puts some of what we're seeing now into context. so if i press that, will i get powerpoint? they're coming? i think they're coming. here we go. let's just start with my favorite cartoon here. ..

>> i'm going to come back to that slide at the end and perhaps a little different spin on what i think the point of this once. but the fact of the matter is people really don't have very nice things to say about negative advertising. let's look at some press clips from "the new york times," "washington post," "boston globe," recent coverage about negative ads. these negative ads are killing our democracy. negative ads are more frequent. they are more vitriolic. negative television spots started earlier this year than any other. there's a problem with this document, okay. well, if the other slide was there it would have for other quotes from "new york times," "washington post," talking about how negative the campaign is. so implicit in that cartoon, okay, try one more time,

implicit -- tell me whether it is there or not. implicit in that cartoon, implicit in all of those media quotes are that negative campaigning is bad, bad it's gotten worse, that american citizens or worse, and that american citizens are worse because of all this negative campaign. so i sort of allied, do a negative ad against me. they were recent, paraphrasing another great political line, those are actually articles dating back to 1980. so front-page "new york times, front-page "washington post," going from 1980 talk about how this was the most negative ever and how all this advertising was killing our democracy. again i think that reason, reason add they put together also makes the point, we can go back even farther, look at

thomas jefferson versus john adams. american children on the pike is what would happen if thomas jefferson was elected. think of the fun you could have had in the campaign with andrew jackson whose mom was accused of being a british or. you can just imagine, i once gave my students an assignment where they had to do an ad from that selection. british soldier slinking out of room with andrew jackson's mom standing there. so the point is all of this talk about the most negative ever, negative advertising is absolutely not new. so i think we can say both from those very quick examples from the examples that you gave from the examples that launched our time here, that campaigns are not negatively worse. that's not even going into the whole discussion, yellow journalism around the turn-of-the-century in the messages that were put out in

american politics. and when you actually look at a scholarly evidence, there is a strong theoretical reason and actually pretty strong empirical evidence to show that negative advertising doesn't always mobilize, doesn't always inform, but not only the work that i've done, the work that i've done with my colleague at the university of virginia, with my friends, with travis at washington state, that others have done like darrell west who is now at brookings, a number of other scholars have done, willie there's the newly one major scholarly article that is found that negative advertising has he been mobilizing effect. all of the other work has either found sort of a null effect, no real effect, or in fact that negative advertising mobilizes, negative advertising actually

informs people. again, we can all point to an outrageous commercial or two or three or four, but on average, negative commercials are more likely to be factually correct, and negative commercials are more likely to talk about issues. the other commercial i guess you could have shown, my favorite commercial, a '30s -- 830-second car 10, eisenhower, eisenhower, eisenhower. that's a positive ad. we all agree that's a positive and. after the 50th ad that might have been like watching the eisenhower and it wouldn't talk about how much information there was actually in it, but i would rather have the d.c. commercial, a negative ad, nuclear ad, then an ad that was just eisenhower, eisenhower, eisenhower, eisenhower, on this cartoon. now, i am not completely

pollyannaish. there are obviously serious things wrong with american democracy. but can we say that those serious things that are wrong with american democracy are because of advertising in general and because of negative advertising in particular? and i think the answer is no. now, there's also other charts and graphs, believe me, this is the case. if we looked at, when i would be concern is if one side had a voice and the other side didn't have a voice. so the swiss ball, and which are given these talks about two members of wisconsin and give talks to him on the associations and various groups, some would always raise their hand and go what about the swift boat act? i said listen, it's not my place to say whether the swift boat ad is right or wrong, accurate or not accurate. john kerry had plenty chance

chance to respond. they made a strategic choice not to respond. and, in fact, i think the kerry campaign finally respond a couple months ago actually, literally. the kerry campaign and move on the media fund on the other side actually out advertised george w. bush in 2004. you may have a passionate you may disagree or agree with what was said but it wasn't the case only one side had voice. and we can talk about what's happened in american elections, very, very significant changes in campaign finance law and how that has changed the distribution of who enters between candidates, parties and groups, and clearly groups are airing more ads. but when you look back at the 2002 midterms, 2006 midterms, 2010 midterms, you look at top senate races, over all it was

not the case in competitive races that one side had a voice and the other side didn't have a voice. people have plenty of time, plenty of chance to hear their say. in fact, the most one-sided advertising i ever saw was in the 2008 presidential race when john mccain took the federal money, barack obama didn't. that said, even though barack obama heavily out advertised the john mccain campaign, you can't say that john mccain did not have a chance to respond, either through debate, either through free media coverage. and he also had actually a sort of -- talk about point number is, $70 million in advertising which would be a very quaint number this cycle. still had the ability to get his message out. a very famous quote from justice brandeis that talks about the remedy for bad speech is more speech. i would be more concerned about

advertising in general and negative advertising in particular if it was only one side he was doing it, only one side had a voice, and then the other side wasn't able to respond. but i think there is plenty of money out there, for better or for worse, for both sides to respond, and plenty of access certainly in the presidential election, certainly in competitive election for candidates to have their say. so before, before continue the conversation and very much thank everybody for letting me be here today. thanks a lot. [applause]

[inaudible] i will speak up in case you can't hear. of course, many places, the "washington post," "national journal" and my own editor said to me many years ago who is that, find her, see if we can hire her. we didn't but our loss. we'll also be perhaps be joined by jane mayer. jane, i didn't know you were here. i thought -- hiding in the third row. jane mayer is a new yorker -- from "the new yorker." i'm going to start with jane.

jane has written a great article in "the new yorker" about larry mccarthy who is sort of ultimate bad boy of negative advertising. and, of course, with someone who did, as was pointed out, willie horton ad in 1988. he's had a few in this cycle, one particular, maybe speak you showed one. i mean, the themes he has been hammering on his baggage for newt gingrich and both gingrich and santorum are washington insiders who can't fix the problem so of an outsider like romney can. when you look at the continuum come to think nothing ever changes in american politics. the arguments are exactly the same.

but in a way i think when i looked at those ads of the daisy ad in particular, the early ones, they were so much more inventive than. one of the things that mccarthy's ad does, as far as a negative ad maker, relatively predictable narrative basically. the imagery is not that exciting. it's just basically a wall. one big slap to the job. >> in your article you also, i was very interested, kind of just a normal guy. he doesn't seem to have, tell us all the more about him. >> i was expecting him you never know what you'll find when you started your profile of someone, and i was expecting kind of dr. evil, a hater and someone you rebels in anger. i called them up and i said, so what do you like what he is just a great guy, he is so funny.

really delightful company. you would never know. i can see making millions, that he lives posh someplace. no, he lives in the suburbs. he has a nice family. he coached his girls and softball. really not sort of the way one might expect. but it's more interesting that way, and away. that's the point of being a reporter is to try to figure out what the truth is and not make it up. it was interesting because it really, what came across to me was he was somebody for whom the end justifies any means. and it's not a moral issue for him to hit really hard and quite below the belt. and one of the ad you showed today is false. there's a fact in his is newt gingrich funded, the brutal, china's brutal one child policy. and he didn't.

