"i think there's a clear difference between what things people write as scholars and how one would approach the role of a judge. and those two are very different things. as scholars, we're paid, in a sense, to question the boundaries of the law, to raise new theories, to be provocative in ways that it's simply not the role of a judge to be. the role of a judge is to faithfully follow the law as it is written and as it is given by the supreme court. and there is no room for invention or creation of new theories. that's simply not the role of the judge." a very -- a very similar statement. it was made by goodwin liu before the senate judiciary committee, april 16, 2010.

he went through by unanimous consent. same kind of situation, unanimous consent. and yet, we may be prevented from even taking a vote on the nomination because he will not get a supermajority for cloture. i must say what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. professor liu, like professor mcconnell, is a brilliant legal mind. he has written extensively. he has been absolutely clear that if confirmed, he would follow not any academic theory or writing but the law as it is written and handed down by the united states supreme court. we took professor mcconnell at his word. professor liu deserves the same treatment. and what's interesting to me, how much things have changed on

this committee, and we have a new presiding officer who is also on the committee. since before you, mr. president, came on when we would really look at a person's personal record, what they have said, what they think the kind of judge they will be and make a decision. so i don't understand, if we can confirm professor mcconnell by unanimous consent, why can't we grant cloture to a man that is -- that has distinguished himself as one of the great legal scholars of our country? let me address one particular criticism that has been made of professor liu's writings, and that's the writing on constitutional interpretation and fidelity to the constitution. some in the senate have harshly criticized his book "keeping faith with the constitution"

because he says at one point that the supreme court has taken social practices -- this is a quote -- "social practices, evolving norms and practical consequences into account when interpreting the constitution." this, some colleagues say, means he will be an activist. first, liu has said this book was written as a professor, as an academic, that it is in no way a road map for how he would decide cases as a judge. he said in his own words the duty -- and this is a quote -- "the duty of a circuit judge is to faithfully follow the supreme court's instructions on matters of constitutional interpretation, not any particular theory." and so that is exactly what i would do. i would attach -- i would apply the applicable precedence to the facts of each case." end quote.

but i think that some are using this nomination to try to set a new standard, to say that the only valid theory of constitutional interpretation is originalism. so i want to point out that liu's comments about constitutional interpretation are hardly exceptional. in fact, they echo statements made by some of our very best jurists across the span of american history. chief justice john marshall, justice oliver wendell holmes and justice sandra day o'connor to name a few. the most famous example, chief justice john marshall, wrote in 1819 in the case of mccullochv. maryland, and i quote -- "we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding. this provision is made in a constitution intended to endure

for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." end quote. chief justice john marshall. we're not all originalists here, and originalism does not define the legal mainstream. in an interview published in the california lawyer in january, justice scalia made the shocking statement that he does not believe the united states constitution guarantees women equal protection of the law. this came out this january. this is a sitting supreme court justice, saying the constitution does not guarantee women equal protection under the law. now, the text of the 14th amendment says no person shall be denying of equal protection of the law, and after decades of

precedent, unanimous consent supreme court decisions agree that women are protected. but regardless of text and precedence, justice scalia says it can't be so because that's not what the drafters of the 14th amendment intended. this is not the american mainstream. following this line of reasoning, the minimum wage would be unconstitutional, schools could still be legally segregated, states could prohibit married couples from using birth control, and i as a woman could be prohibited from standing here today as an elected member of the united states senate. that kind of thinking cannot be a criterion for acceptance onto our federal courts. so some may disagree with liu's statement about constitutional interpretation, but it is hardly a field of the legal mainstream

today. let me just tell you what others who were familiar with liu's full record, full record have said about his work. richard painter, the chief ethics officer for president george w. bush relayed similar thoughts after reading -- excuse me -- after reviewing shiew's record. here's a quote -- quote -- "liu's views are part of the legal mainstream, and i attendant independence, rigor and fair-mindedness of his writings support a confident prediction that he will be a dutiful and impartial judge. liu respects the law, which is what we should begin to expect of a judge, and yet the united states senate may well not give him cloture even to come to a vote on his confirmation. mr. president, that is unfair. jessie chocum, who reviewed all

of liu's writings as the chair of his tenure committee, has similarly said -- quote -- "in addressing a wide range of issues, liu demonstrates rigor, independence, fair-mindedness and most importantly for present purposes sincere respect for the proper role of courts in a constitutional democracy." one thing is clear, he says." liu's interpretive approach is part of mainstream legal thought ." end quote. and finally, someone who has been quoted often here today, kenneth starr. a prominent conservative, former reagan appointment to the d.c. court of appeals, has written to us together with professor akeil omar to say -- "goodwin liu is a person of great accomplishment, integrity, and he is exceptionally well qualified to serve on the court of appeals. in our view, the traits that

should weigh most heavily in the evaluation of an extraordinarily qualified nominee such as goodwin are professional integrity and the ability to discharge faithfully an abiding duty to follow the law. because goodwin possesses these qualities to the highest degree, we are confident that he will serve on the court of appeals not only fairly and competently but with great distinction." i have a very hard time understanding why people would do this, where we listened to and read appellate court judge mcconnell's views, which were antithetical to many of us on this side but believed he would be a fair and good judge, and he

was unanimously confirmed. and someone who has the finest education america has to offer is supported by scholars on both sides of the political aisle, who is truly scholastically exceptional, who could quote case after case after case in his hearings, may well be denied cloture. if he is, this is not the senate of the united states of which i am most proud. i hope i'm wrong. i hope he will be granted cloture because he deserves a vote, up or down, majority. that's america, majority vote on his confirmation. we'll see what happens. i thank the chair. i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

recognized. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business much. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i come to the senate floor as i have week after week since we passed the health care law giving a doctor's second opinion of the health care law. and i come today because last month president obama delivered a very big speech was on spending. unfortunately it seemed to me to be more of a political attack than a substantive speech offering a detailed plan to attack america's debt crisis. well, the president it, however, mention one bit of substance that really should raise a red flag for the american people.

the president said, he said -- quote -- "we will slow the growth of medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission." we will slow the growth of medicare cost by strengthening an independent commission. well, the washington commission that he's referring to is called the independent payment advisory board. this board may sound harmless, but let me assure you the american people deserve to know and have a right to know more details about the board and about its work. many americans may not remember that the health care law created this unelected, unaccountable board of washington full-time bureaucrats. the sole purpose of the board is to cut medicare spending based on arbitrary budget targets. not based on the number of people on medicare. not based on the number of seniors. based on arbitrary budget targets. these are cuts above and beyond

the $500 billion already taken from a nearly bankrupt medicare program during the health care law. taken $500 billion from medicare, from our seniors on medicare, not to save medicare, but to start a whole new government program. and now the president wants to slow the growth of medicare costs by strengthening this independent commission. well, this boredom powers 15 unelected washington bureaucrats to make these medicare cuts all without full transparency in the accountability to the american seniors and also to elected officials. once again, this board proves that the president and the democrats in congress who vowed for the health care law simply didn't have the political courage to make tough spending decisions. instead they took the easy road and pulled a classic washington maneuver. they created a board and then

punted the tough decisions to the board. well, this forced congress to be a abdicate two important congressional duties. first is the constitutional responsibility to manage medicare spending. the second is the responsibility to explain to the american people why specific payment changes might be necessary to keep medicare afloat. all because the president in -- and washington democrats refused to lead. they simply threw up their hands and said let someone else deal with with it. well, if expanding this independent board is, and they call it independent, but i'm not so convinced that it is, it is called the independent payment advisory board. if expanding this board is the one and only concrete proposal that the president has to reform medicare and reduce the debt, and most americans may never

have even heard of it, then it's important that we take the time on the senate floor today to discuss exactly how this board works and the impact that it will have on medical care in america. now, i call this the top 10 things that you need to know about the independent payment advisory board. now, to me this issue is so important that i plan to talk about five of them today and then to come back next week as part of a doctor's second opinion on the health care law and talk about the next five. number one, this board is how washington will limit patient care. when congressman paul ryan offered his 2012 budget plan, the president and members of his party launched an all-out media assault on medicare spending. the white house and democrats used inflammatory and patently false statements to scare people about the ryan plan. they failed to mention that the president's own health care law

