[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1513-1514]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      MEETING TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we all know the inconvenience of a few 
potholes as we drive down the street. It is an inconvenience. But for 
companies that ship $10 trillion worth of goods across the country 
every year, these disintegrating roads are more than an inconvenience 
or more than a nuisance.
  A crowded train ride to an office or a broken escalator at a station 
where someone is trying to pick up a subway--or what we call here 
Metro--may be a hassle, but for 51 million Americans who have 
disabilities, most of whom rely on some type of public transportation 
to get around, outdated stations and overcrowded trains are more than a 
minor inconvenience.
  Mr. President, this country's deteriorating infrastructure is 
something we should be very concerned about. This great Nation of ours 
has an infrastructure that is falling apart. Our highways, our 
roadways, our bridges, our dams, and railways are more than an 
inconvenience; they are a drain on our economy. Twenty percent of 
America's roads don't meet safety standards.
  As the Chair heard me say yesterday when I talked about some of these 
issues, 70,000 bridges need to be replaced or overhauled. We have 
bridges in America, I am told, where schoolbuses stop when they get to 
the bridge, have the kids walk across the bridge, then the bus comes 
across without the kids in it, and then off they go. They do this 
because they are afraid the bridge will collapse.
  Our public transportation system simply can't keep up with the pace 
of growing ridership. Nine out of ten Americans say rebuilding our 
crumbling roads and bridges is important--90 percent. Democrats in the 
Senate agree. Modernizing our transit system--rebuilding the roads 
American families and businesses depend upon--will help fuel our 
economy.
  The legislation now before the Senate is too important to be bogged 
down with unrelated ideological amendments. Senate Republicans should 
not divert this bill to try to take away women's access to health care 
services such as contraception--something we have been dealing with 
over the last week--or mammograms and other cancer screenings.
  Late last night we were told one of the Republican Senators wants to 
offer an amendment that deals with something totally unrelated to this 
bill, dealing with the country of Egypt. A debate on Egypt may be the 
right thing to do, but shouldn't we maybe start in the Foreign 
Relations Committee? Maybe we should start there. TV cameras can be 
there, and then it would not hold up this Transportation bill that is 
so important.
  This bill will create or save 2 million jobs. It has broad bipartisan 
support. I have said here before, and I say it again, I so admire and 
respect and appreciate the work done by Senator Boxer and Senator 
Inhofe on this bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, our Republican House 
colleagues have gone in the direct opposite direction. They have a bill 
that is a love note to the tea party. The House bill didn't get a 
single Democratic vote in committee, for reasons that are very clear, 
obviously. The Senate bill, on the other hand, passed out of committee 
unanimously. Even some Republicans don't support the House bill and the 
way it is paid for--drilling in ANWR. Mr. President, that issue has a 
beard that has turned white it is so outdated--drilling in ANWR.
  Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood--although a Member of President 
Obama's Cabinet, he was a long-time Republican Congressman from 
Illinois--said the House legislation is the worst Transportation bill 
he has seen in the 35 years he has been in public service. That is our 
Secretary of Transportation, a Republican.
  There are lots of reasons, but here are a few: The House legislation 
would gut public health and environmental protections, and that is a 
gross understatement. It would ax funding for pedestrian safety even 
though a pedestrian is injured or killed by a car in this country every 
7 minutes. It would starve our Nation's public transportation system. 
The House bill reverses 30 years of good policy of dedicating funding 
each year for mass transit--a policy enacted in 1982 by the 
ultraliberal Ronald Reagan. There are ads on radio and television where 
we see President Reagan speaking, as he did so well, on one of his 
signature issues, which was doing something about the transportation 
system in this country. Maybe someone had read something to him or told 
him about General Eisenhower and how much he believed the 
transportation system should keep moving forward.
  Many House Republicans don't support the plan to shortchange millions

[[Page 1514]]

of Americans. I don't understand why seniors and people with 
disabilities, who count on public transportation, should be hurt by 
what the House has done in the bill they have over there.
  The Chamber of Commerce and AARP have come out against the drastic 
approach taken by the House bill. On the other hand, the U.S. Chamber 
and hundreds of other organizations support the Boxer-Inhofe bill. I am 
disappointed House Republicans have once again chosen this very 
partisan path. Rebuilding a transportation system our economy can rely 
on shouldn't be divisive. Given the choice between working with 
Democrats to create good-paying jobs for American workers and playing 
politics, House Republicans chose politics, and that is too bad. The 
bill before the Senate is a good bill; we need to pass it. I am very 
disappointed the House has taken the road that has recently been well 
traveled. That is what we get from the House--the same old stuff--and 
we have to change.

                          ____________________