Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I am confused a little bit because didn't the minority get extra time? Did they not get extra time?

Mrs. BOXER. Well, I would ask consent that I have an additional 5 minutes on the 16.

Mrs. BOXER. So, Madam President, I think it is very important that we understand what we are trying to do here. The Senator from Alaska said it has been a good debate. Yes, it has been a good debate, but let me tell you what is not good. What is not good is that Big Oil is getting corporate welfare. Big Oil is ripping us off at the pump. They never had greater profits. We are being asked to sacrifice and pay more at the pump because of instability in the world, because of problems with the refineries, even though we have never drilled as much as we are drilling now. Big Oil exports our oil now. We have never had as many exports as we have now. Big Oil gets billions of dollars of subsidies, so big that I would tell you, $2 billion a year in U.S. tax breaks. Let me tell you, to explain how that compares to something we do that is very near and dear to my heart and to every mother and father, grandma, grandpa, or aunt and uncle, we put about $1 billion a year into afterschool programs, and we have millions of children waiting--$1 billion a year on afterschool programs while we give away $2 billion a year to the most, shall we say, successful companies in America. I want to show you what I am talking about because I don't want people to think this is rhetoric. These are the facts. When my Republican colleagues come on the floor and defend these profits, let's talk about what they are. Now, remember, we have been in a deep recession for several years now. Remember that President Obama and we had to confront the loss of 800,000 jobs a month. Now, thank goodness, he has turned it around--we have turned it around. It is still not good enough but we were in the worst situation. During that time, small businesses went out of business. People lost their homes. If it were not for the leadership of the President, we would have lost the auto industry in America. Thank you, Mr. President, for saving the auto industry in America. Thank you for that. I was proud to vote for that even though I had a lot of problems with the auto industry not moving quickly enough to fuel efficient cars. Now they are doing a great job with it. During that time when Americans were suffering, we were bleeding all these jobs and even now, just getting back on our feet, what has happened to Big Oil while they have raised our prices at the pump? In 2009, all the five oil companies made $64 billion. In 2010, Big Oil made $76 billion, and in 2011 they made a whopping $137 billion. So they went from $64 billion in 2009 to $137 billion in 2011, and my Republican colleagues are crying bitter tears for them. Oh, let's keep giving them that $2 billion a year. Why would we do that when we are sacrificing and our constituents are paying more at the pump and Big Oil is profiting from it? There is no reason for this kind of increase at the pump. There is no reason for it. Look at what is going on here. If they made the normal profits, we could have some relief at the pump. But, oh, no. So now the Republicans are going to reward them by allowing them to keep these subsidies. That started a long time ago. That started in the 1980s, most of it, because we wanted to help them get moving. How much more do they have to earn before we say they can get off corporate welfare? You talk about welfare queens, here it is. And my Republican friends defend giving these people, who have ripped us off at the pump, billions of dollars of subsidies. They are exporting the oil they recover here. They will not keep it in the country. We had a proposal for the XL Pipeline to keep the oil in the country. My friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it. They don't care, they just want these companies to have their way, to do with it what they want. If they want to send our oil to China, fine, that is what they want. But they also want to keep their subsidies. It is not right. I want to see these subsidies done with and I want to see us invest in alternatives to these big oil companies that hold us by the throat. I want to have alternatives. I have been all over this country looking at the alternatives we are developing now. We know, for example, in Brazil they use sugar cane to create their gasoline and they are completely free from imported oil. That is the kind of thing we need to do. I am fortunate that I drive a hybrid vehicle and I get 50 miles to the gallon, so I don't go in for gas that often. But when you go in there, it is a shock. We want to have cars--let them be big cars. If people need that for their families, I understand it. I have grandkids. I know what it is to put your grandkids in a small car. It is hard. We need to have larger cars. They need to be fuel efficient. We are going to get there. We are getting there already. Isn't it better to take that money away from people who are ripping us off at the pump, away from the corporate welfare queens here, and put it into alternatives so our people are no longer victims to their prices? That is the fight we are having. That is the debate we are having. On the other side they say drill, baby, drill. You know what, I am for drilling where it makes sense. Do you know how many acres the oil companies are holding now that they have not drilled upon? It is pretty amazing. My friends say open the Arctic to drilling--a precious environment, God-given, placed in a refuge by I believe it was Dwight Eisenhower. They want to go in there and ravage it. Why don't they drill on their nonproducing acres? It looks like 75 million nonproducing acres, onshore and offshore, on which they hold leases. Oh, no, that is not good enough for them. They are only drilling on 25 percent of the leases they hold, of the acreage they hold in those leases. How about ``use it or lose it,'' instead of ``drill, baby, drill''? Drill, baby, drill in here. Don't go into the coast of California where they want to go, or Washington, or Oregon, where we have fishing, tourism, recreation. There are so many people here to whom I listen who make the arguments for the oil companies. I am so tired of it. How about speaking up for the American people who are getting brutalized at the pump? How about speaking up for the people who make their living off of a beautiful, pristine environment? Oh, by the way, many jobs in my State, over 400,000 jobs, are related to a pristine coastline, and they don't care about that on the other side. They want to open it, push these people out of the way and create a few jobs--because there are far fewer jobs created from drilling. As President Obama has said many times, and the other side gets rankled: We only have 2 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and we use about 20 percent of the energy. You do the math, as the President said. You could drill in your grandmother's bathtub, you could drill in the Great Lakes, you could drill anywhere you want--you are not going to find enough oil. So let's get off foreign oil, let's tell the oil companies to drill, baby, drill where they have the acres and let's look at these prices and let's understand--we will look at it again--the profits of Big Oil. They are crying all the way to the bank, as my dad used to say. Look at this. In the height of the recession they are making record profits and crying to keep their subsidies and my Republican friends are crying right along: Oh, here, have a tissue. We are so sorry for you, even though we have to turn away millions of children from afterschool programs because we do not have more than $1 billion to spend on it. They are giving away $2 billion a year. That is just one example. I hope we vote for the Menendez bill. I hope we vote tomorrow on that, to stop the filibuster, to vote it up or down. What a message of hope it will send to the American people, that we are willing to stand up to the biggest powers that be, that we are willing to fight for the average American, that we are not in the pockets of Big Oil. You don't need to give American taxpayer dollars to Big Oil. It is absolutely ridiculous. We don't have to allow them to drill in pristine areas when they will not even drill in areas that they have had under lease for years. And let's stop them from exporting the oil. We need it. Let's keep it here. By the way, if they keep on ripping us off like this and getting rewarded for it from my Republican friends, let's release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and let's increase the supply and let's see prices go down. Let's look at the CEOs of Big Oil for a minute, these poor guys who are fighting for the subsidies. Let's look at them. CEOs for the big five made more than $14.5 million in total compensation in 2010. This is it, average compensation. That is 307 times the average salary of a firefighter; that is 273 times the average salary of a teacher; that is 263 times the average salary of a policeman; that is 218 times the average salary of a nurse. But they need subsidies for their companies and they need to rip us off at the pump so they can make a little more money--$14.5 million isn't enough for a poor oil company executive. Give me a break. And stop giving them a break because they don't need this break. We have an opportunity to stand for what is right and I hope we take it. Right now we want alternatives to Big Oil. We want competition for Big Oil. We want to be able to become energy independent. So let's stop these taxpayer handouts. The oil companies do not need them. Let's start investing in America's energy future which, by the way, that kind of investment creates many jobs at a time that we need to do that. Health Care I want to switch topics here for the remainder of my time and talk a minute about health care and then close with a little bit about the highway bill over in the House and the struggle over there to get their work done. I ask how many minutes I have left.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Chair advise me when I have 2 minutes remaining.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, we all are watching what the Supreme Court is going to do in terms of the health care bill they have before them. What I want to do today is completely stay away from that argument and talk about what the health care bill is doing now, right now as we speak, because people tend to get involved in mandates, and if it is constitutional, and how does it work and so on. I want to talk about what the Obama health care plan is doing for my people at home, your people back home, and the people of this country right now. As we stand here today, over 5 million seniors have saved more than $3 billion on their prescription drugs. The way it worked before this bill was passed, you would use up a certain amount of money and then you would fall into this coverage gap that they call a doughnut hole, and just when you are at your sickest point, you get no help. A lot of our seniors were not taking their medicines at that critical point because they could not afford the full cost; they were cutting the pills in half and praying. It was a sad situation. Because of health care reform, we have these seniors being able to keep their medications flowing. Last year in my State, 300,000 seniors were able to save $171 million in their costs. Let's look at that again. As a result of Obama health care, which I proudly supported, already 5 million senior citizens are able to afford their prescription drugs--your mother, your father, your grandma, your grandpa. That is important. What is going to happen to these people if this whole thing gets overturned? They will get sick and they will not have those medications. In addition, what else is happening--2.5 million young Americans are now covered because they can stay on their parents' health plan until they turn 26. Without this law, when you graduated from college you were out of luck, and you had to find your own health care. The Obama plan said you