and that was just completely inaccurate, and they're sort of no penalty, especially right now. and the other thing i learned about larry mccarthy was he has made a career specifically of doing ads not for campaigns, not right to the candidate but for the outside independent expenditure groups. and they are inevitably the dirtiest as because the candidate doesn't have to say i paid for this and i approve it. candidate doesn't speak in his own voice. someone out there who is not accountable, and they just for that reason, they can be untenable and not held responsible. >> because of the ad, to see a different kind of characteristic or quality before they didn't exist? can you draw a distinction between what a candidate will do and what is supposedly uncoordinated committee or committees, that most of these candidates have? >> i think apsley that is the case.

the super pac us up a much more negative than the ones the candidates themselves. they want it very convenient for the candidate, the sort of positive message about his presidential qualities, introducing himself as a person and. and in the meanwhile, there's a super pac hammering newt gingrich, for example, in iowa. that certainly damaged in there. i think gingrich didn't fight back against very much in iowa. it took until south carolina to have his own super packed fighting back. [inaudible] >> that actually made a difference. the super pacs in some way, if gingrich has to rely on his own fundraising abilities, i don't think he would have lasted as long as he has. and so the super pacs in some ways equalize the field for some of these more minor candidates. >> i think they have extended the race and fight. you were talking about how it's

not a were as long as there is equal money. the thing is we tend to focus on the presidential race, whether does tend to be equal money or at least on both sides they can bury each other a life. but i think, you are more of an expert on this than i am, i once went to north carolina earlier to do a piece about what happened in 2010. and i think after citizens united we're beginning to see unequal money, particularly in smaller races where you can really see the people defined by seeker groups who were putting up negative ads that are sort of hiding behind organizations where you can't really identify who they are. they sometimes in local races, there's really not an equality in money. i mean, that's what it looks like to me. what me. what do you think? >> i agree. i think if you look at 2010, the top 10 senate races, actually --

the 50% mark, almost even advertising on each side, the top one, wisconsin with one exception. permit outside groups to comment on his behalf with a cup or the democrats had a little advantage, a couple where the republicans have a little advantage. and we look at all the top house races, what's interesting about 2010 is where talk about 2003 competitive races, 100 places in -- 100 races in play. the democratic candidate and democratic party outspent republicans, but the republican group even that out. so when you look at it over all it was pretty even in terms of television advertising spending in those places. television advertising, there's other sources. there's certainly some districts where there was a little bit of an imbalance, but overall

republicans may be outspent democrats by a very slight amount. >> it was interesting watching -- eyes out is of course the records are the same, so me cases, watching the more recent ones. do you think this you really they represent a distinctive leap forward, over all -- overall nastiness on the very technical term. so far this year or are we really just in the same flight path? >> no, i mean, -- [inaudible] i don't think so. certainly we haven't seen anything revolutionary, kind of creative for negative attacks. i think you may have said it earlier, i think the real problem with political

advertising is how unimaginative and how formulaic it is. these guys and women who produced these spots say they often are working for a dozen or more clients, and you look state from state to state and you see the same spot over and over again. i think political advertising is sort of report another revolution of creativity. i think it's very much in need of it. so daisy girl aired one time, $25,000 for the slot. they got 50 many people to watch. the three publishing networks aired later that we. cobbling at 100 people saw that spot, an incredible market. you know, now it's very hard to do that. i think that advertisers instead of running it one time, they run it 20 times. they just drill it into your

consciousness. i think there's a chance to do advertising that actually captures people's imaginations. and i think a lot of what we see now is very formulated. >> they will always be formulated because you're either for change or are you against change. you can have all the creative wizardry you want but that's really what the essential choices. but i think you make a real crucial point, criticizing my own career, i have made it clear counting -- how many gross rating points. the quality of the ad really matters, and especially now when there's so much advertising. having a signal that gives do that noise makes that creative stuff more important. so, you know, we showed a couple of ads on this cycle, people can think what they thought was most effective. but i think what we're going to see in this cycle are things

like, it was, and i think we'll see more ads like that but more ads of candidates sneaking in their own words. not so much the creative wizardry or cool graphics, or those sorts of things, but what we saw in the virginia race six years ago, and with all these cameras here, right? but there is not -- as short a time ago as 2000, presidential candidates were doing events which were not recorded, which there was no video there. there is now no house candidate, senate candidate, presidential candidate is doing an event, no matter how small, which is not being recorded by someone, whether it be on their iphone or something else. and i think we will start to see those things coming to our advertising. i interviewed someone, a younger

republican who said he is the kind of against the rule to directly have a candidate attack his opponent by name and face in the ad but they're getting much more -- using each other's words, and also to things. there were two incidents i came across what do not only have following the candidate that they were to ambush interviews where the opposition did an ambush interview of the candidate they were trying to hurt, showing up with a video camera, sticking it in the guys face and just asking questions that the candidate hadn't thought about at all. and then using it. and that is, it's getting to be like candid camera, all in a very much more negative sense. >> we talk a lot about how these are directed at other people but we have seen in the cycle, some negative ads can backfire on the

person who spotted them. there's a now famous rick perry agri is walking across a few and talk about his views on social issues, and that turned out to be sort of, he hurt himself with that ad and i think you read about that. >> talking about when he was accusing the war of religion and was directed at the iowa conservatives. i think because of the social media and because there's no way for local ads to local audiences anymore. it immediately went viral he put on youtube and then it became a mockery. they could put him in funny situations. it became this whole thing online. i think the internet is a very sort of chaotic forum was everyone who doesn't like some can find a clever way to lock it. -- market. it winds up becoming a thing, to the public, collective response

to an advertisement. that undermines them and creates a counter narrative nationally so that perry was trying to speak to iowa conservatives but he wound up having a message that resonated quite poorly with a national audience. >> that's a great example. another good example of that is the spot that was ran in michigan against debbie stabenow. that spot was pretty negative, racist if you want, if you will, but the response to it was so furious that it may have ended up destroying the man's campaign. and i think that's a good argument for letting the market sort of regulate itself to almost anyone is concerned about the i tell my students was, how do you know when you've gone too far? you will just know. they will let you know. >> the long infomercial against mitt romney, the infomercial that was picked up by the super

pac as well really i think did not have its intended a facts. >> it boomeranged. >> yeah, and people pick it apart immediately. they asked them how they were interviewed, other people in the ad, yeah, step away from it as if this is not what we meant to be talking about. we were not even talking about him. and so because of social media and how easy it is to find everybody nowadays. >> do you think they're being picked apart much faster, even four years ago, usually there's the ad that hits and then you can almost have a predictable reaction period to where it is literally sort of vetted. that could have happened before. >> i think youtube has revolutionized that. it's interesting, the little girl who is in the daisy girl spot, louisa, now 50 years old, she didn't see the spot she was in until the year 2000.