actually has significant caps on medicare spending. to enforce the caps the president and washington democrats went with their tried and trued solution to create another board. well, what does all this mean for people currently on medicare and for future medicare patients? well, a centralized washington board will arbitrarily cut payments to medicare providers, doctors, nurses, people taking care of patients. what they're going to do is they will squeeze medicare savings by cutting provider payments an treatment options which will punish patients. why are they doing this? to start a whole new government program. not for people who paid into medicare, but for a different group of people. not only will medical professionals simply decide to stop seeing medicare patients and we see that today, mr. president, frankly, doctors are running away from medicare, not wanting to see medicare

patients. well, individuals, families will watch helpless as the washington -- a washington bureaucrat decides what kind of treatments that person can have. number two, this board, they're going to make recommendations and those recommendations will automatically become law. you say, how can that be? something a board does automatically becomes law? their spending recommendations automatically become law unless congress acts to stop it. and if congress would actually want to stop the board's policies, there are very few options. the options are severely limited. overriding the requirements of -- overriding these board's recommendations requires the three-fifth majority in the senate. it's a high hurdle to jump. or congress can pass a different medicare spending plan, but there's a catch, it still has to

meet the same arbitrary spending target. so if congress does nothing, then health and human secretary kathleen sebelius will implement the board's plan. well, mr. president, medicare consumes about 13% of the federal budget and former office of management and budget director peter orszag called this board -- quote -- "the largest yielding of sovereignty from congress since the creation of the federal reserve." let me say that again, mr. president. the former director of the office of management and budget, peter oor czar called this board the -- orszag called this the largest yielding of sovereignty from congress since the creation of the federal reserve. the bottom line is this board isn't making recommendations to congress. this board is passing law.

well, congress doesn't have to approve these policies of the board and the president doesn't have to sign them. they are law. this represents an unprecedented shift of power from the legislative branch of the federal government to an unelected board of 15 bureaucrats. number three, the policies of this board cannot be challenged in court. on april 19 of this year, "the new york times" published an article titled obama panel to curb medicare finds foes in both parties. this article explains that in general federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board's recommendations. let me repeat. the health care law blocks patient lawsuits against this board's bureaucratic decisions. well, there's an institute in arizona called arizona's goldwater institute, they filed

a lawsuit against the law based in part on this payment advisory board. part of the suit says -- quote -- "congress has no constitutional power to delegate nearly unlimited legislative power to any federal executive branch agency much less to entrench health care legislation against review, debate, revision or repeal. such federal overreaching must be rejected if the principles of limited government and the separation of powers established by the united states constitution mean anything. that's what the lawsuit says. well, let's go to number four. this board's mission is to cut provider payments. the board is strictly limited in what it can do to achieve medicare spending reductions. by law the board can't raise revenue by increasing taxes. it can't increase patient

cost-share methods like premiums, co-payments or deductibles and it can't alter benefit packages. what can it do? well, one thing and one thing only, it will adjust provider reimbursement rates. now, we we all know that medicare reimbursement rate rates are wel delow market rates. that's why doctors are limiting the number of medicare patients they see and in more severe cases refusing to treat medicare patients at all. additional subjective cuts to medicare will not make the program more efficient or more available. these measures will simply reduce the supply of medical care to the medicare patients of america. the medicare chief act wary richard foster warned us that the health care laws medicare cuts will cause providers to

leave the program, and we are seeing that today, mr. president. and it isn't because they don't want to treat medicare patients. it's because the doctors know that the payments will be too low to even cover their costs. mr. foster, the medicare chief actuary has said that approximately 15% of our nation's hospitals would drop out of dmair ten years. and then number five: this board could eventually impact all patients, not just medicare patients. washington democrats have long supported policies that give government more power to set health care prices, not just in public programs like medicare but also in the private sector. president bill clinton asked for this authority in a 1994 debate that at that time was called hillarycare. it was one reason that his

effort failed. president obama learned from that failure. makmake no mistake, he wants to achest same objective. this time he is using this board as a trojan horse to sell it. if president obama's health care law remains the law of the land, millions of americans will have government-subsidized health insurance. paying for this new entitlement program will cost trillions. it will be no surprise when we win evitably hear cries for increased cost control. this is when the president will make his move, proposing to extend this board's reach beyond medicare to the new health care laws subsidized insurance premiums. last month the president opened the door to the strategy when he proposed in his speech to expand this board's power and its control over medicare. and that is why, mr. president,

i come to the senate floor each and every week to deliver a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. a law that i believe is bad for patients, bad for providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients, and bad for our taxpayers. and i believe, mr. president, that the more the american people discover about this so-called independent payment advicery board, the more u unpopular the president's health care law will become. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i notice the absence of 0 quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: i rise to speak in

support of the confirmation of professor goodwin liu to the united states court of appeals to the ninth circuit. as a member of the judiciary committee for the past two years i've had the opportunity to meet with professor liu and vote on his nomination on several occasions. he is a singularly talented individual and i want to associate myself with the remarks that all of my colleagues have made in support of his confirmation. but the strongest arguments i've heard in support of professor liu haven't come from my colleagues. in fact, they haven't come from a democrat. the most persuasive arguments i've heard for conforming professor liu have come from the chief ethics lawyer from the administration of george w. bush, a gentleman named richard painter. professor painter, a republican, is now a prominent law professor

at the university of minnesota. earlier this year professor painter wrote a lengthy article that systematically cataloged professor liu's strengths and systematically answered his critics. this is his conclusion -- and i quote -- "in sum, liu is eminently qualified. he has support from prominent conservatives. he is pragmatic and open-minded, not dogmatic or ideological. many, though by no means all, of his scholarly views do not align with conservative ideology or with the policy positions of many elected officials in the republican party. nevertheless, his views are part of the american legal mainstream. the independence, rigor and fair-mindedness of his writing support a confident prediction

that he will be a dutyful and impartial judge." unquote. when i circulated professor painter's article to the members of the judiciary committee, my republicans sent me a series of articles critiquing professor liu. i would like to take a few moments to rebut the criticisms in these articles, because they simply don't hold water. the first and most common criticism goodwin liu is that he somehow believes in a so-called living constitution. his opponents are especially worried about his suggestion that interpreting the constitution, judges should consider the -- quote -- "evolving norms and traditions of our society." unquote. professor liu has written an entire book about his theory of constitutional interpretation. on page 2 of that book, he writes that we need to consider

a lot of different things when we interpret the constitution. we need to consider the original understanding of the framers. we need to consider the purpose and structure of the constitution. we need to consider precedent. we need to consider the practical consequences of our laws. and lastly, we need to consider the evolving norms and traditions of our society. so this is just one thing -- one thing -- that we should take into account. but even more importantly, this idea that we should merely consider the evolving standards of our society in interpreting the constitution is not a radical idea. in fact, it isn't even a new idea. this issue frequently comes up in fourth amendment cases. over 40 years ago, in a 1967 case called u.s. v.katz, the

supreme court was asked to determine whether a wiretap constituted a search under the fourth amendment. if it did, law enforcement would have to get a warrant to get a wiretap. the problem, of course, was that the founders never anticipated the telephone, let alone the wire to the telephone. so this was a new question for the court. but the court voted 7-1 to find that a wiretap was in fact a search under the fourth amendment. and one of the main reasons they cited was that people in modern society had come to expect and assume that their phones were private. two -- two years later in a separate case called smith v. maryland, the court formally adopted the rule where the court will

protect where our society recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy. so for 40 years, it has been the law of this land that you have to look at social norms when interpreting the fourth amendment. here's another example, one that senator feinstein cited but still bears repeating. this is what chief justice marshall said about the necessary and proper cause in mccullough v. maryland. quote -- "this provision is made in a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." mccullough v. maryland was decided in 1819. so the idea that we should merely consider the state of our society when we interpret the constitution isn't new, it's

old. it's really old. very, very old. in fact, it's arguably older than the senate chamber that we're standing in today. which first opened in 1859. professor liu's detractors have also accused him of believing that judges may -- quote -- "legitimately invent constitutional rights to a broad range of social welfare goods, including education, shelter, subsistence and health care." that's the accusation. this argument is based on an article professor liu wrote in 2008. but if you actually read the article, you'll find this statement right in the introduction. because -- this is a quote from the article. "because the existence of any