should be able to stay on your parents' health plan until you turn 26. I cannot tell you how many people have written to me to thank me for that. So over there in the Supreme Court they are talking about legalese, and I appreciate that. They are talking about severability, and they are talking about a lot of interesting things. One thing I want to talk about is what is going to happen to 5 million senior citizens who are able to stay on their medication as a result of the Obama health plan. What is going to happen to the 2.5 million Americans who are young who can stay on their parents' plan until they are 26 if something happens over there across the street in terms of this legal case? In California 335,000 Californians have benefited from that young person being able to stay on their parents' insurance provision. What is going to happen to 54 million Americans who now have access to free preventive care, such as screenings for colon cancer, mammograms, and flu shots? This is new, folks. Before we didn't get free prevention. We had to pay a copayment. I have to tell you, as I lived my life and I have seen the tragedy of cancer, I have learned very clearly that if you take care of yourself and have mammograms and colon cancer screenings, your life can be saved. What is going to happen to 54 million Americans who have that preventive care now if the Supreme Court strikes it down? Out of that 54 million, 6 million Californians have gotten these screenings and vaccinations. I will close with health care on this story. I don't know how many people realize this, but before the Obama health care plan there were caps on insurance policies. Maybe they were a million-dollar cap or a half-million-dollar cap. Before I had different insurance, I had a cap on my husband's policy. What happened at that time is, if you used up enough health care, you were finished at a certain point. I want to tell you the story of Julie Walters of Nevato, CA. She wrote to me last year about her 3-year-old daughter Violet who suffers from a severe form of epilepsy. She wrote that Violet could hit her lifetime limit in 5 years. So here is a little baby who is reaching her lifetime limit, and her mom wrote: A lifetime limit on insurance is a limit on Violet's lifetime, and that is immoral. Because of health care reform, there is no longer a lifetime limit. So I wanted to point this out and so many other things that are totally essential to our people that are at stake across the street. Surface Transportation Act In closing, before we reach our full time, I want to call on the House to take up and pass the Senate Transportation bill. There are 3 million jobs at risk. They cannot get their act together. Allow a vote on the bipartisan Transportation bill and then leave for your vacation. But don't just give us these extensions which are, frankly, death by 1,000 cuts. We already know of six or seven States--including those in the Northeast--that are laying people off because they don't have certainty with the Transportation bill. So I thank you very much. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for allowing me to finish. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds, and then I will turn it over to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. So in Michigan it is the same story: 3,500 jobs. So I am saying to the House today--and I encourage my colleagues to-- and I know the Senator from New Hampshire is here and she is going to speak a little bit later about this--come to the floor with stories about their States. These extensions are dangerous and they will lose jobs. Tell the House to pass the bipartisan Senate bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to thank my friend from Minnesota. Her leadership when she was on the Environment and Public Works Commission was amazing. We miss her leadership there. She is working so hard on other committees, but she still carries in her heart the great understanding that if anything is bipartisan around here, it is the highway bill and the transportation programs. We proved it here. So I thank the Senator. I wish to talk a little bit about Big Oil and this crying about Big Oil by my Republican friends here, and then I am going to segue to the battle to pass a transportation bill and the 3 million jobs that hang in the balance. First, I have to say that I listened very hard to the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, talk about what a useless thing it is to try to say to Big Oil, which has had these big subsidies for so long, decade after decade, starting when they were young companies--what a terrible thing it would be to take away those subsidies, billions of dollars, when they are making multibillion dollars and they are robbing us at the pump, pocketing the profit. We would like to see that money be used for alternative fuels, for energy-efficient cars so that we don't have to worry so much if the price of gas goes up a penny. If we are getting 50 to 60 miles to a gallon--I drive a hybrid car, and I don't visit the gas station that often because we get about 50 miles to the gallon, so the shocks that come with the increase in gas are a little bit muted. But here is the story. Americans have made sacrifices. They are paying more at the pump. They are told by Big Oil: We are so sorry that Americans have to pay more at the pump because there is instability in the world. Americans have to pay more at the pump because our refineries are down, and we are really sorry. What they don't say is that they are exporting the oil they find in America to other countries. What they don't tell us is that they are pocketing the profits we are paying for. They are pocketing the profits. In 2010 the five biggest oil companies made $80 billion among them. In 2011 they made $140 billion among them. So no one can stand here--not even the esteemed Republican leader--and tell me that Big Oil is making sacrifices just like ordinary Americans. The people who are running away with our money that we are paying at the pump are Big Oil and the speculators on Wall Street who are playing around with the instability in the Middle East on commodity futures trading. So if you want to do something, let's take away those subsidies from these big oil companies that are making life miserable for the American people. But, no, our friends on the other side put up a fight, and they cite a couple of folks on our side who agree with them because they come from big oil States. I understand that. Let's stand up for the American people. Another way we can stand up for the American people is to speak with one voice and ask the House to take up the Senate bipartisan Transportation bill that passed this Senate overwhelmingly. The clock is ticking toward a shutdown, and extensions are dangerous. So my story on the Transportation bill is a beautiful story of compromise, working together here in the Senate, and a very ugly story about what the House is doing, which is dithering around, playing with fire. And I am telling everyone that extensions are death by a thousand cuts. They think they can just send over an extension and feel they have done their job. Well, let me say that what we found out today from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO-- these are folks who are on the ground in our States. Today I spoke to the departments of transportation from North Carolina, Nevada, Maryland, and Michigan. I think most people know I represent California, and I will be back with all of the details. Senator Feinstein is talking to the transportation officials today. But the reason I am talking about these four States is because they have already calculated the job losses that have already begun because the House is dithering and will not pass our bipartisan Transportation bill. North Carolina, which is not a blue State--I spoke to Gene Conti, the secretary of the North Carolina Department of Transportation today, and what he said was that he has delayed the remaining 2012 project awards, which total $1.2 billion in projects and employ 41,000 people. The House is right down the hall. I had the honor of serving there. I hope they are hearing this while they debate an extension. An extension of this program is not benign. An extension of this program is damaging. An extension of this program means job losses--41,000 in North Carolina. I spoke with Scott Rawlins today, who is the deputy director and chief engineer of the Nevada Department of Transportation. He said he is holding up advertising for federally funded projects until there is a reauthorization bill committing Federal funds. He is required to slow down the development of future projects. He will not execute consultant agreements without reauthorization. And right now, today, AASHTO, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, tells me that 4,000 jobs are at risk in Nevada. What the Nevada people tell me is that in the good old days when they were in a boom, the State could come forward and take these extensions in stride. They had the funding to front-load their projects and not worry about the Federal reimbursement. They thought that reimbursement would come. A, they are very worried about reimbursement, and B, because of the recession that has hit some of our States very hard because of the construction slowdown in housing, they do not have the funds to fast-forward any of these projects. So North Carolina has 41,000 jobs at risk, and Nevada has 4,000 jobs at risk. I spoke to Caitlin Rayman in Maryland. She talked about the uncertainty, and she went into four or five different things she is trying to do now that she cannot do. It is because the House is dithering and they won't take up the bipartisan Senate bill and pass it. So 4,000 jobs are at risk in Maryland because projects are being delayed. I spoke to the director in Michigan, Kirk Steudle. He said several large construction projects have to be delayed.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to yield in just 2 minutes because I know Senator Sanders is here. I really feel I need to respond because it is very important to note that under the leadership of President Obama--for decades we did not drill as much as we have drilled now. We have more wells pumping than at any time in recent memory. I think it is an important point. Of course, we are not going to drill off the coast of some of our precious areas because we have to support the fishing industry, we have to support the recreation industry, the tourism industry. But all this argument about drill, baby, drill and we will solve everything does not work because we threaten jobs when we go to certain areas that are pristine and very important sources of economic income for our States. Plus, if you ask my colleagues on the other side, they will not support keeping the oil in America--they will not--and we are exporting more oil than we ever have before. So this thing gets very interesting when we look at it. Still, in all, the big oil companies--as we all make our sacrifices at the pump-- are bringing in record, record, record profits. They ask us to make sacrifices because there is instability in the world, but they are pocketing those increases. Yet our Republican friends cry bitter tears because we want to suggest that subsidies they got decades ago--kept on undisturbed billions of dollars--we would like to see those funds go into making it easier for America's families to be able to buy more fuel-efficient cars, to be able to find alternative fuels, et cetera, et cetera. When I come back to the floor after this discussion on the postal reform, I am going to talk more about the highway bill. The House is about to vote on a 60-day extension. Let me tell you, that is dangerous. I hope colleagues over there will not do that because, I have to tell you, every day we extend the highway trust fund for a short period of time, we lose jobs, and we need certainty. I am happy to yield the floor at this time.