you know, can you imagine today, she never saw herself in the spot, and youtube as revolutionized the ability to disseminate this. what would the audience have been for days ago if youtube had been around? >> jane wrote in her story about ashley, and as they came in 2004 by the bush campaign against, i guess it would've been john kerry. tell us about that and into this question. was that a negative ad? >> it's been debated both ways. i mean, larry mccarthy again made that ad, and he considered it a positive ad. he's very good at i need the emotional story mind and fulfilling it in 30 seconds. this was an ad that showed a girl whose i think mother had been killed in 9/11, and bush and she met on a rope line or something. he was just wonderful and kind of putting his arms around her and telling her that, you know,

how hard it must have been, and how sore he was and what he would do to protect her. and then she speaks at i think, and i think her father speaks. it's an ad that really sort of goes right to the heart in one sense, but the negative part is it creates the sense of fear place on 9/11. and basically, it, according to the ways described, it had huge effects in delivering ohio were actually lived to bush, and ohio was a very important swing state for the election. so bob claimed that had, you know, made the difference in the election. and he thinks it's a negative thing place reprehensibly on 9/11. it's been stated both ways. [inaudible] >> hope is there. someone in the eyes of the beholder i think. so, you know, i thought that one was one that was more memorable

than what we are seeing right now. >> an interesting story, working on a project with a friend of mine, that ad was actually made as a fundraising tool. it was not a bush campaign ad. is actually an ad by a group and they were using it to raise money. and it raised a lot of money and they were like to wow, this is a very powerful and. and i think it is a powerful ad, but we also have, to be really careful of overprescribing. there was this one magic bullet that won the election. the daisy ad was fantastic. it did not win the 1964 election. the willie hortonized and powerful, did not lose the 1980 election for mike dukakis. in 2002004, that one swift boat

ad or the one actually add that be john kerry, no, i think if you talk to the people who run campaign, you know, they are working at the margin now. when you win the election by 537 votes, in florida the margin matters in american politics. but i don't think these wizards sitting around a holiday inn focus groups find that perfect message to work, and your air that message, put a bunch of money behind it and it automatically when you the election. >> i was just looking around at new sites over the last couple of months through the last november's -- statewide, citywide elections around the country and you begin to see negative advertising appearing in a city council races in places like austin, atlanta, baltimore, seattle. has anyone studied the presence

of those as this goes to the local level? >> we definitely know it is fracking the lower level ones that there was a lot of negativity. this is a terrific project for a graduate student or someone to write a dissertation on which looks at mayor races, city council races, both with the tone is and the topic is, and whether other sorts of strategies have percolated, percolated down. >> if you have to rely on television putting an add-on, it's an inefficient use of money to have to buy an ad that reaches a whole station area. but if you can now do something chiefly on youtube or on the internet you can do -- cable, whatever. there's a lot more cheap ways to communicate to negative now. >> that's another point also, the target for a lot of these

ads, you've got the press. always the case the campaigns would america have made once or twice to try to get depressed to write a bunch of articles on it. daisy is the great example of that. the most memorable ad ever. but the first swift boat ad that was aired, aired a couple hundred times very small media markets in ohio, west virginia, very not much national. it got huge attention from the free media. [inaudible] >> you want to give it a bigger audience. >> i think the bush campaign, you know, bush campaign at the time was equally scared of that ad. they didn't want to be talked about the vietnam war record, were equally scared at the time, and it turned out -- >> talk about the willie horton thing. the same thing with john kerry. need to respond. they both thought they didn't have to. and dukakis all these years, he is just beating up on himself,

oh, my god, the biggest mistake i ever made was not responding to that ad. >> very famous nonresponse at the debate. if your wife was murdered would you support the death penalty? no. empirical evidence shows. and the other thing that when you talk to experts about the ads, they'll say and i think tony schwartz was one of the original geniuses of political ads said, he talked about how it has to into what he called a response support. at least this is the are you, and i haven't looked into every ad, but the thing about the willie horton ad is it resume with a narrative about dukakis as a was on crime and a little but it wasn't a very important subject in the race but it resonated with voters. i don't know if you can do and negative ad, about someone that completely redefines them and get away with it. maybe in some ways that's what this john kerry at it.

he's considered a hero in vietnam. it turned him into a war criminal in vietnam. >> i think it had its own residents. we've been operating under the sort of unspoken assent to the negative ads are bad. i want to just challenge that for a little while here. is very good for all the business that we're in here, but someone wrote, after the 2008 campaign about the negative ads use, he wrote what would be gleaned about current candidates from watching only the positive ads? that mitt romney loves his photogenic family? john mccain is a comment and concerted? that mike huckabee is unabashedly in favor of christmas? that rudy giuliani will kill terrorists with his bare hands? whether barack obama's wisdom would make gandhi look like bill o'reilly? [laughter] what's wrong with him? they were. i interviewed someone in 1982, i asked them, he said because they

were. is there any reason why they just aren't useful information device for voter? >> sometimes they were quite useful. i think there's one thing that was inaccurate in the superbike ads against gingrich, from bromley. but i don't otherwise they were both thinking people useful information that they need to have about certain parts of his background. that there's a catch for all of these. and is it important. >> i mean, there is true and there's true. you know, mark twain talks about lies, and statistic. there's a hold of the category which i think is political ads. which are kind of lies, were something is what mike murphy described as true, it is true but it is totally taken of contact. so now context is very misleading. so, you know, dukakis, yes, that

furlough program took place when he was governor. but it was invested by his republican predecessor and 45 states have the same program. so is that an argument against him? you know, i mean, without the contents it's very misleading. and i think that's what a lot of these ads are. i suppose, i think some of us have great information, i'm not against them categorically. i think that they tend en masse to maybe make the whole product category look pretty sordid, which is politics. >> another secret, media consultants i think we'll tell you, give them a couple of beers, you know, that they tell a lot more lies are told and positive ads the negative ads. you can't, i'm a family man. i love my country. i love puppies. i love christmas. those are not sort of demonstrable statements that can be checked unless you can,

torturing santa claus or so become your not going to be able to disprove that. the facts are present in these negative ads, and occasionally, you know, maybe more often than not yet people like john kerry and michael dukakis when it comes to knowing how to respond in a respectively, but there are many candidates out there who are very respected in responding to those, and using, marshaling the media and others to set the record straight, and that's what i agree that negative ads are not a bad thing. they engage people in a way that positive ads frankly i don't think you. >> i don't think any of us up here -- is there a serious problem in america? yes. are their lack of incentives for political leaders to pay attention to long-term problems? sure. our statements taking out of context in political ads?

yeah. our statements taken out of context in news reports? our statements taken out of context 100 years ago in yellow journalism? absolutely. and you know, i think the key thing is, i grew up in massachusetts, with a mother in democratic politics in massachusetts, so i think we can take a massachusetts democratic system. -- citizen. dukakis had the money to respond, had the chance to respond, decided not to. professional decision. john kerry had the money, had the resources, had access to respond. they decided not to. again, there are plenty of ads that i think personally are awesome, that i think are clearly inaccurate. but i don't think it's my job, and i don't think it's your job aas a journalist to say okay, i bless that ad, i don't bless about that. and yet sometimes the market doesn't work.