welfare right depends on democratic extanciation of our shared understandings, the judiciary is generally limited to an intersticial rol interstin the context of a legislative program. courts do not act as first movers in establishing welfare rights." so in other words, professor liu is being accused of saying that judges can invent welfare rights because of an article he wrote where he said that judges cannot invent welfare rights. the final thing i want to address is the idea that professor liu somehow supports -- quote -- "using foreign law to redefine the constitution." professor liu's critics cite an obscure speech that he gave at a

japanese law school five years ago. according to his critics, he said in the speech that it is -- quote -- "difficult for him to grasp how anyone could resist the use of foreign authority in american constitutional law." well, i went and got a copy of the speech. and if you read it, you'll see that professor liu was referring to a series of supreme court decisions written by justice anthony kennedy where justice kennedy reviewed the laws of foreign countries on certain issues. justice kennedy didn't use the laws of foreign countries to decide the case before him. he used them to get a sense of how other countries were resolving the legal issues before him. professor liu has -- was basically saying that he found it difficult to grasp how people could disagree with justice

kennedy. he has repeatedly said in his testimony under oath that he does not believe that foreign law should be binding in any way on federal law. there are other critiques against professor liu. i won't go into them further here. but i urge my colleagues to dig behind these blanket statements. to paraphase gertrude stein, i think you will find that there is is no there -- that there is no there there. i think what my colleagues will find is an extraordinary intellect, a fundamentally decent man and someone who will be a strong and impartial juri jurist. i urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and to vote to support his nomination. mr. president, i also rise today

to talk about a minnesota icon. minnesotans and baseball fans across this country are celebrating the life of harmon killabrew today. we lost a great slugger, harmon killabrew yesterday. i never met mr. killabrew, which kind of hard for me to believe, because like so many minnesotans, i felt that i knew him. he was the heart of the minnesota twins franchise not just because of the towering home runs that he hit but because on and off the field he carried himself with so much dignity and grace and humility. i was nine years old when the old washington senators moved to minnesota and became the minnesota twins.

we were so excited to have a major league team in minnesota and killebrew was the heart and sowfl the franchise, batting -- and soul of the franchise, batting cleanup and hitting 4 400-foot-plus home runs with his unbelievable swing. by 1965. killebrew, along with tony aleva and bob allison, earl batty, jim perry, jim cott and mudcat grant unseeded the yankee dynasty and took the american league pennant. he was sitting along the left field line of metropolitan stadium, the game before the all-star game that year, when killebrew hit a ninth-inning walk-off homer to beat the yankees. it was not a typical killebrew home run. it was a line drive that just shot out of the park into the left field stands and it sent us into the all-star break in first place. and i, along with lots of twins

fans, believe that that -- it was that blow that was the key to the season. now, as i said, that rope of a homer was not a typical killebrew home run. he was known for these towering blasts. i remember one in particular. i was watching the twins on tv one summer night with my dad and my brother. the twins were playing the tigers in detroit in the old tiger stadium, and killebrew got ahold of one and it cleared the left field roof, one of just four shots that cleared that roof in the 87-year history of the stadium. my recollection is that by its trajectory, the ball was estimated to be a 480-foot home run. killebrew hit the longest ball in the history of metropolitan stadium in bloomington,

minnesota, a 530-foot shot. now, killebrew was not that big a man. he was about -- he was 5'11", about 210 pounds. in his major league career, harmon killebrew hit 573 home runs, all without the aid of steroids. killibrew grew up in rural idaho. according to one press report i read last night, he claimed to have gotten his strength from carrying 10-gallon milk cans as his youth. i know the power of where those home runs came from, his legs. see, about 20 years ago a friend of mine did a little film with killibrew and he traveled to killibrew's home in idaho.

and my friend asked killibrew where his power came and from harmon said that it came from his legs and killibrew told my friend that the killibrews all had incredibly powerful legs. and he told my friend that killibrew's father, his father, killibrew's father, could jump over a cow from a standing position. now, i'd always hoped to meet killibrew and ask him about that, and i had a chance to. in 2005 there was a commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the 1965 twins pennant winning team. it was held in a tent outside the metrodome after a game. i was in the tent and i got tony to leave his autograph and

panel's autograph and i saw killibrew and he was surrounded by fans and i wanted to give him space. he was a totally accessible guy. every twins' fan knew that from his years on the team and in the broadcast booth. for some reason i decided to talk to another great member of that team and i thought i would catch harmon or talk to him later, but by the time i tried to find him again, he was gone. so i never met harmon killibrew. but, again, like all twins' fans, i felt like i knew him. a gracious, humble man that we in minnesota were privileged to watch, that we were privileged to have represent our state. thank you, mr. president. and i -- i yield the floor and i ask for -- there's a note -- i

note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: vitiate that. i ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of mompg business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 49, s. res. 174. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 49, s. res. 174, expressing the sense of the senate that effective sharing of passenger information from inbound

international flight manifests and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the resolution be agreed to, the lieberman amendment which is at the desk to the preamble be agreed to and the preamble as amended be agreed to, there be no intervening action and debate and any statements relating to this matter appear in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 189. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 189, recognizing and honoring harmon killebrew and expressing the condolences to the senate to his family on his death. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i will just make a very brief comment. i'm a great -- i'm not a great

baseball farntiobaseball fan. i'm a baseball fan. i'm sure there's better fans than me. i followed baseball all my life as a boy. i loved baseball games. i would love to have met harmon killebrew. a man that before anyone suggested steroids that was so powerful. he holds i think it's 10th or 11th in the history of baseball for hitting home runs. what everyone says about him, he was such a nice man in addition to that. so i'm very happy to ask consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to s. res. 190. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 190, recognizing the 100th anniversary of the indianapolis 500-mile race. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid reid: i ask unanimous consent that the bill s. 840 be discharged from the committee on environment and public works and referred to the committee on finance. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i've been told that s. 1022 is due for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 1022, a bill to extend expiring provisions of the u.s.a. patriot improvement and reauthorization act of 2005 and the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 until december 31, 2014, and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president, i now ask for a second reading but object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on

the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. thursday, may 19. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the mal majority leaders or their dead knees. following morning business, the senate proceed to executive session you are the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: ad madam president, re will be a roll call vote tomorrow at about 2:00 p.m. on the motiothe motion to invoke cn goodwin liu to be u.s. circuit court judge. mr. president, there seems to be no one here asking for time. if that is, in fact, the case, i ask that we adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

our energy future. and we need those jobs to be here. the estimate is that 190,000 barrels would be down in 2012 because we've not been pursuing the drilling practices -- it's the drilling practices -- it's first >> is relatively him youngdahl professor from california. he's 40, and he's someone that democrats say has an american

story where he is the son of immigrants, he who grew up and e went to some of the best schooll in the country, yale law and was a rhodes scholar be going on to a clerk at the supreme court which is not something many lawyers get to do. and he has consideredand controversial becauseardith republicans think he would be among the most liberal judges on the federal appeals court if he were confirmed, and he might be a future supreme court nominee t president oann the line so the stakes are pretty high for hisa nomination. of me >> when he was nominated how fae did his nomination get? sid it make it to the senate acp floor last time? >> it did but it did not get a vote on the senate floor so he was first nominated back in february of 2010. so he's been waiting the little bit longer than a year which ist a long time for a nominee, most

judiciary committee several times controlled by democrats ok course, but he never came up for a vote on the senate floor lastr year. o democrats were busy with health care s legislation among withads other priorities and the almosty bought his nomination at the end of the year and at last minute did not.io >> he mentioned his republicant opponents say they think he would be among the most liberalt judges appointed. how do his supporters respond to that charge? rher, >> they think that he is within written some of his writings was have, for example, point out the which is not an issue that iseae liberals, and they say that the testimony at his confirmation hearing when he talked about rolling along and putting aside

some of his academic writingsnt, that republicans have seized on, part of the issue here, too, ise not just his academic writings but his advocacy work.rday,'s he was on the board of the american constitutional society which is a sort of network group for liberal lawyers and he was d the chairman of the board, and that had put him in a positionmt to be sort of a spokesman for 3y the legal wing of the democratiw party. >> take a look at what may come up in the senate. first of all why did harry reid consider bringing it up again come a procedural vote in thehy it didn't moves ldn't atrough, didn't get a vote the last time through.t he's been waiting since it february 10. has anything changed the would give an indication that he made it approved this time around? >> there was a vote two weekssnm ago on another charge whooves republicans wanted to filibustel and who made it through and he survived the f filibuster.lan

as a thinking the votes are there to survive this test needs 60 votes but everyone says it'so going to be close. there are some republicans who him even if they don't support i his nomination, and the questioe is are there enough of those republicans who while they mighe not support dittman lu will nott vote to block him in the way ofr prmey democrats blocked nominee of george w. bush. >> david in groome who writesld for the "legal times" and the national journal, thank you for that update. >> you're welcome.

