[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2084-2085]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1813, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1813) to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and 
     highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 1633, of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 1634 (to amendment No. 1633), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works, with instructions, Reid 
     amendment No. 1635, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 1636 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 1635), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 1637 (to amendment No. 1636), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote 
no on cloture on Senator Reid's amendment No. 1633 to the highway bill. 
The bill we are getting ready to vote on puts the other titles into the 
highway bill from the Commerce Committee, Finance Committee, and 
Banking Committee.
  I am going to object on the grounds that the Commerce Committee title 
is not the title that should be included in this bill. What happened is 
that there was a partisan amendment that was added to a markup very 
late that the minority had not had a chance to work out before it went 
to the markup. We thought it wasn't going on the markup, but it did go 
on the markup before we were able to have the input and work it in a 
better way, which has been our usual position in the Commerce 
Committee.
  The bill would create an unfunded, unlimited discretionary grant 
program that has divided the transportation community. It will add a 
new Assistant Secretary for Freight Planning and Development and a 
whole new office in the Department of Transportation. This is a part of 
the bill that certainly none of the Republicans can support, and it 
caused a party-line vote in the Commerce Committee.
  Additionally, the bill that will be before us contains provisions 
that would create two new programs within the Research and Innovative 
Technology Administration that would cost taxpayers $28 million 
annually to administer, and the CBO estimates the underlying bill would 
cost $615 million for 10 years including these two new programs. That 
would be about double what the levels are for this program in today's 
terms. So the next 10 years would have been at $318 million if we had 
kept it at static levels, which we are doing in most other parts of the 
highway bill. Instead, the bill we are voting on today would more than 
double that to $615 million over the next 10 years for RITA.
  We don't have to have this kind of partisan effort on the bill. Our 
Commerce Committee has been very good at bipartisan work. I see the 
Senator from California on the floor who has worked in a bipartisan way 
with the Senator from Oklahoma on the underlying bill. But the Commerce 
bill that came out was not bipartisan.
  We have worked hard with Senator Rockefeller and we have informed all 
of our Members on both sides to get a consensus, and we got one. We got 
a consensus that would have taken the Freight Act part of it that set 
policies for new freight studies--we did that. That part would be in 
the compromise bill. It keeps the funding in line with current levels 
in the Research and Innovative Transportation Administration. But those 
compromise provisions that Senator Rockefeller and all of our staffs of 
the whole committee worked on are not in the bill we are voting on 
today.
  We worked together relating to the importation of motor vehicles and 
equipment in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
reauthorization bill. It would stop unsafe equipment from entering our 
ports. We worked hard to put forward language that provides inspectors 
the right tools while at the same time minimizing unnecessary costs and 
burdens on equipment manufacturers. Again, the modifications are in the 
bill that we agreed

[[Page 2085]]

to with the majority in the Commerce Committee, but they are not in the 
bill that came out of the committee and the bill that is on the floor 
today.
  The first package of reported bills did not contain a rail title at 
all. So if the bill that is before us today is accepted and cloture is 
invoked, we will have a Senate highway bill that does not have a rail 
provision. We will go to conference without a Senate position on a rail 
provision, which the House has.
  Senator Rockefeller and I have worked together on this rail part. We 
have worked with all of the stakeholders in the rail industry as well 
as Amtrak, and we have come forward with a bill the Republicans support 
and most of the Democrats support on the committee. It will lead to 
better rail planning at the Department of Transportation, and it will 
enhance rail economic regulation on the Surface Transportation Board. 
The rail title would also allow the commuter and freight rails to apply 
for extensions for implementation of positive train control on an as-
needed basis, and it directs the DOT to use the 2015 route map to 
implement positive train control, as Congress intended when it passed 
its law in 2008.
  All of these important policy gains will be lost if we adopt the 
cloture vote today. I hope my colleagues will vote no on cloture so we 
can put the provisions that have been agreed to on a bipartisan basis 
in the bill so that the Commerce title will reflect the full Commerce 
Committee, rather than what came out that had not been fully vetted and 
is not the position of the full Commerce Committee, with Republicans 
and Democrats together. I hope we will have that chance to put the new 
version together that would include the compromises that have been made 
on a bipartisan basis.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield? And I ask unanimous consent that 
she have an additional 60 seconds.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I just wanted to make the point that I think Senator 
Hutchison has been probably one of the most productive members of the 
Commerce Committee I have ever seen. I have been on that committee for 
a very long time. Her relationship with Senator Rockefeller is stellar. 
I too believe she makes a point when she says they have continued to 
work together since the bill was reported out and they have come to 
agreement.
  So I guess my question is, as someone who has given flesh, blood, 
sweat, and tears on this highway bill, knowing that we have a couple of 
these bumps in the road, should we not invoke cloture today--I 
personally hope we do, and we can fix the bill, but if we don't--and if 
Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison are able to take their work 
and put that in as a substitute, would my friend be back on board here 
working toward completion of this bill?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If I understand the question of the Senator from 
California, if we can substitute at some point the compromise language 
in the Commerce title, I am going to be absolutely supportive of this 
bill because I trust Senator Rockefeller. We have worked together. We 
have both given. He doesn't like parts of this bill, I don't like parts 
of it, but we have given.
  I would say the Senator from California has done a stellar job with 
the Senator from Oklahoma on the underlying bill. Oh my gosh, what a 
complicated bill. The Senator from California is the chairman, the 
ranking member is from Oklahoma, and they have worked for the good of 
America on this bill. The Banking Committee has a bipartisan title. I 
believe there is a compromise coming forward in the Finance Committee. 
I am not familiar with that, but I know the compromise title of the 
Commerce Committee has been worked through fully with everybody on 
board, and it will be acceptable, I believe, to the whole Senate.
  So I think we are just a little premature today. I think we need to 
stop cloture. I think we need to make the changes that are required, 
and I think this bill will sail in the future.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, pursuant 
to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid amendment 
     No. 1633 to S. 1813, a bill to reauthorize Federal-aid 
     highway and highway safety construction programs, and for 
     other purposes.
         Harry Reid, John D. Rockefeller IV, Kay R. Hagan, Patrick 
           J. Leahy, Patty Murray, Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Herb Kohl, Ben Nelson, Jeff Bingaman, 
           Jeanne Shaheen, Barbara A. Mikulski, Jack Reed, Max 
           Baucus, Frank R. Lautenberg, Robert Menendez, Maria 
           Cantwell.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 1633, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to S. 
1813, a bill to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety 
construction programs, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Bingaman) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and 
the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bingaman
     Kirk
     Roberts
     Vitter
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the 
nays are 42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Under the previous order, the motion to recommit and amendment No. 
1633 are withdrawn.

                          ____________________