let's be honest, but there's a lot of reporters out there and there's a lot of money out there, and i think it's hard to say that sides are not getting their say. [inaudible] >> michael, it's also important to remember that everything were talking about, our message is that are broadcast to a large audience, clearly targeted to an audience but it's not like most people flipping around the channel are not going to encounter these negative ads, positive ads, these advertisements. the dark corner of political advertising is direct mail and is what i think is coming down the pike, this nano targeting. google, longtail nano targeting, look at what al franken did in minnesota. i think 140 distinct messages, to one for distinct groups they sliced and diced. the messages are going to one message is going to your

neighbor, another message is going to you, and you may not know about that. male i think is the most nefarious way to do it. it comes so late in cases there's no way you can respond to. it does damage before the candidate is the target of that negative attack even knows about it. >> another session on google longtail targeting before the end of the economic -- that's a great idea. >> before turn to questions i want to talk about going forward, this isn't going to get much different. in the last few days i just saw the mitt romney supertype has gone up initiate with nearly $2 million of ads aimed at campaign under santorum. sam torrance server packs of answer that with almost half that amount. ron paul has kicked in another window in dollars, and i think in the last couple of days barack obama campaign has spent a quarter million in michigan attacking romney. so would someone like to sort of

sketch out what the next four or five months are going in terms of how much money, looking at ken, might be spent? just take as through, say, august. >> the austin powers movie where he goes back in time, if you don't get me $10,000 i will blow up the world. i sort of feel like that's what the conversation we're having is now. we are going to see two-and-a-half billion dollars, conservatively, could be as high as $3 billion spent on spots, local television. [inaudible] >> no, that's sort of dogcatch dogcatcher. >> we will hold you to this, but hazard a guess at how much will it be positive and how much would be negative, given current trends? >> i think that's interesting. i think the obama campaign, people have written about this,

we very much like 2004 bush campaign. i think the obama campaign will be overwhelmingly trying to define whoever the republican is. i think the republican is can have a choice whether they want to talk about themselves or whether they want, whether they think they need to go after obama more. one of the things we saw in 2004 is the kerry campaign actually cared negative ads. the democratic group. people forget the groups. media fund, move on, big $20 million gift by george soros and peter lewis. those ads are overwhelmingly negative on george w. bush. i think if you talk to people in the kerry campaign, they would say no, we might've been better off if our allies would have done more building us up then going after an incumbent president. why is that the case?

because attitudes are pretty well formed -- attitudes were pretty well formed about george w. bush. attitudes are part of what formed about barack obama. people like barack obama, they will vote for. people who dislike barack obama, they're not going to vote for him. there is a very in a swath of and decided voters. and their attitudes toward barack obama are probably out of control with advertising. was going on with the economy, what's going on in the world, and at the margin how those people could be influenced. enemy, we'll pay attention to this stuff. there's two people are going to decide the presidential election in november 2012 the absolutely -- i'll give you an example of the super bowl, not as an advertising example, but people only watch the super bowl. everyone who watches every game of the nfl season, you have a favorite team. so if you're someone is watching everything going on in the

primary now and paying attention, going to websites and going on msnbc, going on fox, rachel maddow, listen to rush limbaugh, you're not an undecided voter. you like one of the site. at some point this election will decide by people like my wife and the super bowl. my wife is very sophisticated in politics but she only watches the super bowl. at some point this election season will be saw it only people who vote in presidential elections and only will come into the presidential election two weeks out. >> i think because of citizens united, and the ability of corporate money to flow into these outside groups, you're looking at so much more money. i mean, -- [inaudible] >> it's hard to tell because you can't really see what's going into the certain kind of groups, the 501(c)(4), and so it's hard to chart. [inaudible] >> it's been these big givers.

>> i think a lot of it is going to be privately held corporation, because i think publicly held once have to deal with issues of stockholders and a lot of public attention. but i think you see people like i wrote about, the goat brothers, they have a privately-held company that has $109 worth of business and have a strong political agenda and the ability to use as much of that as they want. i think you can make an actual difference in a raise. you know, we have really seen how it's going to play out but i think the outside groups are going to be what i'm going to be watching because i think that's maybe, the amount of intent to play with is more than before. [inaudible] >> the question is him are the culprit is going to spend more than they would have. it's not like they don't have a lot of money personally. [inaudible] >> it would be a lot easier to do this time around. >> i think we're kind of already

seeing the contours of the general election while the gop primary is continuing. my colleague rotisserie about whether or not mitt romney has been pretty destroyed almost at this point by this are democratic effort to define them, which has been picked up, you know, very vigorously by his republican opponents. i have seen things that were written on tv in wind and which were turned into a negative ad the next day. it's kind of amazing to watch how much of a democratic anti-romney message is being picked up by his republican opponents. >> have you seen an anti-obama message yet? this is all sort of pregame. the real thing in the general election is going to be amazing i think. and very negative. >> i'm guessing it's not because those 50 people will be going door-to-door are okay, we will do questions now. we have 10 or 15 minutes i will start at the back. yes, sir in the black.

please wait for the microphone and identify yourself. >> jim snyder, a fellow in communications policy, and also one of former colleague -- tim cook was one of my dissertation advisors and political unification. he was also a committee? and policy fellow in congress. so one,, a caveat, there's about 500,000 elected position in the next days, the presidential elections clear the most important, but is still only one. local and state politics are qualitatively different in federal election. it's not just a matter of sort of trickle down, you know, what works in terms of analysis at

the national level applies to the local level. it's often very different, and, unfortunately, as an academic who wants work at a major university, or a major think tank like this, you've got to focus on presidential elections, and that's when you study. because sometimes i think we have to be very cautious about the inferences we make when we are studying this one type of election. but my question relates to something different, and that is, in order to get these ads on the airwaves to have to go three gateway which is your local tv broadcaster. and i have never seen, i have followed literature for more than a decade, a study about how broadcasters exercise their discretion and possibly abused their power. they have inside information as to when these ads are going to run. many of the marketing directed at the local tv stations work for politicians on their campaigns, give them advice, you know, giving heads up on

negative campaigns. this big issue, one of the commentators mentioned, both sides, not necessarily, broadcaster to exercise discretion. the issue arises most women have a direct economic ownership and interest on an issue. there are lots of anecdotes in the literature about broadcasters exercising this discretion, but i see no academic study. so the question is, do you feel that the gateway to getting on the air, the local broadcasters, are significant players in any way in shaping what happens? i don't think it happens in a presidential election but i do think at a local level they have a lot of discretion over what they did and what they don't carry. >> what i certainly have, the third party ads, they are not entitled to say everything, anything they want. the broadcasters have more

control over what the air in what they don't. and i think in some cases those broadcasters, a lot of exercise, their rights and insist that this be accurate to a lot of times it takes a lawsuit by the candidate forcing the station to do that. i think most nations don't want to get into the business of playing umpire, but they have that right. >> yes or, in the blue shirt. >> hi. imr, an independent. the message i get from all of you is that negatives is not up this year. overall, if you look back to the 1800, that's kind of stable but my question is, what is going up? is it spending per capita on advertising? is it that negative ads are more misleading and that, having super pacs advertise leads to even greater percentage of misleading ads? and lastly, i think ken

mentioned he didn't think his role was to criticize -- not criticize, when the misleading ads out there, that the voters to decide. but i thought the press is supposed to go after misleading ads, correct? >> i'm not the press. so i think the press does discuss that, and i think they do. i mean, if anything the press probably discussed the ads too much. thank you not, my career, but journalists getting the advertising, getting advertising information. what's different about this year? and i think this will be a nice segue into the discussion about why commercial advertisers tend to not go as negative. this is an unusually negative primary, and the reason why

people tend to not go negative in primary is not because it's a family, you know, families suffice it can be sometimes more brutal, right? is because sometimes you multiperson races, and so the 2004 howard dean-richard gephardt, gephardt went after dean and then kerry and edwards were able to take one-two and i'll. i think actually a bit of santorum can be explained by romney and gingrich going after each other so heavily in iowa. there wasn't much advertising in new hampshire ask a, in iowa, and south carolina, in florida. and what happens is one of the reasons, and i am making this up, one of the reasons why burger king might not go after mcdonald's is if they go after mcdonald's, it didn't benefits when these. and in a general election were you only have two candidates,

you don't worry about that. there's no disincentive to go negative. so i do think there has been unusually high level of negative advertising this particular presidential primary. i think that's what's different. and also the ability of, what jamieson, the groups are obviously a big deal. it used to be you would win a primary, get a little momentum and it would take you a week or two to raise some money, then go get on the air. now a win can be a $5 million check within 30 minutes. and that can be wired right to the television station. also the prestige of which that momentum can happen and change i think. >> talking about how do you can see something on a website. the willie horton adger wrote about, the information, it took months before mccarthy ran. that's almost a quaint period of time the. third row.

