[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1451-1452]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    DELAY OF JUDICIAL CONFIRMATIONS

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise because I want to point out to 
the people of this country who may be watching this proceeding that 
what has happened tonight on the Senate floor is just ridiculous. 
Senator Bill Nelson--I think he was restrained, frankly. I know him. He 
is a very close friend--was restrained in his comments.
  One Senator is stopping us from being able to ensure that justice is 
done, getting a great judge on the bench. It is sad. It is a historic 
nominee. It is a bipartisan situation with Senators Nelson and Rubio 
together, but it goes beyond this.
  In addition to holding up the Senate and wasting time here--because 
we can't vote on the judge now; we have to wait until hours and hours 
go by--what happens after? We are supposed to be on a highway bill, a 
bill that will protect 1.8 million jobs and create an additional 
million jobs. Mr. President, 2.8 million jobs are hanging in the 
balance.
  We have obstruction from my friends on the Republican side--and they 
are my friends. I don't know what they are doing. I don't know whom 
they think they are helping, but it is not the American people. Whether 
it is standing in the way of this judge or whether it is stopping this 
highway bill, they are hurting America. I want to tell them to wake up 
and smell the roses--we are trying to get out of this recession. This 
is a jobs bill that is just waiting to happen. We have myself and 
Senator Inhofe as partners in this effort. We have Senator Baucus 
working with the Republicans in the Finance Committee. We have Senator 
Johnson working in concert with Senator Shelby on the Banking 
Committee. On the Commerce Committee, we have a few bumps in the road, 
but we are going to straighten those out because Senators Hutchison and 
Rockefeller are working together.
  Why is it that we are doing nothing? Is it because Senators on the 
other side do not want us to move ahead? It is no wonder we have 13 
percent approval from the American people. I will tell you, if they did 
not let our families vote, it would be less. How low can it go? We are 
going to know.
  I have to say we want to get to this highway bill. It also had an 85-
to-11 vote to move forward--an 85-to-11 vote to move forward--and guess 
what the first amendment is. It is not about making sure our highways 
keep up with the demand. It is not about how we can make sure our 
transit systems are functional. It is not about how we make our bridges 
safer. It is about birth control. Excuse me, the first amendment my 
friends on the other side want to offer is about birth control? I honor 
my friends' views on birth control. I personally believe, as the vast 
majority of Americans believe, that it is important women have the 
ability to have their insurance cover contraception. It saves money, it 
saves lives, and it reduces abortions by the tens of thousands. It 
saves insurance companies 15 percent because it avoids so many 
problems. Fifteen percent of the women who use birth control use it for 
non-birth-control reasons, such as helping prevent an ovarian cyst from 
turning into a dangerous situation. They use it to prevent 
endometriosis. They use it to prevent debilitating pain.
  It is a highway bill. I am interested to see what Senator--I have to 
read again what he is offering. I think it is so broad, it says that 
anybody in America--any employer can refuse to offer any part of 
insurance they want if they say it is a religious objection. So let's 
say you are a Christian Scientist and you run a big organization and 
don't believe children should get chemotherapy--and we have had those 
cases. Under the Blunt amendment, I guess you don't have to do it. You 
just say it is a religious objection. It is so sweeping. My point 
tonight is to say that such an amendment does not belong on a highway 
bill. To that end, and I will stop here, we received a letter today: 
``To the Members of the United States Senate.'' This is one of the 
clearest letters I have ever seen. Here is what it says:

       The time is now to pass S. 1813, Moving Ahead for Progress 
     in the 21st Century, the bipartisan highway bill crafted by 
     the Environment and Public Works Committee. Last Thursday 85 
     Senators voted to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to 
     S. 1813, clearly demonstrating bipartisan support for passing 
     the highway and transit bill. While we are encouraged by the 
     show of support, the undersigned organizations are concerned 
     that progress may be impeded if non-germane amendments are 
     offered as part of the deliberations on this bill.

  I love this letter. Listen to what they say.

       The organizations that we represent may hold diverse views 
     on social, energy, and fiscal issues, but we are united in 
     our desire to see immediate action on the Senate's bipartisan 
     highway and transit reauthorization measures.

  This is to every Senator.
  Senators, please listen carefully.

       Therefore, we strongly urge you to abstain from offering 
     nongermane amendments that would impede the passage of this 
     legislation, which is essential to job creation, economic 
     growth and to the long-term stability of vital transportation 
     programs.

