Isakson, we have offered an amendment that cures a very simple problem; that ethics rules, as they are today, allow Senators and Members of Congress to avoid showing the mortgages they hold on personal residences. If the same thing exists in the executive branch, I don't know about that. I am dealing with an amendment here and so is Senator Isakson, that we know about.

If the Senator asks again why our amendment is narrow, let me again answer it in another way: We are curing a narrow problem but a problem that exists. We are not throwing out some big fishing net to catch everybody in it whom we don't know about. We think this will make the Congress a better place. We do. Because there are Members who have two, three, four, and five homes. They may have two, three, four, and five mortgages, and we think it is important for the public to know that.

But, again, I hope my colleague from Maine supports this. I don't know if she does.

She doesn't oppose it. That is a good start. I hope she supports it. If she feels she can make it stronger, she should offer a first-degree amendment, let me take a look at it, let me see whether it is necessary, and let me see whether there is reason to do it. I can surely tell her I am very open to broadening it, but the reason it is crafted the way it is is that it is dealing with a problem we are not guessing exists; we know it exists where there have been abuses before and we are trying to cure that problem.

I thank the Senator for her patience.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, the ``Act'', calls for the Select Committee on Ethics of the U.S. 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 2011 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: 77. (In addition, 3 alleged

violations from the previous year were carried into 2011.)

(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: 58.

(B) Because they failed to provide sufficient facts as to

any material violation of the Senate rules beyond mere

allegation or assertion: 14.

(3) The number of alleged violations for which the

Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry: 08. (This

figure includes 3 matters from the previous year carried into

2011.)

(4) The number of alleged violations for which the

Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry that resulted

in an adjudicatory review: 0.

(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:

05. (This figure includes 2 matters from the previous year

carried into 2011.)

(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: 0.

(7) The number of matters resulting in a disciplinary

sanction: 0.

(8) Any other information deemed by the Committee to be

appropriate to describe its activities in the previous year:

In 2011, the Committee continued its preliminary inquiry

into the conduct of Senator John Ensign. An outside Special

Counsel was appointed to assist the Ethics Committee staff

with its fact finding regarding whether Senator John Ensign

violated Senate rules and federal law. As noted in the Report

of the Preliminary Inquiry into the Matter of Senator John E.

Ensign released by the Committee, the Special Counsel

determined that there was substantial credible evidence that

Senator Ensign engaged in violations of law and Senate rules.

The Special Counsel concluded that the evidence that would

have been presented in an adjudicatory hearing would have

been substantial and sufficient to warrant the consideration

of the sanction of expulsion had Senator Ensign not resigned.

The Committee lost jurisdiction over Senator Ensign because

he resigned his United States Senate seat. The Committee

referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice and

Federal Election Commission for further review.

In 2011, the Committee staff conducted 6 new Member ethics

training sessions; 14 employee code of conduct training

sessions; 15 Member and committee office campaign briefings;

42 ethics seminars for Member DC offices, state offices and

Senate committees; 3 private sector ethics briefings; and 8

international ethics briefings.

In 2011, the Committee staff handled approximately 10,918

telephone inquiries and 1,745 inquiries by email for ethics

advice and guidance.

In 2011, the Committee wrote approximately 800 ethics

advisory letters and responses including, but not limited to,

594 travel and gifts matters (Senate Rule 35) and 104

conflict of interest matters (Senate Rule 37).

In 2011, the Committee issued 4,130 letters concerning

financial disclosure filings by Senators, Senate staff and

Senate candidates and reviewed 1,869 reports.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and artistry of Etta James, the legendary singer and entertainer who moved and delighted music lovers for more than half a century. She died in her hometown of Riverside, CA last week at the age of 73 after a long and valiant battle with leukemia.

Born Jamesetta Hawkins in Los Angeles in 1938, she began singing in the St. Paul Baptist Church choir at age 5 and recorded her first hit record, ``The Wallflower (Roll With Me Henry),'' when she was just 15. Etta James was equally at home singing rhythm & blues classics like ``Something's Got a Hold on Me,'' soulful ballads such as ``All I Could Do Was Cry,'' and passionate love songs including the incomparable ``At Last.''

I was fortunate enough to grow up with her music, dancing to ``The Wallflower'' in high school, ``At Last'' as a newlywed, and ``Tell Mama'' as a young mother. As she continued to tour and record, later generations marveled at her talents, reveled in her exuberant performances, and admired her indomitable spirit.

Through her music, Etta James brought the joys and sorrows of life home to millions of fans all over the world. She will be deeply missed, but her music will live on in our hearts and souls.

On behalf of the people of California, I send my deepest condolences to her husband, Artis Mills; her two sons, Donto and Sametto James; and her four grandchildren.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of James ``Jim'' Capoot--a dedicated husband, proud father, loving son, devoted friend and respected colleague. Officer Capoot lost his life in the line of duty while serving the Vallejo Police Department on November 17, 2011. He was 45 years old.

Jim Capoot was originally from Little Rock, AR, and served in the U.S. Marine Corps and as a California Highway Patrol Officer before joining the Vallejo Police Department in 1992. Officer Capoot was a highly decorated officer having received the Vallejo Police Department Officer of the Year award, the Medal of Merit, the Life Saving Medal, and twice awarded the Medal of Courage. In addition to his work with the Police Department, Officer Capoot was the volunteer coach of the Vallejo High School girls' basketball team and led the team to a section championship in 2010.