>> and in a primary debate. [inaudible] under citizens united disclosure, how do we know if 40 are putting money into american politics? >> well, under citizens united, is very disclosure, the super pacs, and since then a lot of people seem to think there's no disclosure of who is giving to super pacs. that money is disclosed and you can forget who it is and that's why you know about foster friess and people like that. but there are other categories that are on the margin, the 501(c) threes and 501(c) fours. at five oh fours do not know where the money is coming from. and they're not supposed to be explicitly involved in election hearing, but the lines have gotten somebody. they were somewhat muddy before

citizens united but what people tell me is that citizens united was seen as agreeing light, that basically told people with a lot of money that might want to get it secretly, don't worry, you're not going to be prosecuted. before, it's kind of iffy legally and a lot of people did want to take the risk. now no one is worried about taking the respect they are just throwing the money of the. that's at least how i read it. >> former dvd creator and now with senior creative people. we were talking about the history of negative advertising and we see how far back it's gone and that continues and not in many ways very different. however, due to citizens united, is that they're much more of it, along with the connectivity that we have today with the internet and everything else? isn't there a much greater flood of it, so that while it may not

be different in content, it's different in quantity? >> listen, i think one would have, and i'm careful of speaking about things without the data, but i imagine if you went back 30, 40, 50, even 60, one, you're a much more robust print journalism. some multiple newspapers in particular markets. some of those markets, as some of those newspapers were more directly parts and then we would be used to have in the newspaper now. fox news as a tv station or msnbc as a news station, that was sort of the norm for many newspapers and how they did coverage in this country. is there more negative television advertising? you know, absolutely. are there more negative things being said? i don't know. what was said in speeches before?

what was said in places of worship before? what was said in parts in the papers before? what was said in newspapers before? what was said on the radio before? i don't know. i don't have the empirical evidence, but i guess i would be suspicious that it was the good old days. [inaudible] >> yeah, the -- >> your talk about two and half-billion. what wasn't last time was the last time in 2008 on at? it was nothing like two-and-a-half ilion. >> it wasn't that much. >> compared to inflation, it's one of the sectors of economy is booming apparently. >> what you're seeing in advertising is, a big effect of a lot of these campaigns, finance decisions, sort of twin of mccain, then the citizens united decision but what is what done is, if you look at the size of the pie, the size of the pie in terms of spot advertising on

television has not grown tremendously. that was the internet, and other ways of communicating. but the slices of the pie are different were as a slice of the party controls have gotten much smaller. the slice of the candidates control has stayed about the same. but the slice of the group control is much bigger. so what sort of, the decision in mcconnell versus f. t. c. and in the citizens united, together, what they really done is made a very difficult for parties to be major players in terms of the message at. >> and if you look at the groups, basically the voice has gotten amplified, voice of the super wealthy. the people who can give a million dollars is a lot louder this time around than have ever been before. >> one more.

>> edward whitfield, spear can you tell me about people who try and be positive. we have discussed the example of gingrich, saying he wasn't going to do negative ads, then deciding negative ads are a great thing. what about 2010 hickenlooper but did that in colorado today that spot in the shower. on sure it should trump itself as being positive. does that make any headway for voters? [inaudible] >> it was based on that. yes, there were negative ads arguing over the economy. but without a positive message, the whole thing was this on the idea of -- it sort of interesting to watch the very few videos that the obama campaign has actually put out so far whether trying to figure out how to continue that positive message and highlight his

accomplishments, put that out where there's a lot of criticism. >> i was struck by how fast negative ads be in a debate which we saw, wednesday night, ron paul simply look at rick santorum and said you are a pig. that's going to conclude i want to thank ken and bob and jay but i want to thank you and thank new america. [applause] >> we will do this again soon. >> this is primary day in michigan and arizona. republican presidential candidate mitt romney is favored to win arizona. polls show tight race in michigan against rick santorum. newt gingrich is spending the day campaigning in georgia, just one of the super tuesday states. ron paul is focusing on caucus states. you can see live primary results coverage tonight on the c-span

networks. the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. senators will be spending the morning on general speeches while negotiations continue on what mm is to allow for the transportation bill. the senate will recess between 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. eastern for their weekly party lunches and after that we can see more debate on the transportation bill. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. american legion chaplain reverend gerald theriot will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us join together in the spirit of prayer. heavenly father, we humbly gather in united prayer, giving thanks for your blessings to this body. in your holy name, i ask that

the wise use of the gift of reasoning that you have granted to all be strengthened here within this chamber, so that opportunities and paths to cooperation with just solutions are realized. our nation has been blessed with the establishment and the appreciation for a system of government that is unlike any other. as we have been blessed with the privilege of selecting a few to represent many, it is in them we place our trust that they will seek your counsel and do what is best for us all. dear god, bless them during their research and in their deliberations; and have them to know that all things are possible through your grace. as we enjoy the freedoms that we have and the privilege of supporting the way in which our government operates, we ask your blessing on the shapers and protectors of these freedoms -- our congress, our president, our military, our first responders and our nation.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., february 28, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher coons, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30. the majority will control the first 30 minute, the republicans will control the second 30 minutes. the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for our weekly walks meetings.

i'm told that h.r. 1173 is due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 1173 an act to repeal the class program. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings at this time to this piece of legislation. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, last evening in an hour set aside at the request of senators pryor and alexander, a very, very good conversation took place on the senate floor. senator pryor and senator alexander are exemplary in trying to work things out. they are good legislators because they understand that no side gets their way. i've been here a long time, and i've been fortunate to get pieces of legislation passed that i sponsored and worked

toward, but i've never, ever had a piece of legislation that i introduced that wound up with that piece of legislation. always there are changes. that's the legislative process. and that's what senator pryor and senator alexander talked about yesterday evening. it was important. they talked about the need to bring bills to the floor. they focused on appropriation bills, and rightfully so. i'm a long-time member of the appropriations committee as is the republican leader. we understand the importance of working on these bills. in the last number of years we haven't been able to do individual appropriation bills except on rare occasions. we've done these omnibus, minibus, and we're trying to get away from that and the framework laid last night was extremely important.

the republican leader and i have talked individually, personally, away from everyone about the need to get this done for the integrity of the senate. and the speech last night really helped what i think the republican leader and i want to get done. we need the agreement of senate republicans and democrats that we work together to complete this important work. and they talked about appropriation bills. senator warner, senator hagan, joined senator pryor, senator isakson, boozman and graham joined senator alexander. so it was a significant number of senators who talked about wanting to do the same thing and i can commend and applaud their work doing that. i'll be happy to yield. mr. mcconnell: we have negotiated the top line for the discretionary spending for this coming fiscal year.