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before they leave the floor, I thank Senator Coons and Senator Begich and Senator Shaheen for the very important words they gave today on behalf of the House taking up and passing the bipartisan Senate Transportation bill. It is interesting to know we also have the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, speaking out in favor of the House picking up and passing the Senate bipartisan bill. I also served as a county supervisor a long time ago, but I think we all understand that what we do here makes a difference. This is one Nation under God, indivisible. There cannot be a circumstance where one State puts their own funding from their State into highways but the State next door does nothing. They cannot have commerce. That is why I thought Dwight Eisenhower, when he was a Republican President in the 1950s, said it well. He was a logistics expert. He is the one who started the National Highway System. He knew from his experience in war that you have to move goods and people. He also knew, in his role as President, that in order to have a strong economy, we have to do the same thing here at home. For me to see this House dither as they are doing--they are dithering on a bill. All they have to do is take up the bipartisan bill. For goodness sake, they have three-quarters of the Senate to support it, and all we need is 218 votes. When I served in the House for 10 years, what did I learn? You needed 218 votes. Tip O'Neill never cared where he got his votes, he just got the votes for the American people. So I have written letters to Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor, and I have begged them to please work with us on this bill, and all we get back are statements from their staff, saying: Well, we are going to do it our way. As Congresswoman Pelosi, the Democratic leader, said today: When you say my way or the highway about the highway bill, you don't get much done. I also wanted to thank Senator Klobuchar. She also held office at the State level. She was a district attorney, and she understands what happens when the Federal Government, State government, local government, all work together for jobs, and that is what this bill is about. So I am going to call today on the House to immediately take up and pass the bipartisan Boxer-Inhofe bill. I am going to ask them to abandon their goal of a series of extensions. When someone goes to buy a house, they need a mortgage. Maybe it will be a 10-year mortgage, 15-, 20-, or a 30-year mortgage. If the banker looked at them and said, We can only give you a mortgage for 30 or 60 days, it would be very difficult, to put it mildly. It is disruptive. You don't know how to plan, you don't know what it is going to cost, you don't know if you are ever going to get the money for the house. So the House, by taking up these extensions, has to understand the impact. Today I called a press conference to let the press know what the impact is of these extensions. The extension means job losses. We started to put together a list that is coming to us from the States of job losses already happening in the field because of the lack of action by the House. I spoke to the Secretary of Transportation in North Carolina today. He has delayed the remaining 2012 projects totaling $1.2 billion that would employ 41,000 people. So 41,000 people do not have work, as we speak today, because the House is dithering and not passing the bipartisan Senate Transportation bill. I spoke to the officials in Nevada. As we speak, thousands of jobs have been lost there because the House is considering an extension instead of passing a bill such as our bill. I spoke to the officials in Maryland. Same thing, thousands of jobs. I spoke to the officials in Michigan. Same thing. Right now we are putting together a list from all across the country of job losses in all of our States as a result of the House failing to take up and pass the bipartisan Senate bill. What more bipartisanship do they need than to have 75 Senators support the bill? One of them was absent due to a funeral. So we have 74 votes for it and 22 against it. What more do they want? Anyone watching the Senate today sees how paralyzed we are. We have not been able to do a thing. There are filibusters on fixing the post offices. There are filibusters on making sure that Big Oil doesn't keep ripping off consumers at the pump. Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster, filibuster. But we were able to get over all of that and pass a transportation bill. Why wouldn't the House be thrilled about that? Why wouldn't the House embrace what we did? Why would the House instead stand up again today and say, We are going to have a 60- day extension. Guess what. They pulled it. They are not having a vote on that today because of the uproar it is creating in the States and on the House floor. The House has not delivered on its promise for a bill. All the leadership does is complain about our bill. Today--I couldn't believe it--Chairman Mica said this bill is not paid for. Senator Baucus, Senator Thune, and others worked across party lines to pay for our bill. It is 100 percent paid for. And guess what it does. It protects 1.9 million jobs and creates another million. That is what our bill does. So they are pulling this vote. They are pulling this vote today. Good. I am glad they are pulling this vote because they ought to instead pass the bipartisan Senate Transportation bill. I want to tell you a story about what is actually happening out there in the economy. If we do nothing, 1.9 million jobs are gone on March 31. If we do an extension, then you have death by a thousand cuts, a proportion of these jobs is lost, and it keeps getting worse with every extension. So it is the end of these jobs, a slow torturous end of these jobs. I want to show how many unemployed construction workers there are-- 1.4 million. Why is that? When the unemployment rate is 8.3 percent, the unemployment rate among construction workers is 17.1 percent. Why is that? Because we were having a very tough housing crisis, and we are not out of it yet. So all of these workers who were building houses now were hoping to be able to build highways, build freeways, and fix bridges. And our bill does that. Our bill will take these people and put them to work. We could get this unemployment rate down to 400,000 because we will take a million off this with the expansion of the TIFIA Program, which stands for Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, which gives the money upfront for cities and States and gets projects built faster. I want to show you what it would look like if you put every unemployed construction worker into a football stadium. This is a Super Bowl stadium, and it is filled. Imagine each and every one of these seats is filled by an unemployed construction worker, and then close your eyes and imagine 13 more stadiums for a total of 14 stadiums. Fourteen stadiums full of unemployed construction workers, that is what we are facing. Yet, the House will not take up and pass the bipartisan Transportation bill. They are flirting with extensions, which is the end of these jobs, but slower and more excruciating. We talked about jobs, but we have to talk about businesses. These jobs are private sector jobs, and these businesses--over 11,000 of them--are construction companies that would be adversely impacted. I met with business owners. One man was teary eyed. He said, Senator, I have had to lay off 1,000 people because of the indecision here, because of the constant extensions we have had on the highway bill. We need your bill now. I said I understood. He said, I cannot look at another worker. He said, Extensions are like living hand to mouth. It doesn't work. If you know, again, that all you are going to get is 90 days' worth of Federal funding, how can you let a contract for a year? No one is going to go out and let a contract for 90 days for a big program that lasts for a year or a year-and-a-half of construction. So we just have to remember we are not just talking about workers; we are talking about the businesses that support those workers. I am going to show my colleagues a series of editorials. They have run in red States. They have run in blue States. They have run in purple States. I am going to make a statement, and I am going to stand by it: Everyone in America gets this except the House of Representatives. Everyone in America gets this except the Republicans in the House of Representatives, save a few of them who are courageous. Four of them have broken off--one of them from the Presiding Officer's home State, two of them from Illinois, and one of them from North Carolina. They said: We stand with those who say take up and pass the Senate bipartisan bill. Good for them for showing that kind of courage. I say to my colleagues now, it is a quarter to 5 in the evening. If any of them are tuning in to this discussion, listen to what these newspapers are saying: ``House should pass transportation bill.'' The No. 1 priority for the House of Representatives should be passing a bipartisan transportation bill--as the Senate already has done on a 74 22 vote. . . . The Senate has done its job. . . . House Speaker Boehner should drop the notion of passing an extreme Republican-only House bill and do as the Senate did--craft a bipartisan bill that can pass both Houses. This is in the Fresno Bee. It is in the reddest part of California. Trust me when I say that. I know. It is the reddest part of California, and they are asking the House to pass the Senate bill. Then we have, in Michigan, the Detroit News: ``Congressional Waffling Hurts State Roads.'' The U.S. Senate . . . has approved a bipartisan plan. While imperfect, it's better than another reprise of an outmoded transportation act that already has been extended eight times. . . . The disarray hardly gives States the kind of revenue certainty they need to get from a Federal plan, but if Boehner and House Members can't agree on their own plan, they would probably be wise to take what is politically possible and pass it. Pass the Senate bill. Newspapers all over the country--look at this one: ``Road to Compromise.'' One would think the House would embrace this. What are the American people telling us? We are viewed--we in the Congress--as fighting constantly. Our approval rating is 10 percent. I don't know who represents that 10 percent, but it is probably the Presiding Officer's family, my family, and the family of my colleague from Missouri. Why is that? We can't work together. We proved today on two bills that we can't get together. But we proved a couple of weeks ago, after 5 weeks of debate, we could do it on the Transportation bill. When Senator Inhofe and I agree, my goodness, that is a day. We don't agree on so many things, believe me. We are struggling over anything that has the word ``environment'' in it. He is fighting to overturn the EPA clean air rules, and I am fighting him to keep them. He doesn't want that much oversight on nuclear accidents; I want more oversight. He says I don't do enough oversight on things he wants oversight on. Listen, we argue. We respect each other. We like each other. We disagree with each other. But on this we came together. What more does Boehner want? What more does Cantor want? Speaker Boehner is putting at risk 55,000 jobs in Ohio, and Leader Cantor is putting at risk 40,000 jobs in Virginia. Don't they care about the businesses and the workers there? This headline says the ``Road to Compromise.'' This is the Ohio Akron Beacon, from the heartland: On Wednesday, 74 Senators, Republicans and Democrats, joined together in a real accomplishment. They approved a two-year bill. . . . The timing couldn't be better. . . . What will the House do? It should take the cue of the Senate and quickly approve the legislation that won bipartisan support. It couldn't be more clear. That is Ohio. I will tell my colleagues I have never seen such an array of newspapers from all over the country. This one is the Chicago Sun-Times: ``For a Better Commute, Pass Transportation Bill.'' The Senate just delivered a gift to the House: A bipartisan transportation bill at a time when America really could use a lift. Here's