last week the house passed a bill that would expand offshore oil and gas drilling. today the senate voted not to move forward with their version of the bill. next, a portion of the debate on the measure this is 40 minutes.e >> mr. p tresident, yesterday te senate voted on the bill ton increase taxes on the productiod of oil and gas in the united thoues as well as the tens off thousands of americans thats injury employees and the millions of americans it served we should have been debating ths budget and the senate hasn't passed a a budget for 749 days.t but othe majority decided during this bill to the floorhange psterday, an effort i think toe change some of the conversationh from the problem that it had, which is our spending problem iw washington. o todayf we borrow 40 cents of w

every dollar we spend, spending on domestic government agencies, get this, domestic non-defense t government agencies in the past two years increase 24%. this was $800 billion stimulus package was much more than thato it will go bankrupt and 2024. d the social security trust fund will be insolvent and 2036 andde the nation's debt has increased from 5 trillion to 14 trillion. despite the gravity of theo situation the majority has to chosen to debate the bill toil d increase taxes oil and gas, an industry that employs 170,000 americans. the past year 11,000 new jobs,-

1.9 trillion in taxes have beenn generating 1.9 trillion in taxes generated by the industry since 1981.eid-mene the menendez bill would not have decreased prices of the pump but would have shipped more jobs overseas and resulted theil and whenever you tax something you a get less of it.it's jus that you drive up the cost. it's just that simple.t g so we are all aware that gas prices have doubled in the president's first two years in office and raising taxes on in energy companies, operating in america would do nothing to hela that situation. the real solution is for america to enact legislation thation. increases domestic american energy production. from a variety of sources

natural gas, nuclear, we need to do more of nuclear. hydroelectric, biofuels and other sources of reliable energy that americans can put to good use, our energy conservation isy a factor and should place a very important role. it fosters economic growth, projects an environment in a co-effec reasonable and cost-effective manner. americans need affordable domestic energy.an does regrettably, the senate majority inteed in plan doesn't seem to be interested in that kind ofhis energy policy. in april of this year, did this, just last month united states 34 imported 344 million barrels of. oil from foreign sources of of t

344 million barrels. that is over 60% of the leal conservative america. that means that we sent alone to purchase the oil that we imported. stated differently, last month alone, the united states spent over $980,000 per minute on oil from foreign sources.te that's almost a million dollars a minute.resents a signi to the national security as so many have told us and as many oa the dollars are going, the nation's that are not sending ie to us. this also further exacerbates the nation trade balance. we in part for. more than we export, and the exports now aree beginning to rise a little bit b

but they are more than offset be importing oil. the rate menendez bill would increase the price of energy iny america, which i have to say seems to be the objective of thd administration, and some in the senate. in 2 september, in 2008, steven chu called "the wall street journal" in an interview, quote, somehow we have to figure outthr how to boost the price of gasoline t eo the levels in nowy of he is now the secretaryf energy for the united states of america.hinkingut he needs to be thinking about how to get the cost down andge serve the constituency ofconstii america. has that we ought to be raisingn the cost of energy to the levelf in europe and the environmentaln

protection agency in fact ishat enacting new regulation thatt of will also drive up the cost of energy in a way that shouldigh never have happened in my view n and we have had some votes on se that and hopefully we will soon be able to pull back thatfford effort. a study by the affordable powert asncluded epa greenhouse gas g regulations could increase the cost of gasoline by 50%. electricity by 50% and natural gas by 75% of the next 20 years. that is a stunning figure.t' no doubt who will drive it up. so the majority has yet to recognize the impact these tax increases and new epa regulations will have on the t

economy.o a but in prices up to $4 a gallon from 2.75% in september.o from $2.75 this translates intoe a 5% cut in the average american's discretionary income. just for the same amount of gas doesn't mean less spending on home improvement, furniture, ths clothes, vacation, things people it's in formed in a way in a stultz tax on the americantaxe people. make surthermore increasing energy bs taxes will make your own business in the united states rs more expensive. as a result, jobs will go overseas and a family which pays over $140 a month for gasoline. if you're paying $200 a month,

and many are, it would be $280 a month.in the price. a add that up. that's what it amounts to.ses $80 for a family that uses $200e a month in gasoline.axes some argue that raising taxes or will help reduce our deficit,e but the bill the increases in the read menendez bill would be approximately $1.2 billion in 2012 with a projected deficit of over $1,600,000,000,000 this year. the revenue produced from these taxes would be a drop in theet. bucket. bae our don't think it's going to balance out of budget. that's for sure. w furthermore the bill's sponsors claim that the money would ben e used to reduce the deficit, butt there is nothing in the bill that does that. although the language sounds caa

good, the language is essentially what we call the sense of the senate and has no t binding power. in the end nothing in the bill s could have been construed in mandating deficit reduction as simply a tax increase plan and increase taxes on the energy con industry dador the convoluted tax system that is increasing and inhibiting job growth ine us america. the united states has the second highest corporate tax in the world, 39.5%. all the developed nations have been reducingir their taxes.corx japan has as high a corporateg . tax rate as we do and they are reducing theirs. last the canadian finance minister i had a chance to meet him last is week.heir tax canada is bringing the tax rate

down to 14, below 15% and we ar3 taxing9. at 39.5. b to decide the be to build their factory in canada rather than hs the united states --t >> the senator's time is js? expired.e -- i wld ask >> mr. president, thank the have one additional minute. >> without objection. >> i would thank the chair andll say that i believe that the mcconnell of legislation which has three components, one aimede at restoring american offshore production in the wake of thet'k moratorium that has been, imposed, safety components aimed at preventing future incidents likede deepwater horizon streamn the permits i believe that is, the mright way to go more production of american pro

energy willdu help the country,n the economy and people. econo, e i thank the chair would yielde the floor. >> the senator from new jersey.: >> mr. president, i've come to f the floor to talk about the drig republican bills expand close tt shrilling without environmentalt review, without the planning process and important safety myg measures and i have to respond to my distinguished colleague from alabama's remarks about the bill legislation yesterday onlyy in washington, only in washington taking $21 billionres from the oil company tax breaksc which the legislation said clearly would go to deficit reduction at a time oil b companies are making anywhere betweenot $125,000,000,144,000,000,000 in profits, not revenue, butonlyn profits would that be not

reducing the deficit. only in washington could use a taking $21 billion from the oilr industry and the tax breaks to get with record profits the verc losses very clearly the way it orically to the deficit reduction on the debt could be viewed in different ways. and to suggest that the oilhat companies cannot do without the $21 billion of the taxpayers' $5 money when they are making it's 125 billion to $144 billion in profits is pretty outrageous. wa but, you know, i know whatbig ol today's legislation is about. yesterday was standing up for ur big oil by the republicans and today for big oil again becauseu it's not about reducing gas prices. haven't we learned anything from the tragic death of 11 menatle o aboard the deepwaterve horizon g a little over a year ago haven't

we learned anything about the families that lost their tak livelihoods and the gulf economy that would take decades to yr finally rebuild. e i came to the floor to speak ata this human environmental catastrophe, a skill that many in the chamber said was inconceivable. simil inconceivable despite the fact y is remarkably similar skills had happened a year before off of 23 australia's coast. m 230 miles of coastline in louisiana, mississippi, alabama, florida was spoiled by toxic thr oil, and countless families whov made their living to have theirt lives turned upside down. this was the oil spill insimilar australia but this is similar tf despite the reality my colleagues on the other side ofl