that process is normally done by the passage of a budget by the house, a budget by the senate and some reconciliation between the two bodies on the top line but we already have that number, and i want to second what my friend, the majority leader, said. there's no good reason for this institution not to move forward with an appropriations process that avoids what we have done so frequently under both parties for years and years, either continuing resolutions or omnibus appropriations. we have an opportunity to avoid that this year. it's the basic work of congress, and i just want to second what the majority leader said and congratulate senator alexander and senator pryor for their leadership on this issue. and i hope we can join together and do the basic work of government this year and do it in a timely fashion. so i commend the majority leader and associate myself with his comments. mr. reid: i have spoken to

senator inouye, the chairman of the appropriations committee, and he is beginning with senator harken, the process where administration officials report to the individual subcommittees. and senator inouye thinks that come late april we can start moving some of these bills to the floor. we have to wait until the house does something because otherwise we get into procedural hurdles but the house, i'm told, wants to move these quickly also so i hope we can get these bills done and, mr. president, the first real good experience i had here in the senate was working on a -- as a conferee on individual appropriation bills. that's fun. that's what legislation is all about. and we've gotten away from that and i hope we can get back to doing some good things in that regard. mr. president, when president obama took office three years

ago, the auto industry was on a life support system. it was in really bad shape. i'm sorry to say that life support system that the detroit auto industry was surviving on, the republicans wanted to pull the plug. one man who is now seeking the republican nomination for president of the united states said -- and i quote -- "we should kiss the american automobile industry goodbye." end of quote. you can't make up stuff like that, mr. president. that's what he actually said. he called the death of american auto manufacturers virtually guaranteed. virtually guaranteed is another direct quote. and so he argued we should just let detroit go bankrupt. but he wasn't alone. if he were just alone that would be a lone wolf crying in the wilderness but that is not the

way it is. republicans in this chamber agreed, many of them agreed. democrats though weren't willing to give up on american manufacturing. because saving the auto industry wasn't about saving corporations. it was about saving millions of americans who worked for these corporations. it wasn't about saving the people who own race cars, it was about saving the people who work on assembly lines making the parts to keep those race cars running. there's no way democrats would walk away from millions of americans whose jobs were on the line. americans who work in dealerships and distribution centers and manufacturing plants across the country were depending on us to do something, and we did. we didn't give up the fight to save the auto industry. we didn't give up even when one senate republican called our efforts -- quote -- "a road to nowhere." here, mr. president, the verdict is in. we were right.

the american auto industry has added 160,000 jobs just in the last 24 months alone. last year, general motors reported record privileged profd more vehicles than any other car company in the world. chrysler's profitable again, people are boasting about the quality of american cars, and chrysler is growing fastener the united states than any other major automobile manufacturer. so when a republican presidential frontrunner said we should kiss the american automobile industry goodbye, he couldn't have been more wrong. we all get -- we all make mistakes. we all get one wrong occasionally. the test of character is admitting when we make that mistake. and it's time for republicans to recognize that saving americans and their automobile manufacturing industry, save the american automobile manufacturing industry and

millions of middle-class jobs was the right thing to do. mr. president, good news from the auto industry in 24 months of private sector job growth are evidence our country is headed in the right direction but too many americans are hurting financially and struggling to find work and it's criewmbl congress continue to create jobs and rebuild oreconomy. so democrats are moving forward with a bipartisan panel of bills that will spur small business growth. these measures will improve innovators' access to capital. that's so, so important. and we'll streamline how companies sell stocks through initial public offerings or as they're called, i.p.o.'s. these pieces of legislation will also protect the rights of investors. next week, chairman johnson, the senior senator from south dakota will hold a banking committee hearing on this issue. it will be the third hearing on these 34urs since december. senate democrats have been working on these measures for a long time, and i'm so happy to

have read that house republicans are joining democrats to move this legislation. commonsense issues like these should not have to turn into knockdown, dragout fights. this is something we should agree on. these companies need the ability to get cash to innovate, to grow, to build. and this legislation that is being promulgated if the banking committee and the hearing takes place there, is very important to our country. i look forward to moving these measures and calling them forward with the help of my republican colleagues. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, over the past few weeks the american people have begun to feel the painful effects of

president obama's energy policy. make no mistake, the rising price of gasoline isn't simply the result of forces we can't control. it is to a large extent the result of a vision that this president laid out even before he was elected to office. that vision was on clear display just last week. as millions of americans groaned at the rising cost of a gallon of gasoline, the president took to the microphones to talk about a far-off day when americans might be able to use algae as a substitute for gas. algae as a substitute for gas. and then dusting off the same talking points democrats have been using for decades, he claimed that there is no short-term solution to the problem. in other words, he kicked the can down the road for another

day, another time, abdicating leadership on yet another issue of national significance. so this morning, i think it's worthwhile to take a step back from the rhetoric and look at what this president has actually done -- actually done -- about this problem and what his energy policies would mean for the future. because, according to numerous private and public energy experts, gas prices are only going to keep rise not guilty the weeks and months ahead -- rising in the weeks and months ahead, going up and up and up. some say the average price for a gallon of gasoline could hit $4 by late spring/early summer and could reach $5 or even $6 in some areas of our country. and when that moment comes, americans should know what the administration had to do with it. for starters, let's not forget

that as a candidate, the president himself said he preferred what he called a gradual adjustment to gas prices. in other words, higher prices that went up slowly so people didn't feel the pinch quite as acutely. let's also recall that after the election, the president chose an energy secretary who said he wanted gas prices more in line with those over in europe, where folks pay about $8 a gallon for gas. that's what they pay for gas over in europe, where the energy secretary said we should be looking to establish gas prices. and let's not forget that the president chose as an interior secretary a man who, as a u.s. senator, objected to increased oil and gas drilling here at home even if the price of gas exceeded $10 a gallon. right here on the senate floor.

so no one should be surprised at the fact that we're well on our road to european gas prices when the president and two cabinet officials he chose to deal with the issue are all on record supporting them. so let's be honest. the only problem the president sees in all of this is the political blowback he's getting for it, and that's why last week he gave another speech, this time to absolve himself from any of the blame for high gas pric prices, even as he sought to take credit for the actions of the private sector that his predecessors took to increase energy production here at home. now, it's kind of interesting, the president seems to blame his predecessor on a weekly basis for the problems we face today, but when he finds something he likes, he doesn't commend him but claims it is an achievement for himself. yes, oil production is at an all-time high in this country thanks to the decisions that were made before this president took office.

but let's be very clear about something, the actions of this president are driving down oil production. and here's how. this president continues to limit offshore areas of energy production and is granting fewer leases to public land for oil drilling. his administration is imposing regulations that will further drive up the cost of gasoline for the consumer. he wants to raise taxes on oil and gas, a proposal that the congressional research service tells us will increase the price of oil and gas and, by the way, send jobs overseas. and he alone rejected the keystone x.l. pipeline, a potentially game-changing domestic energy project that promises not only greater independence from middle eastern oil but tens of thousands of private-sector jobs. now, the president who's done all of those things, all while

climbing that there aren't any silver bullets. well, the fact is, this president's policies are designed and intended to drive up energy prices, reduce domestic oil production, increase our demand on foreign sources of oil, and drive high-paying american jobs overseas. those are the direct result of the policies of this administration. so forget the rhetoric. that's this president's record. and it's in perfect keeping with the vision he set out at the beginning of his administration. this president will go to any length to drive up gas prices and pave the way for his ideological agenda. that's this president's notion of fairness, that struggling americans pay more at the pump while their tax dollars go to prop up solar companies like solyndra and the executives who run them into the ground.