hoping the House Republicans don't mess it up. . . . Well, hope against hope. So far, I feel very worried--very, very worried. The whole program expires on Friday and all they can come up with is extensions, and then they don't even have the votes for that. How bad would it be for them to give me a call, give Senator Inhofe a call, and say: We are going to come over and sit down and bring the bipartisan leadership of the committee--there are four of them--bring the bipartisan leadership of the Senate, and let's hammer out something. What is happening over there? Speaker Boehner is the Speaker of the House not Speaker of the Republicans. He needs to work with the Democrats. I don't expect they will love each other, my goodness. We don't expect miracles, but we should expect them to work together. I remember fondly my days in the House with Tip O'Neill and Bob Michel. Couldn't have better friends. Did they agree on everything? No. Did they work on everything? Yes. I remember those days. I was a whip at a certain point in the House, and they used to call us together and we would come back and say: There are 25 Democrats who can't vote for this Democratic bill. You know what Tip O'Neill would do? He would say: Fine, I will call Bob Michel and see if he has 25 votes for me. They saw that they might have had 20 and they didn't have 25 and they had to compromise the bill. And they did it. That is why I decided I loved legislating. I loved working on this bill with my friend Senator Inhofe. I loved working with my staff and his staff. Our staffs became almost like family. I would encourage Speaker Boehner to take a page out of this book. I see the Senator from Louisiana on the Senate floor. He and I go at it on a number of issues. We work together. We even put on this bill the Restore Act--a bipartisan piece of legislation that is going to make sure the gulf can rebuild and get paid back for the suffering that went on there. Did California get a lot out of that? No. But the country will get a lot out of that because the gulf is a region we care about. It is where we get a lot of our energy. It is where we get a lot of our seafood. We need to work together. So Senator Vitter and I don't agree on a lot of subjects, and we go at it pretty hard in the committee. But on this we agreed. So let's look at a few others, and then I will yield the floor after we go through the rest of these. ``Highway Bill Would Boost Stability.'' This is Mississippi. This is one of the reddest States in the Union. I beg Speaker Boehner to open his ears and hear me: A two-year, $109 billion highway bill that passed the U.S. Senate this week buoys the hope of interest groups like roadbuilders and the travel industry that the House can be prodded by the Senators' action to pass its own bill before a March 31 expiration date. . . . This bill has no earmarks. . . . Mississippi could derive major benefits. I am just saying, when we have editorials from Mississippi for a bill, we know it is a bipartisan bill. Let's take a look at some others: ``A Solid Transportation Bill.'' This comes from Oregon, the Register Guard, an editorial: By an impressive bipartisan vote of 74 to 22, the Senate on Wednesday passed a two-year blueprint for transportation. The House should move quickly to approve the Senate measure. If a transportation bill is not approved and signed into law by April 1, the government will lose its ability to pay for Federal transportation projects. So now we have Mississippi, Oregon, Illinois, and Ohio. I don't remember all that I read. ``Bipartisanship in Senate Moves Transportation Bill.'' This is Oklahoma, another deeply red State: With rare bipartisanship, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday passed a much-needed and much-delayed national transportation bill that could create jobs and fund road projects. . . . The country's infrastructure has been ignored for too long and is in dire straits. This is an important and necessary extension of the transportation bill. It will make needed improvements to our infrastructure, and it is a real job- creator. . . . I am telling my colleagues that I am buoyed by these editorials because these editorials from Republican papers and Democratic papers are nonpartisan. They are all urging us to act. ``Transportation Funding Held Hostage in the House.'' Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Texas--another red State: What an exciting thing to see the Senate pass a surface transportation bill last week on a 74 to 22 vote. Such bipartisan support for maintaining and improving this crucial part of the national infrastructure makes it almost seem like the good old days in Washington. . . . At one point, [House Speaker Boehner] said he would put the Senate bill before the House. Earlier, he said House Republicans might go for an 18-month extension. . . . It's beginning to look like Boehner doesn't have a clue what the House will do. . . . Does this sound familiar? Does it remind you of the congressional follies of last summer, the reality-TV drama and brinksmanship of the debate over raising the federal debt limit. I can't reach Speaker Boehner. He doesn't answer my letters. Cantor doesn't answer my letters. They just have spokespeople who put something out there. What is wrong with talking to each other? What happened to those days? Now, it goes on, and I am going to go through these: ``Pass This Transit Bill.'' This one is the Miami Herald: In an all too rare display of bipartisanship, the Senate, by a vote of 74 to 22 last week, passed a transportation bill of vital interest to South Florida and the rest of the country. . . . This uncompromising approach is why public approval of Congress stands at 10 percent or below in recent polls. Mr. Boehner should urge the members of his caucus to set aside their job-killing intransigence and accept the bipartisan Senate version before funding runs out. So here is the thing--I will wrap up--there is a clear path to success, and it is not painful. It is not painful. Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor should abandon their idea of these endless extensions. We have proven today through the State organizations and by talking to State officials in all of our States that jobs are already being lost because of the uncertainty, the dithering--that is my word--and the fact that they are talking about extensions. Extensions are no good. Extensions mean job losses--41,000 jobs already lost today as of now in North Carolina and thousands in other States because States do not have the ability to up-front the Federal share. They are counting on us. Our bill is fully paid for in a bipartisan way. Our bill has not one earmark. Our bill takes 90 programs down to 30. It is streamlined. It is made efficient. We have, in a bipartisan way, added the Restore Act. We added ways to fund rural districts for their schools by the timber receipts. This is a good bill, and this is a bill that is truly a work product of everyone in this Chamber. Even those who ended up voting no had something to do with it and helped us get it through. So there is a clear path. They pulled their 60-day extension off the floor of the House, and that is a good thing. Now they should put the Senate bill on the floor and both sides should embrace it and pass it. Let me tell my colleagues a signal it will send to our people at home: It will send a signal of job growth in the future, a signal that we are working together, a signal that we are going to get out of this recession, a signal that we put aside politics for the good of these hard-hat workers and the companies that employ them. They deserve it. They got hurt by Wall Street. Everybody in the country did. But for these construction workers, because of all this messing around with these mortgage-backed securities, it killed the construction industry and housing. We have a chance to help some of the hardest working people in our Nation. I call on the House leadership to take a page out of our bipartisan book here and pass the Senate bill. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the April 2, 2012, opening of the new Child Development Center, CDC, at Beale Air Force Base in Yuba County, CA. I am so pleased that this facility has at long last become a reality for the families stationed at Beale, and I was proud to have fought to secure the funding required to build it. When I visited Beale in 2004, I saw firsthand the critical need for a new CDC on base. The old CDC built in 1967 was in dire need of replacement. The aging facility was too small to accommodate eligible children and was found to contain safety hazards including asbestos and lead. The men and women serving our Nation at Beale deserve to know that their children are being cared for in a safe and nurturing environment. The new CDC will provide this peace of mind. The Silver-LEED-Certified 37,566-square-foot facility will increase the number of children served from 175 to 280, relieving the burden on many military families who currently rely on childcare located 20 miles off base. It will have a total of 21 classrooms for children ranging from infants to preschool age and employ 70 staff members. The new CDC is also centrally located and easily accessible from anywhere on the installation. This new CDC will go a long way to ensure we are meeting the needs of the families stationed at Beale. As cochair of the Senate Military Family Caucus, I know that when a servicemember wears a uniform, the entire family serves. That is why we must do everything we can to lessen their burden and provide for their needs. The new CDC at Beale symbolizes America's commitment to our incredible military families and is one more way we can show our gratitude for their service.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to explain my opposition to H.R. 3606, a bill that would undermine regulation of our financial markets and leave investors vulnerable to fraud. The underlying spirit of this legislation is one that I support: improving the ability of smaller companies, especially startups, to raise capital. Small companies are essential to our economy, and it is critical that they be able to raise capital efficiently. Our financial regulations should be up-to-date and pragmatic, realistically reflecting the size of new public companies in modern times, and new methods of reaching out to potential investors. However, I am deeply concerned that the bill goes too far in rolling back investor protections. These rules were created for a reason, often after hard lessons learned from scandals like Enron and WorldCom. They protect ordinary people from losing their retirement savings to corporate fraud and mismanagement, and help our markets function efficiently, ensuring that investors of all types have meaningful and accurate information. All companies benefit when investors have confidence in the safety and fairness of the marketplace. SEC Chair Mary Schapiro and SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar have raised concerns that this bill will hinder securities law enforcement and reduce investor protection. Bloomberg News editorialized that it ``would be dangerous for investors and could harm already fragile financial markets.'' The New York Times Editorial Board said this legislation ``would undo essential investor protections, reduce market transparency and distort the efficient allocation of capital.'' CalPERS and CalSTRS have expressed concerns, as have Americans for Financial Reform, AARP, AFL CIO, AFCSME, Consumer Federation of America, the Main Street Alliance, the Sustainable Business Council, and many other well- respected organizations. It is a mistake to rush this important piece of legislation when the possibility of a genuinely bipartisan compromise exists. The Reed- Landrieu-Levin amendment, which was blocked by Senate Republicans despite bipartisan support from 54 Senators, would have greatly improved the bill. It would have allowed smaller companies to raise capital more easily, without going as far as the underlying bill in providing exemptions for companies with annual gross revenue of up to $1 billion. I thank my colleagues for their efforts in drafting that carefully balanced proposal. I am pleased that the bipartisan Merkley-Bennet-Brown amendment became part of the bill. It will allow companies to reach investors through social media, but with sensible rules to reduce fraud and provide meaningful regulatory oversight. Nevertheless, significant investor protection problems remain in the other sections of the bill, and I cannot support its passage. I was also disappointed that reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which was offered as an amendment by a group of bipartisan cosponsors, was blocked by Senate Republicans. The Ex-Im Bank keeps American businesses competitive worldwide, especially in countries with challenging economic and political conditions, and sustains American jobs in the process. The Bank's investments helped to support 290,000 export-related American jobs last year, including 21,025 in California. As the economic recovery continues, now is not the time to take away this support and put our companies at a disadvantage. This bill clearly was rushed; this bill is risky for investors, and that is why I voted no.