  I will read who signed this:
  AAA, the American Association of State Highway and Transit Officials, 
the American Bus Association, American Concrete Association, American

[[Page 1452]]

Council of Engineering Companies, American Highway Users Alliance, 
American Moving and Storage Association, American Public Transportation 
Association, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, 
American Society of Civil Engineers, American Traffic Safety Services 
Association, American Trucking Associations, Associated General 
Contractors of America, Associated Equipment Distributors, Association 
of Equipment Manufacturers, Association of Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, Governors Highway 
Safety Association, Intelligent Transportation Society, International 
Union of Operating Engineers, Motor and Equipment Manufacturers 
Association, the National Asphalt Pavement Association, the National 
Association of Development Organizations, the National Construction 
Alliance II, National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, Portland 
Cement Association, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  Listen, we have to put aside these wedge issues, these ``gotcha'' 
issues. We have the equivalent of 10 Super Bowl stadiums filled with 
unemployed construction workers. We have business after business that 
is struggling.
  This is a bipartisan bill. This will save 1.8 million jobs and create 
an additional 1 million jobs, and we are talking about birth control 
amendments, line-item veto amendments, amendments about foreign policy. 
I have to say to those colleagues of mine, whatever side of the aisle 
they are on--at this time I only know Republican amendments, but anyone 
who comes forward with a nongermane amendment and tries to put it on 
this important bill--let me say this as best I can, either they don't 
care a hoot about jobs for our people or they just want this economy to 
tank for political reasons. Because if we don't pass a highway bill--
and the authorization ends at the end of March--I am going to be blunt 
with you. What is going to happen? Our States are going to start 
shutting down these projects and people will be unemployed and we will 
see reversal in this very delicate economic recovery.
  This is a critical bill, and I am going to be on this floor every 
single day and I am going to be going on my Facebook and I am going to 
be going on Twitter and TV and radio everywhere. Why? To say a very 
simple thing to my colleagues--get out of the way of this jobs bill. 
Get out of the way. All of America supports it, from the left to the 
right, to the center and everything in between.
  I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I have filed Amendment No. 1536 
to the pending surface transportation reauthorization bill. This 
amendment is also supported by Senator Boxer.
  This amendment would change the railcar procurement rules to allow 
transit systems to contract for delivery of railcars for up to 5 years 
from the date of delivery of the first railcar.
  Current law requires the purchase of buses and railcars to be 
completed within 5 years of the date the contract is signed, not the 
date of the first delivery.
  So this amendment would give transit operators the chance to sign 
larger and more cost effective contracts, which in some cases can save 
substantial money.
  The current rules do not make sense for rail operators. They are 
designed to stimulate competition among manufacturers, and they prevent 
transit agencies from locking themselves into contracts for outdated 
buses in a market that is constantly evolving and advancing 
technologically.
  But these rules do not recognize the reality of purchasing and 
producing railcars.
  A light rail system's car designs must maintain a basic design for 
compatibility reasons, so rules designed to promote innovative design 
have little benefit.
  But by forcing the transit rail agency to buy cars with the same 
basic design in two orders instead of one, these rules almost certainly 
increase total costs. It may also lead to the purchase of different 
models from two different orders, increasing maintenance costs in the 
future.
  For instance, the Bay Area Rapid Transit System, or BART, is 
replacing its entire fleet of 669 railcars and buying an additional 106 
for an expansion project.
  BART's railcars have been in use for about 50 years, and they have 
become too costly to maintain. It is clearly time that they be 
replaced.
  The current 5 year procurement rule, however, would force BART to 
issue two small procurements, instead of one large one.
  BART estimates this will cost taxpayers and transit riders $325 
million and they will buy the same number of cars either way.
  This amendment would allow transit agencies like BART to sign one 
single contract, to purchase in bulk, and to save money for strapped 
systems.
  Buying in bulk means cheaper flooring, seats, and all other component 
parts needed to build a railcar. BART also risks increased prices of 
component parts between contracts.
  This amendment empowers transit systems to apply lessons learned from 
the airline industry in order to make transit more efficient and less 
costly.
  As BART has pointed out in their letter on this amendment, Southwest 
Airlines is their model.
  Southwest flies only Boeing 737s, making it the lowest cost 
maintenance system in the country. BART wants a single railcar design, 
to bring about the same type of savings.
  BART hopes to purchase one model and keep their maintenance costs low 
as well.
  The bottom line is this amendment gets Federal rules out of the way 
of transit agencies that want to use their market power.
  It helps transit get the best possible price when purchasing 
equipment.
  It stretches limited Federal dollars much, much further.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ensure that 
taxpayers' money is used in an efficient manner. During these critical 
economic times, every cent of the people's money should be spent 
wisely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________