will open new aerias to coastal's drilling, but millions more family at risk of losing. cerything. calling for coastal communities like my home state of new jersey to risk everything they havess blocked efforts to address therd raised by the deepwater horizon blowout and the results of what the commission said.drilling this reckless bill would allow new drilling in the sensitive coastal areas, even though oveht current safety and oversightnadt laws has been deemed to beprevet inadequate to prevent a repeat i of the goals disaster. so i asked you, mr. president, have we learned nothing? my home state of new jersey o would face a risk of strolling

along va's coast less than. 100 miles from the jersey shoren if the gulf spill seven did virginia waters many ne ow jersc families that much of ourecon coastal economy wouldom be ruint we have magnificent pristineoast beaches along the coast they are breathtaking. wildlife is abundant, tourism depends on it, and it was all be in jeopardy. this is the second major driver in the billions of dollars of the economy. what? this photo slihows what happenso wild life when coastal drilling goes wrong.ould it's similar to the gulf could quickly travel to the cape and blanket the entire jersey shore in the toxic oil. this would leave only be environmental disaster but also

an economic disaster for newasor ts and our wildlife disappeared, tourists waiting into the ocean would be replaced by cleanup crews and biohazard suits. state that's not what the people of the coastal communities of my state or in the other state of. with approximately 60% of new gd jersey's 38 billion-dollar tourism industry generated byth the isjersey shore we cannot afford to let this happen and when we had the effect this bilg would have on the multimillion-dollar fishing industry the economic unimagina consequences are unimaginableash it's not sensible to play russian roulette with an asset n that generates thousands of jobr and tens of billions of dollarst per year for drilling assets that could never generates even one-tenth of that.

my colleagues offer will times our coastal economy to bring down the price of debt that whar you need is more production domestically but here's the problem. we have a greater protectionthan than any of the char at shows ad at any time since 2005.aven't yet the gas prices haven't gone down. strk? the great productionore. domestically than ever beforeatt gas prices haven't gone down.els and what is the department of energy telling us? it estimates opening all the shores to drilling and gasresidt prices by a much mr. president?o one, two, 3 cents. in the year 2030. dr that's the department of energy and the united states.

that's about providing relief right now.years yete w 3 cents per gallon in 20 years yet webi would risk tens ofoastl billions of dollars of damage to the coastal economy. instead of scribbling down oneny the 19th century fuel, we shoulw be investing in the new 21st century greenie economy thatbill irll create thousands of newproa jobs, new wealth and helppollut. protect the air and water from move pollution. it's time for this country to move forward and embraced thehe future rather than clutch on to the ways of the past.hat the last two days we the bills presented a clear choice. my bill to cut oil tax breaks ed and this bill to recklessly expand oil drilling. neither wouldde do anything to gasoline prices despite theei rhetoric of the address width oy the aisle. to cut i said it very clearly my billwt to cut oil subsidies was about lowering the deficit and doing g

so by cuttingh wasteful subsidies. it's hard enough to pay nearly $4 a gallon of gas but then hade to have the taxpayers reaching and giving more money to big oim to have them make bigger profits is pretty outrageous. without normal safety or environmental review. my bill was designed to help taxpayers and their bill is designed to help oil companies. when it's all said and done, that's what we are deciding today. are you with working class, middle-class americans or are you with big oil? i think there's only one fair answer, only one answer that makes sense for american families and only one answer that makes sense for ourselves as a country looking to future generations. the reality is, is that if we learned nothing from the tragedy of a year ago, then it's a we a year ago, then it's a then, it's a sad time. we this we have learned yes we can

drilling in certain billi areas, but it must be done safely or else we spend billions afterwards cleaning up the mess. i don't want to clean the oil tompanies masa. amecans a i do want to put future generations of americans at risk in terms of conservation of their environment and i certainly don't want to wait for 2030 to take all of that is, ale of the billions of dollars in. coastal economy for 3 cents, mr. president. let's vote no on this suggestion and let's f move forward to a ad clean energy future that finallo breaks our addiction tose foreih oil and breaks our addiction to those gas prices we suffer mr. t today. with that i yield the? floor. >> mr. president, i hear talk about gas prices in the economy and the effect ofhe the economyg

and our future.ore we need to work hard to be sure we are producing more americant better way to do that than produce more american energy. wy we use about the same amount of. energy andth a good economy as - do in a week economy. whether i this is the place to go where we know the consumer start, whether to let it fail or gasoline ato the gas pump and we have to bers doing all we can to produce those jobs. certainly there are many fact fears that affect the price ofpy oil, things like the value of ee the ntdollar, supply and demande the global events that affectilg oil like problems right now inui libya and other oil-producing countries or even the weather. i lived in a state that was bounded by the mississippi river and flooding down the mississippi has had an impact oo theve north-south movement of refined products in the country and all those things happened that i'm gas prices.

one thing that will come out this summer that i've worked hard on and my colleagues to what we could do to be sure that our efforts to have clean air don't be proslavery straight to yo supply of gasoline. you know, as we get into the summer months, to many cities have their own unique blend of fuel and that means that we turn the refinery centers -- the blendsf refineries into profit centers, making these unique blends of fuel that process audio into ney gasoline and different blends of gasoline only when necessary ass opposed to whenever someone is t convinced the city they uniqueey wind of fuel is the only one that they can possibly use in me state of missouri we have one wonder fuel in the summer andf another blend across this date in kansas city and a third one to feel in between and all those

have to be funded separately, sy separately and the gas act, which i hope we can talk about more in the next few weeks is one of the ways we can say let'e bring this common sense into the system. let's take the supplied we haves available and use it in a way that makes the most sense. katri in fact, right before katrina in 2009, the president was givenal new authority in cases of fuel natural disaster to suspend then fuel blends if there was ae restriction of supply. the president did that. i don't think it had the th presi authority about before katrinads hit. the president did that and in the sixpence the authority was used, gas prices didn't go a int any significant way at all as i recall because for the six-month period of time, gasoline became

get gasoline company can selltbe gasoline. somebody had gasoline, you could buy gasoline. it didn't b under can you bewasf convinced in your community was the only one that's right you. we set some standards on those funds at the time in the gas act, 30 of my colleagues willth more standard semantics one way to try to use the supply we have in a way that makes the most se. sense. another way is clearly parkhurse energy needs to be threefold toc use energy more efficiently. to use last, to find more interest in the future, to find out what those things that we as need to b wee looking at as we transition a system.at we and i am not at all of the opinion we will have a system -n

a fleet of cars the disparity in different ways at some date in the foreseeable future. the foreseeable future would bet 30, 40 years. i'm equally convinced that matter what direction the 25 years from now the majority of s cars on the highway will still be using gasoline. that means let's find more of t that here and that's what the ashur producing and safety act does, that senator, let traduce, cosponsored that. this bill reallyat tries to off restore our offshore exploratioy of energy. come 30% of our energy has come from the gulf. our domestic energy supply have come from the goals in recent g years and they want to be sure that number continues to remain at that level. since april of 2010, the

administration's only approved 53 shallow water and 14 deepwaterdeep permits.ere most of those were underway ago before the deepwater horizons ft still a year ago. in fact, the moratorium has fors all practical purposes become what some people are describing is a purgatory in. the we were going to look that can, should and needs to produce.rojd offshore energy production will fall by 210,000 barrels per day this year.s 210 barrels this year. 210,000 fewer barrels of oil every day this year then we got last year. surely that's not a solution.s

the recipient of the jobs thatwd follow our energy future and we. need those jobs to be here. the estimate is $190,000 would n be down in 2012 because we have' het been pursuing the access,1 t the 2011 could be the first yeat since w 1958 that the governmena won't hold an off cell li shorey. the first time since 1958. does that mean we are less dependent on oil 1and gasoline than they were in 1958 and 1969t i'm looking at resources we have. recently, meaning saturday into saturday's speech the presidenth