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, you know very well, because you are such a leader on the issue of jobs for America, that the Senate passed a very important bill last week. It is called MAP 21, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century. What it did was reauthorize our transportation programs as they relate to highways, our bridges, and our transit systems. This was a very difficult bill to get done because it took a lot of compromise. My friend in the chair knows this. He comes from Vermont where they have had a lot of issues with rebuilding their roads after disasters, and he knows how important it is, especially in those rural areas, to make sure we have a good transportation system both in our roads, our freeways, and our mass transit. We got this bill done. It was remarkable, 74 votes. Actually, it would have been 75 votes. One of our colleagues was at a funeral and he was for the bill. So three-quarters of the Senate supported that bill. We excitedly found out some House Members were very happy with it and they have introduced it and that bill, MAP 21, is sitting over in the House. There is a lot at stake, and they are not moving this bill. They could take that bill off the desk and they could pass it in 15 minutes. I served in the House. I know the rules. It is not like the Senate, where we can filibuster and do amendments and all the rest. It is a very quick process. They have not done that. Instead, they are talking about putting together a bill just with the Republican Party and not including Democrats in that at all. So they would have a very partisan bill, and they are not interested in going to the Democrats. They want to turn that bill into some offshore oil drilling, drilling in the Arctic, drilling in the lakes, drilling, drilling, drilling, when it has nothing to do with the bill and would only add contentious, nongermane issues to what is a very clear statement by the Senate, in a bipartisan way, that in order to be a great nation and in order to have a strong economy, we need to move goods, we need to move people. This idea of a national transportation system came to us from a Republican President named Dwight Eisenhower. He was a war hero and a general. He knew logistics, and he knew that if someone is in a war zone and they have to move their artillery, they have to move their equipment and all the rest, they need to have a logistics plan. When he became President, he knew: We are moving products from one State to the next. It is commerce. We had better get it right. And he started the highway system. Since that time, we have had bipartisan support for transportation legislation. Whether it was Bill Clinton or whether it was George Bush or George Bush's father or it was Jimmy Carter or it was Ronald Reagan or it was Richard Nixon, we have had bipartisan support. The American people must be really happy to hear that we were able to carry out that bipartisan spirit. Senator Inhofe and I, working in our committee; Senator Hutchison and Senator Rockefeller, working in their committee--these are Republicans and Democrats working together-- Republicans and Democrats in Finance, Republicans and Democrats in four committees worked on this bill and voted it out. We asked the House to take up the bill and pass it. So far we have heard nothing at all to lead us to the belief that that is what they are going to do. This entire program expires at the end of next week. If they just send us an extension without funding, if they send us an extension without change in law, it is going to wreak havoc in our States. We already have letters from the States saying that they are very fearful because this is the construction season. You cannot enter into an agreement if you only have a short-term agreement to keep the highway program operating for 30 days or 90 days or 60 days. We call on them to pass this bill. I did a press conference today with Democrats, Leader Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and friends over there who work on transportation issues-- Nick Rahall, the ranking member of the committee, and Mr. Bishop, who has introduced the Senate bill, and Mr. DeFazio from Oregon. We had one message, and the message was this: Speaker Boehner, do what every great Speaker has done before you--reach out to the other party, come to the table and get 218 votes and pass this. So far we do not hear anything like that. I am very worried and I am concerned. Why? Mr. President, 1.4 million construction workers are unemployed. That would fill 14 football stadiums. Fourteen Super Bowl stadiums filled with unemployed workers--that is what we have in construction because we have had such a downturn in housing. We ask Speaker Boehner respectfully, take up the bill. Put these people to work. Our bill will save 1.9 million construction jobs, and it will create up to 1 million more. We can take this 1.4 million, hire 1 million workers, and you would bring down that unemployment rate--way, way down. It is 17.1 percent. How about our businesses? Our businesses need help. Mr. President, 1,075 organizations--the vast majority of them are businesses--have begged us to do this bill. We say to Speaker Boehner respectfully, listen to more than 1,000 organizations. Pass the bill. I am going to read an amazing array of editorials. I will not read them in whole, I will read them in part. The idea is that maybe Speaker Boehner isn't listening, maybe he is not paying attention, but the country is. Here is an editorial--not from a blue State but from a bright red State called Oklahoma, the Tulsa World: Bipartisanship in the Senate Moves Transportation Bill. This is what they said: With rare bipartisanship, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday passed a much-needed and much-delayed national transportation bill that could create jobs and fund road projects. . . . They finish by saying: House Speaker John Boehner has called for the House to either take action on its bill or close it. That could clear the House to consider the Senate bill. The country's infrastructure has been ignored for too long, and it is in dire straits. This is an important and necessary extension of the Transportation bill. It will make needed improvements to our transportation infrastructure and, just as important, it is a real job- creator. This is an editorial from Oklahoma--far from a blue State. They want us to finish our work, and they are calling on Speaker Boehner to do it. Here is another red State, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: What an exciting thing to see the U.S. Senate pass a surface transportation funding bill last week on a 74 22 vote. Such bipartisan support for maintaining and improving this crucial part of the national infrastructure makes it almost seem like the good old days in Washington. . . . At one point, [House Speaker John Boehner] said he would put the Senate bill before the House. . . . Now he says: It's beginning to look like Boehner doesn't have a clue what the House will do. . . . If the Star-Telegram is right and Boehner doesn't have a clue as to what to do, I would like to respectfully ask him to take up the Senate bill and pass it. We just passed a bill they sent us with 73 votes. Our bill passed with 74. We did it. They should do it. In their bill that we passed, there is not one estimate of how many jobs will be created by it--not one. We are hoping there will be. It is the IPO bill. This one is 3 million jobs, unequivocal. They name a bill the ``JOBS bill,'' they send it over here, and it gets 73 votes. We are going to pass it. We took it up. Now they should pass the bill we passed. They call it the ``congressional follies'' if he doesn't act. This is from the Oregon Register Guard. It is entitled ``A Solid Transportation Bill.'' By an impressively bipartisan 74 22 vote, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday passed a two-year blueprint for transportation. The House should pass this massive bill swiftly after setting aside an outrageous Republican version that would link highway, bridge and other transit spending to an expansion of oil drilling from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. . . . It praises our bill and points out that our bill is supported by labor and business, and it will create 3 million jobs. I am going to read a few more of these. I hope somebody in Speaker Boehner's office is watching, I really do, because we are showing what is happening in the country. Everybody is calling on Speaker Boehner to pass the bill. This is the Sacramento Bee. Who could say it better? ``Stop dithering, pass transportation bill.'' The Senate's two-year bill, while not ideal, would provide states stability through the end of 2013. It also would give lawmakers a year to work on long-term funding. . . . Some House Republicans are saying they won't act on a multiyear bill until . . . after the Easter break. That is unacceptable, that is what I think. They quote something I said, and I am going to repeat it because I think it is important. This was a bill that brought us together, and Lord knows, it's hard to find moments when we can come together. Isn't that true, Mr. President? It is hard to find times when we come together, when we came together, three-quarters of the Senate. Speaker Boehner, what more do you want? You had 22 Republicans vote aye. Take up our bill and pass it. Here is another one: ``Highway bill would boost stability.'' How important is that as we climb out of this recession? A two-year, $109 billion highway bill that passed the Senate this week buoys the hope of interest groups like roadbuilders and the travel industry that the House can be prodded by the senators' action to pass its own bill before a March 31 expiration. . . . The bill has no earmarks. This is from Mississippi, another red State. Mississippi could derive major benefits from a part of the bill called the RESTORE Act amendment, supported by Wicker and Cochran. It would establish a restoration fund for Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas-- Et cetera--the gulf coast--to restore the damage caused in the calamitous oilspill. Here we have newspaper after newspaper. I will be finished in about 6 minutes. Here is another Chicago Sun-Times editorial: ``For a Better Commute, Pass Transportation Bill.'' How about this: The U.S. Senate just delivered a gift to the House: a bipartisan transportation bill at a time when America really could use a lift. Here's hoping the House Republicans don't mess it up. . . . News for them: Right now, they are messing it up. All they have to do is take our bill from the desk and pass it, and, guess what, that would mean 3 million jobs; thousands of businesses relieved that they know they can enter into contracts to build our roads and fix our bridges. There are 70,000 bridges in a state of disrepair, deficient, meaning they could have serious consequences. We