well, mr. president, i don't think it's particularly fair, speaking of fairness, i don't think it's particularly fair for people who are out there trying to scrape a living together to subsidize bonuses for folks who wouldn't even have a business without a taxpayer handout. that's not my definition of fairness. but that's the economy this president wants. that's what his policies lead to. that's his vision. so in my view, reverse this go president's wrongheaded energy policies is the silver bullet. look, the president can taunt his critics for suggesting we actually use the resources we have, but i think the american people realize that a president who's out there talking about algae -- algae -- when we're

having to choose between whether to buy groceries or fill up the tank is the one who is out of touch. now, mr. president, americans get this issue. they understand it fully. they get that we need to increase oil production right here at home, not simply rely on pipe dreams -- pipe dreams -- like algae or by wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on more failed clean energy projects like solyndra, especially, especially at a time when we're running trillion-dollar deficits. we can't afford it. it's time for the president to join with republicans and put american energy and economic security ahead of his own ideological agenda. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership

time is reserved. and under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business until the hour of 12:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders their designees, with the majority controlling the first hour, the republicans, the second half-hour. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i was heartened by the dialogue between senators reid and mcconnell this morning talking about more bipartisan cooperation, civility, cooperation to try to deal with appropriation bills, and i'd like to commend to the republican leader not just those important issues but the equally important issue of judicial nominations. it's no secret that the senate's process for considering nominations has deteriorated under the obama administration because of resistance from the republican side of the aisle. it is a long-honored tradition in america that a president of the united states fills vacancies on the federal courts

with the advise and consent of the senate. and that has been the process since the beginning of this republic. yet today we find stacked on our calendar literally 19 judicial nominees pending on the senate floor. 14 of these nominees were reported from the judiciary committee last year. some of them as far back as october. they've been sitting here for months. 17 of the nominees were reported out of committee with broad bipartisan support, 12 of them unanimously. 10 nominees, incidentally, are supported by their republican home state senators. the bottom line -- judicial nominees with no controversy, widespread bipartisan approval are being held up on the senate calendar and not approved. why? well, i can tell you why. it's fairly clear. it is part of a strategy that says if you hold up the judicial

nominees as long as possible, in comes that moment of the so-called thurman rule or thurman tradition. this relates to senator strom thurman of south carolina who basically said when we are engaged in the depths of a presidential campaign, the senate should stop approving judicial nominees. there's nothing in the rules that requires that. there's certainly nothing in the constitution. and, in fact, we have in our own way found exceptions to it in the past. but what we are seeing now is an effort by the republicans to hold up our stop judicial nominees in the hopes that they'll be left vacant through the entire calendar year and then if they have their way at the polls a republican president will fill the vacancies a year from now with new nominees. that is crass, it is unfair. the men and women who submit their names to be considered for judicial nomination go through a rigorous background check at many different levels, first by

the senators who would nominate them, then by the white house, then the routine examination by the federal bureau of investigation, then once reported to the senate judiciary committee for further investigation and hearing. their lives are on hold during this process. they wait on the senate. and once they have cleared these hurdles and finally reached the calendar, many of them feel that they can breathe a sigh of relief, a unanimous vote or a strong bipartisan vote in the judiciary committee used to be a signal of success on the floor. not anymore. at this point, they reach the ultimate roadblock. they are stopped on the senate floor by the republican minority. it isn't just unfair to judicial nominees. men and women of quality, many of whom have been proposed by republican senators. it is fundamentally unfair to our court system. you see, many of these nominees are filling vacancies that are absolutely essential. last week, i received a letter from the chief judge of the northern district of illinois, judge jim holderman. his district is one that has been declared a judicial

emergency, meaning the backlog of cases is stacking up and the vacancies need to be filled. he was writing me and senator kirk asking that we do everything in our power to move two noncontroversial, strongly supported nominees through the judiciary committee. well, they're moved through. these two who came through a bipartisan process are now sitting on the senate calendar. they are john lee and jay thor thorpe. john lee, my nominee; jay thorpe, senator kirk's nominee. a bipartisan agreement, a bipartisan committee has led to their selection. no one has questioned their ability to serve well on the federal court. what judge holderman wrote to

say was the vacancy as that they would fill have been declared judicial mr. president this is a classic illustration. well-qualified individuals having cleared the hurdles receiving strong bipartisan support in the judiciary committee are mired down on the senate calendar. time after time we steve when we can finally spring one of these nominations it will have 80 or 90 votes of senators who approve it. they're noncontroversial. it is clearly a slowdown strategy so the other side of the aisle saying their prayers that they can replace president obama will literally leave these evacuations for a year or more -- vaiks in a year or more.

that is unfair to the process, it's certainly unfair to the nominees. it is unfair to this system of government where we are shirking our responsibility to advise and consent for critical vacancies to be filled across the united states of america. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you. and first let me thank my colleague from illinois for his usual articulate and prescient comments about our judicial crisis and that's what we have here in the senate and in the third branch of government. and i rise today, along with many of my colleagues, to address a serious problem for which there's an easy solution. we have a crisis in our third and independent branch of government and it is one that only we in the senate can can

solve. -- we in the senate can solve. and we can solve it. we need to come together, as we have in the past, and confirm judges to our article 3 courts and dispense with the petty politics and hostage taking. mr. president, let me just give you one example of how our process has broken down. in december, for the second year in a row, my colleagues across the aisle refuse to consent to confirm even a single judicial nomination before the end of the senate session. this senseless rejection of the senate's long-standing practice of confirming consensus nominees is starting to do real damage to our federal courts. one out of ten -- let me repeat that -- one out of ten on the federal bench, one out of ten seats -- one out of ten seats on the federal bench is currently vacant. judicial vacancies are double -- double -- two times what they

were at this point in president bush's first term. we have confirmed only three judicial nominees this session, only five in the past two mont months, and only 11 in the last 0 daylast90 days. and of the three judges whom we've confirmed this session, we've had to file cloture on two of them. this isn't a responsible use of the senate's advise and consent powers. rather, this is a handful of people, plain and simple, mr. president, using the senate's procedures to thwart the will of a majority of americans. the vast majority ofs wan to us confirm good, moderate, pragmatic judges to the u.s. district courts. after all, judges on the district court don't make law. they follow law. much less so -- they're not supposed to make law at all. courts of appeals have a little more latitude and of course the supreme court can make law

although they're supposed to follow tradition and precedent and claim they do. we can discuss today a different day. but, a few outside groups are trying to accomplish in the third branch of government what they have been unable to accomplish in the other branches of government by making sure that judges with moderate, pragmatic credentials don't get confirmed in hopes that they can fill up the bench with people who meet their narrow ideology at some point in the future. now, to be sure, my colleagues have offered a wide variety of ropes to explain their inability to consent to vote on district court judges. some have said they're upset about the president's improper use of his recess appointment powers. powers about which five experts can give you five different opinions. what that has to do with the judicial appointments is beyond me. some have said they're upset about getting floor time on something that's not even germane to judicial

nominations, to hold the third branch of government hostage because you have a different beef on a legislative issue? it's virtually unprecedented, at least certainly to the extent it's been done here. and some have given in to terrible, misleading and sometimes even vicious attacks on pending nominees. mr. president, i have seen materials circulated by outside groups that appear ready to oppose nominees using any and all tactics. some of it -- not all, not most, but some, and any one is too many -- can only be described as bigoted. i've seen the letters to our colleagues here. an attempt to pressure them. this behavior needs to stop, and it certainly needs to stop having an effect on any member in this body. i've seen material that twists a candidate's record beyond all recognition.