appears to have reversed course on this issue and is t called fr alaska and the gulf of mexico leases to be reinstated and for an extension of leases impacted by theil moratorium. i think this bill helps what the president called for on for the saturday. pass that would be lightning speed for the senate to pass a bill on president asked for andbut add saturday. new it's in mind what would be in as take this would help them out. the number of sales is then determined by the president's address, but we c could help bys leasing and print missing is the that.offsho lea this directs the interior department to conduct the offshore lease sales, or,

administration challenge canceled rather inease december 2010. use release sales were underway. thethe administration canceled those lease sales in december oe last year.ern and these were sales in the western and central golf and on the oer virginia outer continental shele in the alaska outer continental shelf. let's go back to that point, ley those lease sales move forward as they were doing before they were canceled. the president said saturday,'s let's do this.ncouragement let's do it a must give him the tools and encouragement he needs to do it right now. this would end the permanentast moratorium that occurred last l iar and the goals that put thee 30 day time limit for the dep

interior department to review and decide on drarievlling perm, a projected the interiorlose department has to disclose why he projected the parents. wro shouldn't be anything wrong wite that if the permit should be it, ought everybody had toto be told and f also provides for the false approval of the interior't mayin department doesn't make a and finally, it improves safety aocedures by adding additional requirements for a spillesponse response plan, a containment tha response plan to see that was wd done. this would mean that we'd havegy more american energy and more american energy has two impacts. one, it would inject more supply in the market place, putting pressure on the world widema pre marketplace, putting price psuer pressure. if we fully pursue our ownhave a resources, that does have an impact on the short gamehat amer

response of the industry becausf they knowic that america -- andt so, i o would urge we approve td bill. i intend to vote for it in a yield that.the esiding >> mr. president. >> senator from oklahoma isok recognized. >> mr. president, first of all, let me say for starters i will be supporting the bill we have today.nough, it didn't go far enough, though. we are opening up everything.the i'm talking about the cd, - atlantic, gulf, north slope.icue that's what we really need to be doing. whyhey i know there are some reasons te why they are confining it to gs goals in terms of legislationdoo embody respect that, again itmem doesn't go farak enough. let me just make one comment abou- t yesterday. i think right now the singley i

issue in terms of energy is thet price of gas at the pumps. i know this isn't just my wife. they are all that way and i can see that when the democrats came up with a bill last night, i hope people remember who is voting for thiss that is for a major tax increase on what they call big oil.compa, those are the five biggest oil companies. nonetheless -- and i say this, but sometimes you can walk with. half-truths and get by with it v and people assume that is true.m as much as i love my fellows ont the other side, some of the links that were stated were actually just totally inaccurate to say that the big five don'tea pay xetaxes, they picchu taxes.i i don't go with it, but some oft these numbers. and i was thinking of exxon mobil and just tell you somethingasn' you're not aware of, mr. president because it hasn't been set on the floor yet.

in 2010, exxon mobil's total tax expense in the united stateswere were $9.8 billion. that's what they paid in taxes t 2010. that includes incomehat tax ex8 and 1.6 billion to 9.8 billion in tax has exceeded the 2010 u.s. operating earnings of seven and a half billion dollars. what we're saying they paid $9.8 billion in taxes. they only $ received 7.5 billion in terms of earnings from the united states.heir now why is that? is because 80% of operations or in other countries. c they are in 100 differentcharget countries. not one of the other countries churches taxes when they go offy shore. we are the only country -- irges believe are the only country tht that churches united states taxr on production that takes place in some other country. now for that reason, if you d single out -- if we tax like

most people do it would be a tah credit and not a tax it all.thaf nonetheless, they were that year of $9.8 billion. year, that's 2010. operating the u.s. operating earnings were 2.6 billion. e more than $8 billion came from reerations in more than 100 countries worldwide. here is a member of washington. duringst the first quarter on $6 those earnings of $2.6 billion, diacritic tax expense and paid a tax of $3.1 billion. now, they are paying more thanyu for getting out of this country. i think sooner or later you have to come up and just tell thewari truthnk so what's happening.. it's all class war for and i think we know that. they're all t bad. i pduction and yet, you know, we have a lot

of production in the state of oklahoma. we have companies like anadarko who i really doing a lot to relieve this problem. and i know it's going to happen. it didn't pay us obviously and it's not going to pay us. the if it had come at the nexter target with even smaller domestic companies. good i remember coming down to the floor last year when i couldad senator from vermont had a billt i just happen to get your inten- to stop them debate it it and defeat it. now that he'll even used in that the picture of the check from wt exxon mobil as to what the taxwn liabilities for her. opini totally wonrong in my opinion as apparently in the opinion of 61 of the 100 senators as they joi, legislation. now do we have a solution to the problem? not this is not rocket science. and right now we have said many,

many times it just happened in s the last eight months congressional research service,t floor anded it on the question the fact they are nonpartisan, objective. our recoverable reserves in gren coal, oil and gas are greater in america than any other country in the world. we have to recoverable reserves. the problem is we have the political problem for thelise, liberals here come along with liberals in the white house come including the president will nol exploit iran's resources. we have all the oil t and gas ad coal that is out there.of t we can be totally dependent.o in a very short period of time if we just go offshore on all three coasts along with the north area, and more and with the public lands. as they say, every other country does it. car you have to wonder, why don't we do it?n oil,

why is it we don't care about supplying ourselves with home-grown oriole, gas and coal and taking care of our own energy needs? we have the ability u to your, a politicians won't let us do it.h thereat is one reason and this - really disturbing comment that ind micates that this administration, they don't want to do it.not inter i mean, this administration has said many times that they are notal interested. alan krueger, assistant secretary of treasury says a - s subsidy are currently provided oil and gas industry lead to inefficiency by encouraging on domestic resources and industryr secondly, this administration believes it is no longer sufficient to address our nation's energy needs by finding more fossil fuels.for look, i have offered -- and for, coal, gas, oil, nuclear.of t and for all the above. resourc

further, the administration's w goal is to have resources invested in ways which yield thr highest social return. socialn. return. why, that's a totally different thing.ourselve not ans. economic return. not the ability to run a country ourselves that some social engineering that is going on. the most important is when the came from secretary to come ine. the energy secretary for said, president obama. organize some sort ofon h regula thing i'm hydraulic fracturing and he said -- this is a quote,o but somehow we have to figure t out how to boost the price of

europe. o now this is our administration sameness. this is the secretaryen of enery to put up a president obama.o somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline in europe. or intentionally raising the price of gas by the rented anere nation. we were boring or in the h campaign when barack obama was the united states senator. he said under my plan ofkyrocket cap-and-trade come electricity y tes wouldn't necessarily b skyrocket. so in it which is why my good aisl, friends on the democratic side of the aisle to watch this tetty close.ean it doesn't mean their constituents do. i can assure you your constituents do n not. swhee but something unusual about the state of oklahoma. a let's see what this crs report

said more specifically. one i they said in the ft report, the one that i just talked about, america's combine recoverable cl ars is the largest on earth. l america's cover above resources are far larger thanbi those of saudi arabia, china and canada combined. we have an oil called and gas. n it's endowed withf 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil which will run the united states of america fon 50 years. we've got it.ticians o o they just got to get politicians out of the way she produced it. natural gas is over 2000 cubict feet an increase of more than 25%, just since the committeesay 2006's estimate.p in min

it's enough natural gas to meet america's demand for 90 years. keep in mind a natural gas is energy, but also natural gas is toy it' something we'll be using in our cars today. the we're working and certification' of engines that burn naturalalln gas. the price that they comparable talent of natural gas is $1.66 a gallon. a dollar 60 cents as opposed to gallon. natural gas, have to say this, the president made his speech stations. on thisan probably three weeks agoa mr. president he said in that speech we have an abundant supply of good, clean natural, o gas.