saw bridges collapse. That is not a game. And infrastructure is aging. I love this editorial. Essentially, it says: A spokesman for Speaker John Boehner tells us that ``the hope is that the House can coalesce around a more responsible, long-term extension'' of the transportation bill. That is a hope. That is a prayer. They tried it for more than a year. Guess what. They got nowhere. They will not talk to the Democrats over there. I served in the House for 10 years. It was a wonderful experience. Tip O'Neill was a great Speaker. They have had a lot of great ones over there, but Tip O'Neill knew that the way to get things done was to get to 218. He didn't care if the people voting were Democrats or Republicans; if he saw a need, he got to 218. He would go to his friend Bob Michel on the other side, like I went to Jim Inhofe, and they worked together the way we did. Speaker Boehner, reach your hand out to Leader Pelosi. She is ready to go. She will work with you. Here is one from Ohio. This is the State of Speaker Boehner, from the Akron Beacon, an editorial: ``Road to Compromise.'' On Wednesday, 74 Senators, Republicans and Democrats, joined together in a real accomplishment. They approved a two-year, $109 billion transportation bill. . . . The timing couldn't have been better. Authorization for federal highway spending ends on March 31. Without action, construction, repair and maintenance will halt across the country. What will the House do? It should take the cue of the Senate, and quickly approve the legislation that won bipartisan support. . . . This is Speaker Boehner. You know, in Speaker Boehner's State, at a minimum, 55,000 jobs are at stake--at a minimum. That is without our new program that leverages funds. That could be doubled, but right now there are 55,000 jobs we protect and we could create about another 40,000. In Leader Cantor's State, it is 40,000 jobs and we could create another 30,000. I don't know what they are thinking about over there. I honestly don't know. What are they thinking about? Here is one. This is from Florida, an editorial: ``Pass This Transit Bill.'' How could you get it clearer? In an all too rare display of bipartisanship, the Senate by a vote of 74 to 22 last week passed a transportation bill of vital interest to South Florida and the rest of the country. Unfortunately, House members apparently haven't gotten the word. The Senate bill extends funding for federal highway, mass transit and other surface transportation projects for two years. That would save or create three million jobs. . . . Speaker John Boehner appears to have recognized that this version favored by some GOP hard-liners in his caucus doesn't stand a chance of becoming law, but there's no immediate plan to go forward with a reasonable compromise. This uncompromising approach is why public approval of Congress stands at 10 percent or below in recent polls. Mr. Boehner should urge the members of his caucus to set aside their job-killing intransigence and accept the bipartisan Senate version. . . . Let me repeat that. This uncompromising approach is why public approval of Congress stands at 10 percent or below in recent polls. Mr. Boehner should urge the members of his caucus to set aside their job-killing intransigence and accept the bipartisan Senate version before funding runs out. Let's hold this here. I am going to conclude here because I know Senator Franken has been waiting and I so respect his right to speak. But I did want to point out that this particular editorial comes from the newspaper that is home to the chairman of the committee over there, John Mica, the chairman of the T and I Committee, Transportation Infrastructure, and this is what they say: Congress is gridlocked again--surprise!--this time over Federal transportation funding. Last week a bipartisan majority in the Senate passed a $109 billion measure that would maintain Federal funding for highway and mass transit projects for two years. But a five- year bill . . . drafted by . . . John Mica, has stalled amid opposition from Democrats and some Republicans. Rather than let transportation projects grind to a halt, lawmakers should pass the Senate bill as the only bipartisan vehicle available. Then, they should get started on fixing the problems . . . [in the long run]--before the next bill becomes due. Let's put up the last one. This is from the Tampa Bay Times. This is a part of Florida that is pretty red, so I will close with this one. House Should Fix Partisan Potholes and Pass Transit Bill. With new signs every week that the recovery is taking hold, Congress should be relishing the chance to pass a transportation bill. But House Republicans are more keen to continue waging ideological wars in the run-up to elections than to bring some much-needed relief to America's commuters and to workers hard hit in the construction industry. The House should follow the Senate's lead and pass a transportation bill without further delay. . . . So everybody seems to be getting the message, but I am not so sure Speaker Boehner or Leader Cantor are listening, and they have to listen. Because if they don't listen and as a result of their inability to pass this bill--or not want to pass it--what will happen is there will be another jolt to this economic recovery. Because we are talking 3 million jobs at stake. Thousands of companies are hurting, and I am hearing from States all over this great Nation that they are in chaos because they don't know what the House is going to do. So we took up a House bill, we didn't play partisan games, we passed it in a couple days, and it got 73 votes. Our jobs bill for highways and transit and roads and bridges got 74 votes. I say they wanted us to do this, we did it. How about they take a look at this bill. How about they save 3 million jobs. How about they do the people's work before they go off on their break. They owe it to the American people. Boehner, Cantor, Mica, all of them owe it to the American people. They said it is a priority, and they do nothing. They are dithering, as the papers have expressed. Today, they can stop dithering. Tomorrow, they can get our bill ready for a vote. Next week, they could pass it, we can go home, and we can all celebrate with our businesses and our construction workers and know we have done something great for the American people. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what an incredible milestone Senator Mikulski has reached. The words of her colleagues and the love they feel for her are coming through. It is a wonderful thing for me to be part of this tribute. I don't know how many Senators would have the Governor of their State here--Your Honor; and the former distinguished, incredible Senator Paul Sarbanes is here. That in itself, Senator Mikulski, is testimony to your status among all of us. So many of us are here in the Senate because Barbara Mikulski knocked down the barriers one by one--the first Democratic woman ever elected to the Senate in her own right, the first woman to serve in both Chambers, the longest serving woman in the Senate. Now she has made history once again. This past Saturday, after 12,858 distinguished days of service, no other woman in history has served in Congress longer than Senator Mikulski--ever. Some trailblazers make history, and they are content to stand proudly alone. ``Aren't I great? I did it.'' But not Senator Mikulski. She always made clear that she was honored to be the first Democratic woman, but she never wanted to be the last. I will never forget her saying: Some women stare out the window waiting for Prince Charming. I stare out the window waiting for more women Senators. Well, 17 women, Republicans and Democrats, now serve in the Senate. I know all of us have stories to tell about how Senator Mikulski helped us along the way, reaching out to mentor us, encourage us, lead us and organize our regular meetings filled with folders and pens and pencils, and organizing dinners. She and Senator Hutchison teamed up. We are so fortunate to have them working together. We get together now and then. Just in the heat of debate, we sit down and break bread together. When I considered running for the Senate in 1992, Senator Mikulski was the very first person I went to see, after my husband. I was conflicted. I had a good House seat. I was told I could hold it for as long as I wanted, and I was not sure I should give it up for the Senate. I was considered a long shot. Senator Mikulski told me the following: ``If you run, and I want you to run,'' she said, ``it will be the toughest thing you will ever do and the best thing you will ever do.'' And she was right. Those of us of a certain age have probably seen the play or the movie ``A Man For All Seasons.'' Today we celebrate a woman who is truly a Senator for all seasons. Some Members have passion, others have policy skills, some are brilliant negotiators, others great advocates for the least among us, some are very serious students of history, and others are flatout hilarious. But I do not think our country has ever seen so many incredible traits combined in one Senator. Whatever the issue, she will address it. Whatever the problem, she will solve it. Whatever the wrong, she will fix it. Whatever the need, she will meet it. Whenever and wherever people without a voice need a champion with a keen mind, a sharp wit, and an unparalleled ability to speak from the heart and get things done, Barbara Mikulski is there. A lot of us have been there with her, and we have watched her and we love it and we marvel at her. And she does it with a sense of humor that is unparalleled. Anyone who has ever listened to a speech or interview with Senator Mikulski has heard her utter these incredible quips, which I fondly called ``Mikulski-isms.'' She has called us women into battle by asking us to go ``earring to earring'' with our opponents. She has challenged us to square our shoulders, suit up, put our lipstick on, and fight. She has said often that women do not want to talk about gender but an agenda that helps America's families. When asked by Glamour Magazine how she felt about being named Glamour's Woman of the Year along with singer Madonna, Senator Mikulski replied, ``She's got her assets, I have mine, and we both make the best of what God has given us.'' When asked about the different perspective women bring, she often says, ``Women, we are not so much about macro issues but, rather, the macaroni and cheese issues.'' Who else could say that better? When discussing the challenges women face in politics with a group of female parliamentarians from around the world, this is what Barbara Mikulski explained to them when they asked about what is it like and is it tough. She said: Let's put it this way. In an election, if you are married, you are neglecting him; if you are single, you couldn't get him; if you are divorced, you couldn't keep him; and if you are widowed, you killed him. Then there was one of my favorite Mikulski moments. This is a treasured moment. The women of the House still hadn't managed to integrate the House gym, so we were relegated to this tiny room with old-fashioned, hooded hair dryers and hardly any room to move. But there were very few of us, and we decided to make the most of it by having an aerobics class. Of course, coming from California, I organized it. In came Geraldine Ferraro, Barbara Kennelly, Olympia Snowe, Barbara Mikulski, and me. Our instructor started the class by asking us to stretch our arms way up, and we do. Groans. ``Put your hands on your hips.'' More groans. Now she says, ``Bend from the waist.'' Suddenly, a voice bellows from the back of the room: ``If I had a waist, I wouldn't be here.'' We all turned around to see Senator Mikulski, and we just cracked up. Needless to say, that was the end of the aerobics class. As funny as she can be, I can't think of anyone more resilient than Barbara Mikulski. I remember when she was mugged a few years back, one evening outside her home in Baltimore. A man pushed her to the ground and grabbed her purse. It was terrifying--for the mugger. He had no idea whom he was dealing with. At 4 feet 11, Senator Mikulski fought back and defended herself, just like she defends the people she represents, just like she defends women and families, just like she defends equal pay and equal rights and civil rights and the health care of our citizens and the dignity of our seniors. The truth is, the Senate used to be a very lonely place for women, but Senator Mikulski changed that. From the day she was first sworn in, she has carried the challenges, the hopes, and the dreams of millions of women with her. Barbara Mikulski has inspired generations of young women everywhere. She has given them the confidence that they can do it, too, because even as we celebrate this incredible milestone, I know Senator Mikulski's greatest hope is that a young girl growing up today will be inspired to follow in her footsteps and one day to break her record. When that happens, it will be because Barbara Mikulski--our dean, our cherished leader, our Senator for all seasons--opened the doors of the Senate wide enough to let the women of America walk in. Thank you, Barbara Mikulski.