Officer Jim Capoot, like all those who serve in law enforcement across California, put his life on the line to protect his community. I extend my deepest condolences to his loving wife Jennifer and three daughters. My thoughts and prayers are with them. We are forever indebted to him for his courage, service and sacrifice.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a dedicated public servant, Officer Mary Ann Donahou of the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department. On the morning of December 30, 2011, while gathering evidence at a crime scene in Hughson, Officer Donahou was tragically killed after being struck by a vehicle.

Officer Donahou was born in Ceres, CA. In 2002, she began her career at the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Office as a booking clerk in the county jail. As her knowledge and love of law enforcement grew, Officer Donahou eventually became a crime scene technician and dutifully served the citizens and communities of Stanislaus County with great commitment, integrity, and valor. Her devotion to helping others, along with her passion for law enforcement, enabled her to become a respected member of the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department.

Those who knew Officer Donahou will always remember her as a caring, kind, and devoted mother, colleague, and friend. She fulfilled her oath as an officer of the law with honor, bravery, and dedication. Her contributions to public safety and commitment to the citizens she served will never be forgotten and will be an example to others who hope to one day protect and serve the public.

I extend my deepest condolences to Officer Donahou's son, Jake Lewis Hassler; her parents, Janice and Robert Pence and Jack and Mary Donahou; and her sisters, Jennifer Horne, Melinda Donahou-Sneed, Lori Donahou and Teresa Brockman.

We shall always be grateful for Officer Donahou's heroic service and the sacrifices she made while serving the community and the people she loved. She will be dearly missed.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and legacy of Warren Hellman, a San Francisco financier, philanthropist, and community leader who died last month at age 77 from complications of leukemia.

In addition to its spectacular beauty, the City of San Francisco is known around the world for its great heart and free spirit, its celebration of diversity, and its charm. In recent years, perhaps no San Franciscan has embodied his beloved city more than Warren Hellman. He was a fantastically successful businessman and investor who liked to dress casually, ride horses, run 100-mile races, and play bluegrass banjo.

Here is how Warren was remembered by the Bay Citizen, the free newspaper he founded when he felt that local news coverage was in decline:

A rugged iconoclast whose views on life rarely failed to

surprise, Hellman was a lifelong Republican who supported

labor unions, an investment banker whose greatest joy was

playing songs of the working class in a bluegrass band, and a

billionaire who wanted to pay more taxes and preferred the

company of crooners and horsemen who shared his love of music

and cross-country `ride and tie' racing.

Warren Hellman was born in New York and raised in San Francisco. He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley and earned an MBA at Harvard Business School. After becoming the youngest director in the history of Lehman Brothers, Warren moved home to California and co- founded the private equity firm of Hellman & Friedman. Though he made a lot of money, he much preferred giving it away. Warren said that money was ``like manure: If you spread it around, good things will grow--and if you pile it up, it just smells bad.''

Among the many institutions Warren helped grow were the San Francisco Free Clinic, the Hellman Fellows Program at UC Berkeley, and his Hardly Strictly Bluegrass festival, where more than half a million people come each year to hear free concerts from top entertainers and from Warren's band, the Wronglers.

He served as chairman and trustee emeritus of The San Francisco Foundation; advisory board member of the Walter A. Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley; trustee of the UC Berkeley Foundation; trustee emeritus of The Brookings Institution; board member of the Committee on JOBS; member of the Board of Directors and Executive Committee of the Jewish Community Federation; chairman of the Jewish Community Endowment Fund; board member of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the Bay Area Council; and chairman of Voice of Dance.

Warren also led many efforts to support civic initiatives in San Francisco, from the underground parking garage that saved two major museums in Golden Gate Park to the broad-based campaign to reform San Francisco's city employee pension system.

On behalf of the people of California, who have benefitted so much from Warren Hellman's great generosity and public sprit, I send my deepest gratitude and condolences to his wife, Patricia Christina ``Chris'' Hellman; son Marco ``Mick'' Hellman; daughters Frances Hellman, Judith Hellman, and Patricia Hellman Gibbs; his sister, Nancy Hellman Bechtle; and his 12 grandchildren. Warren's passing is a great loss to his family, his friends, and the city he loved and served so well.

Mr. President, this year the late Walter and Leonore Annenberg's legendary California estate, Sunnylands, will open its doors to the public as the Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Annenbergs' remarkable legacy and saluting the new institution's noble goals.

Sunnylands was designed and built in the mid-1960s as the Annenbergs' desert home in Rancho Mirage. It served as their winter residence and as a tranquil retreat and meeting place for Presidents of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court Justices, scholars, historians, former diplomats, Governors, State legislators as well as bipartisan coalitions of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Among many other notable guests, President Nixon wrote his 1974 State of the Union speech there, and Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles visited in 1983.

In 2001, the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands was founded to continue Sunnylands' role as a conference center and retreat for national and international leaders to address the world's most pressing concerns. Throughout their lifetimes, Ambassador and Mrs. Annenberg hosted and sponsored a number of solution-driven retreats that fostered positive diplomatic, judicial, and legislative progress.

Now, the new Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands will be available for the President of the United States and the Secretary of State to bring together world leaders to promote and facilitate peaceful international agreements; for the President and the Cabinet, the Supreme Court, and the bipartisan leadership of the Congress to meet to focus on ways to improve the functioning of the three branches of government; and for leaders of major social institutions, such as universities, colleges, public schools, charities, and government agencies, to meet and determine how these institutions might better serve the public good.

I invite all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands for realizing the Annenbergs' dream of creating a world-class center that provides our leaders with an atmosphere to discuss vital issues, promote cooperation, and craft solutions for our Nation and the world.