very careful of what we're doing because we don't want to contaminate with hydraulic fracturing. i happen to come from oklahoma. fve not had one contaminationts since 1948, 60 years. natu and yet right now there isra gog to stop us from particular fracturing., in these tight formations, the b it's d a way of inserting liquid develop it t. u and so it's fair.we don so what the president is saying natural gas, but we don't want to use hydraulicand th fracturiy there is an effort right now to try to take that over as arightn federal fund, relation of it' hydraulic fracturing. right now there's never been a

problem with it. is regulated differently in different states. for example,da in oklahoma arees talking about that of some 35,000 feet. you could just north into kansas. it's between three andit's not 4000 feet. so it's different in differentat states.done? if it's not hebroke, we don't nd to fix it. what is the president done? he has put nsecretary chew in charge of determining secretarye chew is the same guy that saidee we've got to raise the price of our gasoline to the gasoline price in europe is the wrongactv guy. a besides that come i would remind you, mr. president we have a study going on right now by the. environmental protection agency on hydraulic fracturing.s we can study and get this in dep

there and try to pass something for being able to develop or natural gas.iant right now people aren't aware ot it. we are relying on call for 50%ac ofhine the power is number one accounting for more than 20% of the world h school. oil we have. gas, coal oil. wh all we have to do is how many people in america who have gone through elementary school, don't remember supply and demand? we have and huge supply and it will blde j difficult for us. american people are open upd toa

production all over america. t and to do that we have to gothii beyond this bill. a this is a start but is worthwhile. >> joining us as len kerner at dna news. the senate took a pair procedural vote on legislation this week aimed at addressing high gas prices at the pump when democratic sponsored bill, one republican sponsor. how do these two bills aim to lower gas prices? focus the attention or by both sides? >> well, yesterday the senate democrats tried to move to a bill that would refuel about $21 billion in tax breaks for the five major oil companies and that was defeated. it didn't reach the 60-vote threshold they needed. and today the republicans tried to move to a bill to expand

offshore oil and gas drilling the senate is pretty much in a gridlock right now on how to deal with high gas prices. >> senator reid suggested after yesterday's vote that those subsidies, tax rates is to oil and gas companies to raise the debt ceiling. but his rationale for that? >> well, he still believes and the democrats who believe that $100 a barrel oil don't need these that were approved in oil prices were much lower. studies of congressional research teddies and taking away tax breaks really won't raise

the prices of gasoline. and so, they don't see that as a fact here. they see it as a fairness issue in budget deficit. >> about the republican measure, the one that didn't move forward in the senate, lashley based on legislation that was passed by the house concerning drilling. doesn't president obama -- has and he said lately he's open to opening up for drilling in making the lease process faster? >> that's exactly right. as we generate, he sort of moved to -- to the middle ground, where he would agree that there needs to be some faster offshore drilling, including an alaska. and so, he's moving towards the middle, so maybe there is some

common ground they can find about this particular bill that was voted on today was considered a partisan bill. they still have a lot of work to do. so there is some room for compromise. this is an issue they're going to have to continue to work on through the spring. so maybe they can find some common ground. >> i guess that's the last question. the senate democrats couldn't and the subsidies in their legislation. they couldn't move forward at the republican bill you called gridlock in the senate. so what really is the next stage for this debate over gas prices and offshore drilling? >> well, the democrats are not giving up. next week, the senate energy committee is supposed to have a markup and senator bingaman, the chairman would like to try to move oil spill legislation. through his committee next offered. the republicans might not let

that happen. the senate energy committee is trying to work on this issue and come up with a bipartisan bill to address some of these issues on energy supply and demand. were going to see that play out weeks ahead. >> covering those issues on capitol hill, sub one of the bna news coming thank you for the update. >> thank you. >> defense secretary robert gates said there is no evidence that the pakistani government knew of osama bin laden's whereabouts, but he believes the money.

watch the briefing with admiral mike mullen at the pentagon today. >> if i were in pakistani shoes, i would say i've already paid a price. i've been humiliated. i've been shown that the americans can come in here and do this with impunity. and i think we have to recognize that they see a cost in not in a price that has been paid. but if the leadership doesn't know -- look, i've done as much about accountability here as perhaps anybody, but i never fired anybody because they didn't know about a problem. i fired them because once they found out about a problem they didn't take it seriously. with the senior leadership in pakistan didn't know, tried to hold them accountable for it.

>> you can watch the briefing in its entirety tonight at 8:00 tonight on c-span. >> history as he knows much more than just politics and soldiers, social issues. it's also medicine and science and art, music and theater and poetry and ideas. and we shouldn't lump things into categories. it's all part of the same thing.

>> today, president obama traveled to new london, connecticut to deliver the keynote address that you have coast guard academy's 130 at commencement. as approximate 130 cadets and as for your program in which students graduate with a bachelor of science degree in an obligation to serve five years in the coast guard. he was introduced by homeland security secretary, janet napolitano. >> to the class of 2011, you

will shortly become the newest top sellers in the world's oldest life-saving service, branch of our armed services it dates back more than two centuries. on behalf of myself and our colleagues at the department of homeland security and all the men and women of the united states coast guard, we are proud of what you have 30 accomplish. you've worked hard to become the leaders who will keep our nation's coastlines safe and secure for all. he will enjoy the great maritime tradition that has endured for generations and will continue on for many more. and you have committed to always be prepared for whatever mission, whatever emergency or whatever challenge comes their way. and you have party displayed tremendous dedication to serve our nation and our nation's ideals. you will draw on all of these qualities if you help protect our nation for new and emerging

threat. today these challenges have our coast guard plane in absolutely critical role here at home and also in support of the american interests abroad. as new officers come you will therefore be called upon for many different missions and i'm confident you will respond as their coast guardsmen have responded time and again with honor, respect, devotion to duty. you know, borrowing from cadet prompts amorous analogy, graduating from the economy is like everest in a way. everest may be the tallest mountain in the world, but if the knot with a little bit shorter and much more difficult to climb its case you and far few people have reached its summit. you have some innate everest. we are calling upon you now for the more difficult duties that client the world's most difficult mountain. so as we have seen with tears

today, we are proud -- proud of you. we thank your families who have supported you through this endeavor and we look forward to the mountains who will climb behind. and now, with my very great honor to introduce at commencement and our nation's commander-in-chief. he is a leader who speaks to the tremendous opportunities of our time each and every day, that never takes his eyes off the threat of our country basis. we have seen his great leadership on homeland and national security and we have seen him make tough decisions that leaders have to make. please join me in welcoming to the podium, the 44th president of the united states, barack obama. caught not [applause]

[applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. please, please save. good afternoon, everyone. distinguished as, governor malloy and congressman courtney, families, friends and most of all -- let's try it this way. cadets, what classes this? >> class of 2011. >> i just wanted to make sure. [cheers and applause] it is a great honor to be with you as the commission the newest

entrants in the united states coast guard. and cadets, let me say and i know your families will agree, that you all look fantastic. [laughter] thank you, secretary napolitano for your introduction, but more importantly your outstanding leadership in keeping our homeland secure secure admiral e admiral papp for keeping our coast guard strong and to sub for an academy faculty and staff. thank you for building these outstanding young men and women and inspiring leaders have carried her who are prepared to serve their country. admiral admiral burhoe, as you prepare to retire in the coming days, i just want to thank you and your wife betsy for 34 years of distinguished service to our country. [cheers and applause]

caught not [applause] i have to say by the way he looks a little junker. you don't want him roaming around the house. make sure he is doing something. [laughter] although my understanding she is not here today. i also want to acknowledge her next superintendent, admiral sandra stosz. she will be the first woman ever to lead one of our nations academies. [applause] that's an incredible tribute to her, but also a tribute to the opportunity that the coast guard affords women of talent and

commitment, including the class of 2011, which has one of the largest numbers of women cadets in the history of this academy. cadets, today is your day, but it's also a testament to those who supported you every step of your journey. when he chose this life of service, your families backed you up. when you thought you couldn't go on, they both do a. i suspect when things got a little tight in the money department, they coughed it up. [laughter] so, cadets you are here because of them and i ask you in joining me in honoring her remarkable families. [applause]

i have to say, it is a personal pleasure to be here because since the day i took office, the united states coast guard has played a special role in my presidency and with her family. i have seen the coast guard's provision when the class of 2011 marched in the parade during my inoculation. he looks pretty good on that day, too. a little colder that day if you recall. i've seen your devotion to duty all along the gulf coast, when the coast guard, including members of this class worked day and night tirelessly as he let the largest environmental cleanup in our nations history. i've seen your pride and i was in of all places, afghanistan. i was in bagram thanking our troops for their service and giving a shout out to the army, navy, air force and went back