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today I honor the life of James Kimo Campbell, a longtime resident and pillar of the Marin County community, who passed away on February 16, 2012, due to complications from Lou Gehrig's disease. Over the years, Kimo worked with numerous nonprofit organizations and was a tireless advocate for a healthy environment and just world. Born in Los Angeles in 1947, Kimo was raised in Hawaii, where he attended the Punahou School before going on to begin a career in journalism at the College of Marin and study history at the University of California at Berkeley. As a student, he was recognized by the Marin Independent Journal for his outstanding journalism and later worked for the Journal and several other area papers as a freelance journalist. As with many of his generation, Kimo became involved in the protest movement of the 1960s and was drawn to political activism that laid the foundation for his later involvement in philanthropy and community service. At the age of 27, Kimo Campbell was elected to the board of trustees for the College of Marin and served in that capacity for the next 16 years, before being named to the College of Marin Foundation's board of directors, where he remained committed to supporting the school's mission. The time Kimo spent in Hawaii during his youth left a lasting impression on him. Through his publishing company, Pueo Press, Kimo shared his affinity for his home State by publishing books dedicated to the topic. Through the Pohaku Fund, he supported the promotion of environmental protection, social justice, and respect for the culture of his beloved Hawaii. Kimo will be deeply missed by all of us lucky enough to have known him. I send my heartfelt condolences to his wife, Kerry Tepperman Campbell, as well as his children, Mahealani and Kawika.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life, work, and legacy of Richard Milanovich, longtime chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Chairman Milanovich, my good friend and California neighbor, died in Rancho Mirage on Sunday at age 69 after a courageous fight with cancer. During his quarter century as tribal chairman, Richard Milanovich worked tirelessly to bring prosperity and security to the Agua Caliente. All the while, he worked closely with surrounding communities and local governments to ensure that Agua Caliente's success would benefit not just the tribe but also the entire Coachella Valley. Richard grew up in the Palm Springs neighborhood known as Section 14, where members of the Agua Caliente dreamed of a better future. Richard's mother, LaVerne Saubel, was a member of the Nation's first- ever all-female tribal council. In 1957 the council successfully lobbied Congress to enact legislation allowing the Agua Caliente Band to govern itself, though it would take another 20 years for them to gain full control over tribal lands. At age 17, Richard left home to join the Army. After serving in Europe, he returned to California and worked in Los Angeles as a door- to-door salesman, honing the persuasive powers that served him so well in later life. Returning to Palm Springs, he joined the tribal council in 1978 and began his lifetime of service to the tribe. The Agua Caliente owned parcels of land all around Palm Springs, Cathedral City, and Rancho Mirage. As a tribal councilor and then as chairman, Richard turned this checkerboard pattern of land ownership into an asset. He forged mutually beneficial land-use agreements with all three local governments and then worked together to develop commerce and improve infrastructure. After taking over a rundown spa in downtown Palm Springs and turning it into a thriving resort, the Agua Caliente developed casinos and other businesses that brought prosperity to the tribe and hundreds of jobs to the community. Chairman Milanovich became a State and national leader in business and public policy, but he never forgot his roots or the long-term interests of his people. He worked to ensure that the Agua Caliente preserved its proud heritage while succeeding in the modern world and diversified its interests to maintain growth and prosperity. Like many other Californians, I am very sad to lose Richard Milanovich's voice for his tribe and for the communities he loved so much. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family, especially his wife Melissa and their six children, and his many friends in the Coachella Valley and across America. He will be deeply missed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Harold C. Brown, Jr. The longest serving supervisor in the history of Marin County, Hal was a pillar of the community who embodied the best characteristics of civic leadership: accessibility, honesty, integrity, and compassion. Mr. Brown passed away on March 2, 2012, after a long battle with pancreatic cancer. Hal grew up in San Francisco, graduating from Lowell High School and receiving a degree in business from the University of San Francisco before moving to Marin County in the early 1970s. While working in the insurance industry, he became involved in his community and began serving on the board of his neighborhood association. In 1982, Gov. Jerry Brown appointed him to replace me on the Marin County Board of Supervisors, following my election to Congress. For the next 29 years, Supervisor Brown served the people of Marin with extraordinary dedication and focus. He would often say that he had the best job in the world and that he loved the camaraderie of working with others to solve the county's problems: improving fire safety in a county known for towering redwood trees, developing the Safe Routes to Schools Program to promote walking and biking as a safe and healthy way for children to get to school, and working to prevent floods. His dedication to his community extended beyond his work as a county supervisor. Supervisor Brown established the Marin Valentine's Ball in 1997 as an annual auction and fundraiser to support children, families, and older adults in need throughout the county. Even in the face of his illness, Hal hosted the 16th annual ball this past February and refused to stop serving the people and community he had represented for decades. I send my deepest condolences to his family, including Gloria Brown; his children, Michael and Chris; and his grandchildren. The county of Marin has lost a true public servant, and he will be missed by all of us lucky enough to have known him.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is hard to believe we are having this debate about protecting women from violence in 2012, but we are. But then again, we have spent much of this year fighting attempts to limit women's access to contraception and preventive healthcare; we have seen a woman called names for fighting for women's health. Here we are again on the floor because the women of the Senate are not going to stop standing up and speaking out to protect the health and lives of women in our country. Let's be clear: The Violence Against Women Act has always been bipartisan. It has always had overwhelming support. And I would know. In 1990, then-Senator Joe Biden came to me and asked me to be the House author of his bill, the Violence Against Women Act. At that time, violence against women was a silent epidemic and I was so grateful that he asked me to help bring this issue out of the shadows. It was a slow but steady path to victory, and by the time it passed as part of the 1994 crime bill, I was a member of the Senate, proudly working by Senator Biden's side to get the votes we needed. It was one of my most memorable moments in the Senate. We finally had a law to help local law enforcement and the legal system combat violence against women and provide essential services for women struggling to rebuild their lives. The results have been breathtaking. Since the Violence Against Women Act became law, incidents of domestic violence have decreased 53 percent, reporting of domestic violence has increased as much as 51 percent, and more victims are coming forward and getting life-saving help. One survey found that more than 67,000 victims were served by domestic violence programs--on one day alone. So it was no surprise that in 2005 the Senate voted unanimously to reauthorize this important law. Not one Senator objected to its passage. It has always been bipartisan. So why the change now? After all these years, after all the victims who have been helped and the criminals who have been prosecuted, why on Earth are some Republicans holding this up? What is it about this bill that they suddenly don't like? Is it the funding for shelters to protect women from harm, abuse, even death? Do they object to provisions that ensure that abusive spouses will be arrested after committing family violence? Do they object to measures that declare that all people in the United States should have the same right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender? Do they oppose safety provisions that protect women on public transit and in public parks? Do they object to the fact that the bill consolidates programs within the VAWA office--reducing administrative costs? It is hard to imagine that anything other than politics is at work here--and victims of domestic violence deserve better. The women of America are watching us. They expect all of us--men, women, Democrats, Republicans and independents--to come together as we have before to stop domestic violence, to punish the perpetrators and help the victims rebuild their lives.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise today to support the nomination of Michael Fitzgerald as the Senate prepares to vote on his confirmation to become a district court judge. I had the great privilege of recommending Mr. Fitzgerald to President Obama for nomination. He is a respected member of the Los Angeles legal community. He will make an excellent addition to the Central District of California. Mr. Fitzgerald served as a Federal prosecutor, where he handled cases involving international drug rings and money laundering, including what was at the time the second largest cocaine seizure in California history. Since he has left the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Fitzgerald has been in private practice handling complex criminal and civil cases. He received a rating of ``unanimously well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. He is a historic choice, and a vote on Mr. Fitzgerald's nomination is long overdue. He was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously 133 days ago on November 3, 2011. It really should not take this long to confirm such a highly qualified nominee as Mr. Fitzgerald, especially because this seat has been designated a judicial emergency. So we have a seat that has been designated a judicial emergency, and we have a highly qualified gentleman who is ready for this challenge and who was voted out of the committee unanimously last year, 133 days ago. I want to close with great hope that we will confirm Mr. Fitzgerald. With that, I want to, in advance--and I hope I am proven right-- congratulate him and his family on this momentous day. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join with me in voting for this highly qualified nominee. Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum. The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I was listening with interest to my good friend from Alabama, a man I work with very closely on a number of issues. But on this one, we see the world a little differently. He has made his point that Democrats held up a lot of judges and so on. I understand that. But there is no comparison. Facts are stubborn things. We need to look at the facts when it comes to voting on judges. I just wanted to share, before I talk about the highway bill, this one chart: ``Judicial Nominee Wait Times.'' These are the facts. This is not made up. These are the facts. With President Clinton, we see the wait time. With Bush, we see the wait time. Obama, we see the wait time--way over 100 days. So we are going from 10 to 20, to over 100 days. This tells the story. If people want to know why our majority leader has decided to bring up all these judges today, it is because of this. We have emergencies in some of our courts where they do not have the judges. These judges are so well qualified. We have one amazing judge awaiting to be confirmed from our Central District. I think he is about third on the list. He received a great vote out of the committee. These nominees have put their lives on hold. This may sound odd, but my favorite part of the Constitution is the preamble. I read it a lot. When I go into the schools, I talk about it to the children. We discuss what it means. When it says, ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice . . .'' that is the first reason. We want to form a more perfect Union, and the first way to do it is to establish justice. How can we have justice if it is so delayed? How can we have justice when it is politicized? I think this says it all. So as we go from a bipartisan bill into this, unfortunately, the partisan waters, I think it is important to the people of the country to understand, we do not want to pick a fight at all. We want to get things done around here. Democrats want to get things done. We have proven it by reaching out to our Republican friends on the highway bill and many other things-- payroll tax. On the judicial nominees, we want to do the same. I wished to just make that simple point before I get back to the reason I am on the floor; that is, to complete work on the Transportation bill. Transportation The Chair is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. She has been instrumental in getting this bill to the floor. People asked me yesterday--some of the press people--what it has been like to get this bill to the state it is in now, passing the Senate. I say: People like to say, watching a bill become law is watching someone making sausage. I said: It is a lot messier than that. It truly is. This bill was almost derailed because someone wanted to talk about contraception. Then we had issues that had nothing to do with the bill, dealing with offshore oil drilling and issues dealing with pipelines and issues dealing with extraneous matters. But we got through it all. We got through it all for one main reason; that is, the desire of the vast majority of Senators, certainly not all--there are some on the fringes who do not want to do this bill--but the vast majority of Senators want to get this bill done. Why is that? It is because this is a bipartisan program that has been in place since Dwight Eisenhower was President, a Republican President, who clearly stated--because he was an expert on logistics as a general-- that we have to move people and we have to move goods efficiently in a first-rate economy. So I think everyone--not even most people--sees that. Yes, we have a few colleagues in the far corner of the right who want to do away with the highway program. But thank goodness they did not succeed on their vote. They got too many votes for my liking, but that is where it is. But we were able to say strongly, no. This is a program the Federal Government should play a role in because this is one Nation under God. If one has great roads in their State and the next-door neighbor has not paved any roads, they are kind of stuck. That is why we have a national highway program. One more reason we got where we are, which is very close to being done with this bill, successfully done, is that we had more than 1,000 groups behind us--way more than 1,000--and they represented Americana. They represented everyone one from the construction workers who are struggling and suffering with a very high unemployment rate to the businesses that employ them, that want to be able to provide the work and want to be able to do what they do best, which is building things. So for all those reasons, we have gotten to where we are. There is one more reason. I wanted to take my last few minutes to talk about those Members who worked together on this bill, the various chairmen. This is an unusual bill. It is a jobs bill, a huge jobs bill, and 2.8 million jobs hang in the balance. We have had to deal with four different committees together. We have Senator Inhofe, my ranking member, who was extraordinary. He is a hero when it comes to this bill--talking to people on the floor yesterday, from the heart, with the facts, urging them to help us pass this bill. My hat is off to my ranking member Senator Inhofe. Interestingly, we are on opposite sides on the environmental issues. We really are. We have some very tough arguments and very tough debates. I just see a clean and healthy environment as something we need to do to protect our people. He sees it as a bureaucratic regime to stop business. Through it all, we have never lost respect for one another. We have come together on this issue. There is very little distance, if any, between us. I thank Senator Inhofe. Senator Baucus is chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of EPW, and, of course, the very strong chairman of the Finance Committee. I can't thank him enough. He had the tough job of filling the gap we had in terms of money for the highway trust fund. This was not easy. He had to find ways to do it that everybody supported--not everybody but most people--and he was able to get the job done. With many colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I particularly give a shout out to Senator Thune, whom I believed was extremely helpful in all of this. I also wish to thank Senator Vitter, who was the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of EPW, for his assistance. On the other key committees, Senator Tim Johnson, chairman of the Banking Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, ranking member of the Banking Committee, could not have been nicer. I called their staffs very often to make sure they would move forward, and they did. By the way, the EPW Committee was able to vote out a bill unanimously. Everybody supported it, and so did the Banking Committee. I am grateful to them. I thank Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison, chair and ranking member of Commerce, from the bottom of my heart. They had some difficult bumps in the road. When the bill came out of committee, there was controversy. Working with Senator Cantwell, we figured out how to get a vote on something she cared a lot about. We were able to smooth out that bump in the road. Frankly, they came together like true champions and were able to get over the partisan differences and come up with a bipartisan bill. So we married together four committees' work--that was amazing--into this Transportation bill. It was bipartisan from day one to this day. That reminds me of how long we have been on this bill on the Senate floor. It has been 5 weeks, and today I believe we are going to see victory. In terms of Senators, I have to thank our leader Senator Reid from the bottom of my heart. When you are the majority leader--and there have been books written about this--you have to keep the train moving. You have to keep moving with legislation, moving forward. Everything has a deadline and a date. Every committee chair wants their bill on the Senate floor. I know what it is because I have the good fortune of being on the leadership team. He could have easily said: Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe, I have given you 3 weeks, and we are still not off this. But he stuck with it. I am so appreciative, and so are all the working people and the businesses that rely on this bill. Our whip, Senator Durbin, worked so hard, along with his staff. We love his staff. Day in and day out they would let us know what the votes would be like on the amendments. I appreciate it. Senator Schumer and Senator Murray in the leadership were pushing this forward. I also thank Senator McConnell for working with us to get this done. I also must thank staff by name. I hope I don't leave anybody out. I want them to know somebody asked me what it was like, and I said there is a song called--don't worry, I am not going to sing it--``The Long and Winding Road.'' It was ``the long and winding road'' to navigate this bill. It was very difficult. I have a chief of staff, chief counsel of the committee, who is beyond extraordinary, and that is Bettina Poirier. I think she deserves an enormous amount of credit. She was able to work with all the staff to bring them along so that their concerns were heard from day one to this day. I thank her. Her counterpart on Senator Inhofe's staff Ruth VanMark is an extraordinary person who has been with the Senator for way more than 20 years. She is a tower of strength and has great respect from the colleagues on her side of the aisle, working with them to make sure they knew what was going on. This bill is a reform bill. It takes 90 titles down to 30. It is a strong bill and a fair bill, and it is paid for. David Napoliello, there is so much I can say about him and what that man has brought to our committee. This bill is a testimony to his skill. And James O'Keeffe, who works for Senator Inhofe, is David's counterpart. They have all become very good friends. Bettina, Ruth, David, and James have become almost like family working on this bill. I am holding a list of the incredible people who work for me and worked with Bettina. I will go through the names: Andrew Dohrmann, Murphie Barrett, Tyler Rushforth, Kyle Miller, Grant Cope, Mike Burke, and Tom Lynch. I know Mike works with Senator Cardin and the committee, and Tom Lynch works with our committee through Senator Baucus. Also, there is Mark Hybner, Charles Brittingham, Alex Renjel, and Dimitri Karakitsos, who were all just amazing. Lastly, I thank the leadership staff. This became a bill that was so big and involved so many committees. We could not do it without a leadership team working, of course, with the leadership and with the Senators I mentioned, Senator Reid and Senator Durbin. I mentioned before who did the whip count. So I thank the leadership staff, particularly Bill Dauster, Reema Dodin, and Bob Herbert. I thank the staff directors of the key committees who worked on this, including Ellen Doneski, Dwight Fettig, and Russ Sullivan. Madam President, that was a long list of people, but I felt compelled to come down and do that. The staff--and the occupant of the chair knows this, as she has achieved some amazing things. I am so proud of the occupant of the chair. She knows that having the staff behind us to make sure that every ``i'' is dotted and every ``t'' is crossed and every followup is done and every problem a Senator's staff might have is addressed is very important. Nobody really knows about this, so once in a while we need to do this. I wanted to do it before we get into the bill. I ask the Chair, what time do we go back to the bill?

Mrs. BOXER. I will then speak more about the bill because we have some amendments. Can the Chair advise me what the order of votes are on this Transportation bill?