someone shouted out, and coast guard! there was no ocean inside. [applause] not a body of water visible anywhere. [laughter] but the coast guard was they are serving with honor as you have in every major conflict in our nations over five. in fact, is the professionalism of the coast guard and enlisted personnel and they include admiral stephen rochon who warned the uniform and became chief usher at the white house and writing things in his day in day out. first grandson, patrick is

graduated today and i'm told patrick's classmates have a bet on whether his grandfather can still fit in his uniform. [laughter] well, admiral stephen rochon this year. i want to do thank him for his outstanding service to the nation. and by the way, the uniform still fits. [applause] i would add that my wife is inspired by the coast guard is low. last summer michelle was the first first lady to sponsor a coast guard stratton. she was deeply moved by dorothy stratton and the spars should let in world war ii, chris made the show was very relieved that the bottle actually broke. i know she is so grateful to be part of the life of that coast guard cutter. cadets, this is the heritage and

the tradition that you will carry forward. you will do so with the same sense of purpose and same sense that patriotism that have defined this day. you excelled physically, especially the first swab in summer. your upper class and tawdry were kind enough to let you carry out those heavy bags, long racks over your head until your arms were numb. he treated each of the pleasure of relentless questioning the memorization and as a reward for your endurance, take a few to give a sea trials. but he survived. you excelled intellectually. among their ranks is good that, melissa mccafferty, a recipient of the truman scholarship, making the coast guard academy

one of the only schools ever to win that prestigious scholarship three years in a row. three years in a row. [applause] worth melissa? let me embarrass you in front of everybody. there you are right over there. congratulations. [cheers and applause] i'm also told of the class of 2011 has earned the highest gpa of any class in the history of this academy. [cheers and applause] so these are not just pretty faces here. [laughter] well done. you excelled percussion only,

pulling together in succeeding together during your training, serving in dozens of countries on six continents, cutters saving lives on the high seas, joining maritime exercises that their foreign partners, keeping illegal from reaching their streets. through it all, you've embraced a liking for the c. that includes a liking and respect one another. you come from every station in life, every corner of our country, including my home state of hawaii. in fact, i am told that cadet jennifer prock dear comes from my own high school, punahou in honolulu. where is she? jennifer, come on. [applause] this academy welcomes cadets from all over the world,

including two dedicated young men in your class from the marshall islands and romania. and i want to thank president president zedkaia as well as king george tupou from tonga among the zedekiah nations for citizens served briefly a lot of forces, including in afghanistan and we are very, very grateful to them. thank you are a match pleasure. [applause] cadets, you have excelled ethically. who lives here revers honor, onerous duty. you know those words well. he's at the highest standards of conduct and integrity for all who pass through chase hall.

your presence here today and the new boards for your loved ones and mentors will place on your shoulders signified that u.s. met these highest of standards. now, despite her impressive achievements, i am told that over these four years he's also earned a reputation as a class that always had to wait. that includes waiting longer than any other first-year class in academy history for the privileges that you had earned. i kept you waiting as well. [laughter] so, in keeping with long-standing tradition, i hereby absolve all cadets serving restrictions for a minor offense is. [applause]

said the superintendent reminded me that minor offenses. [laughter] so cadets, today is a celebration of your success. it's also a day of accident a shame. soon you will report to flight school site through centura commands or begin your cbd. has great expect patience as well. we've made an enormous amount to build you into the leaders that you are. yes, the coast guard may be the smallest of our services and you will be passed with fast responsibilities, protecting thousands of miles of coast, securing ports, patrolling millions of miles of ocean. but an obsolete confident you'll meet these obligations. for he knew we see the same spirit that is major service

always reckoned for more than two centuries. use we see the same courage of the coast guard who defended our young nation we didn't have any feet, who preserved our union, who caught back at pearl harbor, who landed are both on the beaches of normandy, who patrolled the makers of vietnam. they knew, we see the readiness that has made the coast guard one of our nation's first responders, leaving the evacuation of lower manhattan on 9/11 and often been the very first americans on the scene for the earthquake in haiti to the oil spill in the gulf. in you, we see the same compassion that has led coast guardsmen to pull stranded americans from the rooftops during katrina, save desperate migrants claiming to aspic europeans. even today, as the coast guard rescues americans for

mississippi. and while we can never predict what the future may hold, we know that the complex missions faster for coast guard have been more important. around the world, we need you to partner with other nations to secure the airports, protect the vital shipping lanes in the golf, combat piracy of the horn of africa and help train foreign partners from the americas to africa to asia, here at home we need you to stop the smugglers can protect our oceans and prevent terrorists from slipping deadly weapons into our ports. indeed, every american can be proud of our brave military and intelligence personnel who make sure the terrorist leader who attacked us on 9/11 will never threaten america again. [applause]

but the hard work of protecting our country -- the hard workers on, securing our homeland and guarding our shores. we will never waiver in the defense of this country. none of these missions will be easy and none are without risk. that's among the headstones at arlington in a seaside memorial's overlooking the ocean that the names of coast guard men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. this is the life and the risk that you have chosen to accept. as your commander-in-chief, i want you to know that your nation will do everything in our power to help you succeed. that's why we're investing in the new ships, national security cutters, aircraft you need to get the job done. that's why were adding new

inspectors and investigators and support personnel to keep pace with today's missions. because my wife, michelle, has met with so many coast guard spouses and children and heard about the challenges they face as military families, we've made it a priority to improve coast guard housing. we need to take care of your families as well as they take care of you. ultimately though, it won't be advanced technologies, the additional budget that determines your success. it won't be the cutters that you command to give eth winner sees her spine and life is on the line. fewer lives than service will be defined by something else, something inside of you, visible to the eye but obvious for all to see. the arc of your careers like the

course of our cruncher will be faced by the values for kept a strong for more than 200 years. d.c., as americans we've always fixed her eyes on the future, setting our sights on what lies beyond the horizon. we haven't always done exactly how to get there. we haven't always known every shoulder is ahead, but we are sure our destination, so we charted her course towards a more perfect union. we haven't always been the biggest or strongest of nations. there've been moments in our history when others have counted us out or predicted the demise of our improbable american experiment. what the naysayers and doubters have never understood is that our american journey has always been propelled by a spirit of strength that sets us apart. like any good crew, we welcome

the talent and skills of all people, no matter where you come from, no matter what you look like. with every generation, we knew her country with a driving dynamism that says here in america, anything is possible. when tough times inevitably come, when war and economic hardship is a five course, we do what americans have always done. we remember our moral compass, and that we are citizens with obligations to each other, that we all have responsibilities, that were almost together, together, that we rise and fall as one and we are the united states of america. so we pulled together. we each do our part, knowing we have navigated the rough seas before that we will do so again. we americans aren't optimistic

people. we know even the darkest storms pass. we know that a brighter day back ends, and that yes, tomorrow can better day for through two centuries of challenge and change, we've never lost sight of our guiding stars. the liberty, justice, opportunity we see for ourselves and the universal freedom have rights that we stand for around the world. cadets, if we remember this, if you stayed true to the lessons you've learned here, if we hold fast to what keeps us strong and unique among nations, then i am confident that future historians will look back on this moment and say what we face a test of our time, we stood our watch. we did our duty, we continued our american journey.

we passed our country, safer and stronger to the next generation. so congratulations class of 2011. semper paratus and god bless the united states of america. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] be back please be seated. on behalf of the academy, thank you mr. president for your

service, for your leadership to this great nation and for being with us here today. >> defense secretary robert gates says there is no evidence about the pakistani government knew of osama bin laden's whereabouts, but he believes somebody new. watch secretary gates briefing with admiral mike mullen at the pentagon today. >> if i were in pakistani shoes, i would say i've already paid a price. i've been humiliated. i've been shown that the americans can come in here and do this with impunity and i think we have to be -- i think we have to recognize that they see a cost in not in a price that has been paid. but if the leadership doesn't know -- i mean, look, i've done this much about accountability here as perhaps anybody.

but i never fired anybody because i didn't know about a problem. i fired them because once they found out about a problem, they didn't take it seriously. so the senior leadership in pakistan didn't know, it's hard to hold them accountable for it. >> watched a briefing in its entirety tonight at 8:00 on c-span ..