in fact, just before recess one group circulated patently inaccurate quotes from a brief written for a client by jesse furman. i will say today, the senate certainly has an obligation to take a hard look at the president's judicial nominees. my view is that ideology does matter and every senator here has the right to make sure that a president's judicial nominees are within the mainstream. by even admit that some definitions of mainstream are different than others. but when nominee after nominee after nominee, many of whom were reported unanimously out of the judiciary committee, which has some very conservative as well as some very liberal members, when those are held up by handful of people, we're not talking about views out of the mainstream. we're talking about something larger and frankly, less

defensible. there will always be nominees and especially to the courts of appeals about whom we'll disagree. there will be those whom some of us view as so extreme we'll refuse to give our concept to holding an up-or-down vote. but, mr. president, let's be clear. that is not -- that is not what is going on today. what is going on today is obstruction, plain and simple. obstruction against anybody, any nominee, and obstruction at unprecedented levels. the total number of federal, circuit, and district judges confirmed during the first three years of the obama administration is far less than for previous president. the senate is more than 40 confirmations thinned pace we set confirming president bush's nominees 2001-2004. the sheer amount of resistance to president obama's district court judges indicates the level of obstruction we're facing. in three years, president

obama's nominees have received five times as many no votes as bush's district court nominees did over eight years. isn't that incredible? the proof is in the pudding. the president's nominees for district court aren't out of the main stream. almost all of them have worked in law firms or excelled in other ways that characterized the nominees of other presidents. the standard has changed. it is no longer will this judge meet the standards we demand from an article 3 judge. now it is did i personally approve of this judge and if i didn't, what can i get by voting for him or her? or if i didn't, i'm going to block that judge and tie the senate in a knot so judges only in my narrow viewpoint can be appointed even though the president's of a different party and different philosophy even though the majority of the

senate on both sides of the aisle are of a different philosophy. this is nothing short of tragic. i imploafer my colleagues, think about what you're doing. let's come together as i know we can and confirm qualified district court judges without further gamesmanship, without further obstruction, without a further view it's my way or the highway, and if i don't get my way, i'm going to try and cripple one out of ten vacancies are getting that, cripple the article 3 branch of the government. the future of our courts and even this body could well depend on it. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i heard the remarks of the distinguished senator from new york and obviously i agree and i guess would like to add my six cents to the arguments presented. i'm a 19-year member of the judiciary committee, so i've had a front-row seat for judicial nominations for a long, long time. and over 800 judges have been confirmed since i came to the senate. now, it wasn't so long ago that liberals and conservatives could easily win confirmation as long as they were well qualified, would be fair-minded, had judicial temperament, they were

confirmed. and it may even surprise some that justice ruth bader ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3, and justice antonin scalia was confirmed 98-0. that was a different time. today, partisanship has stalled even the most uncontroversial judicial appointments. senate republicans allowed no nominees to be confirmed at the end of the last session, and have allowed but five so far this year. in this environment, even those reported out of committee by voice vote, without any controversy, are unable to receive a floor vote for many months, if they ever receive one at all. let me give you a recent example. a judge that i nominated to the president, judge kathy benjamin avengeo's nomination to the

southern district of california was approved by the judiciary committee by voice vote, yet waited four months for a floor vote and then was ultimately confirmed 90-6, showing there simply was no need to hold up the nomination in the first place. this level of obstruction is relatively new, and has impeded the con fimplation process for both judicial and executive branch nominees. let's do a quick comparison. nearly 80% of president george w. bush's judicial nominees during his first term were confirmed. 80%. in contrast, less than 60% of president obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed. as a result, the judicial vacancy rate stands at nearly 10%, that's double what it was when president bush left office.

similarly, during the first session of the 112th congress, the confirmation rate of president obama's executive branch appointments was only 51%. president george w. bush and bill clinton each had a confirmation rate of over 70% during comparable periods in their presidency. so clearly there have been a change post-clinton, and i think that's what we're talking about. this is not good for the judiciary, it is not good for this body, and it is not good as standard operating practice of the united states senate. it's clear that we're seeing a degree of obstruction that's unprecedented, and that hampers the ability of the judicial and executive branches to perform

their constitutional functions. it is preventing us, the legislative branch, from fulfilling the responsibility that we owe to the two other branches of government. in my state, we have three nominees. each for positions the judicial conference has declared to be judicial emergencies. which means extraordinarily heavy caseloads. these should win confirmation without delay. i'll give you one. judge jacqueline nguyen, a nominee for the ninth circuit. she is a remarkable jurist with an impeccable record. she was confirmed to the district court 97-0 in 2009. she was approved by the judiciary committee for the ninth circuit by the bipartisan voice vote. yet her nomination has been pending on the floor for nearly three months. an easy one. unanimously passed, has served

as a district court judge, could be voted for and passed if not by 100%, very close to it. the ninth circuit, which has by far more pending cases per appellate panel than any other appellate court, needs her to be confirmed without further delay. there is a reason for this. i think republicans don't like some of the appellate courts. therefore, what they try to do, candidly, is keep the positions vacant in hope that after the election there will be a republican president, and they will get their nominees through. well, you know, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and this is not, i think, a good way to handle judicial appointments. let me give you another one. paul watford should be confirmed quickly to the ninth circuit. he is eminently qualified, he clerked for conservative judge

alex kuzinski and ruth bader ginsburg and has been a distinguished practitioners of appellate law in california for many years. he's uncontroversial. he's been endorse he'd by the former president of the federalist society, by conservative law professor eugene volot and the general counsels of several major corporations that he has represented in appellate cases. the senate should confirm him without delay. another, michael fitzgerald, a nominee to the central district of california, should also be confirmed quickly. this is a court that ranks as the ninth busiest in the nation in terms of filings per judgeship. and mr. fitzgerald is an extraordinarily qualified nominee, with 25 years of experience as a federal

prosecutor and as a lawyer in private practice. his nomination was also reported by the judiciary committee by a bipartisan voice vote. yet he nomination has been waiting for a vote on the floor for nearly four months. all of this unnecessary. they could go through by unanimous consent. now, i understand that some of my republican colleagues believe that president obama's recent recess appointments are a reason to delay needed confirmations, to overburdened courts around the country. and by simply remind my colleagues of a bit of history and ask them to think carefully about whether they want to go down this very dangerous path. many will recall that president bush made two controversial recess appointments to the 11th circuit and the sixth

circuit in early 2004. like republicans now, democrats were upset about the president's appointments. nevertheless, in the three months that followed, democrats permitted numerous circuit court and district court nominees to be confirmed. the senate continued to act on such nominees until september of 2004, two months before the presidential election. so i say to my colleagues -- and i say this respectfully -- take a step back, do not obstruct every judicial nomination from this president. our judicial depends on a senate willing to do its constitutional duty and provide advice and consent to judicial nominees. most pending nominees are

well-qualified consensus choices for courts that urgently need them to begin their service. we should confirm them without delay. you know, our job is to vote. our job is not really to obstruct, to delay. it's to vote. because we function on a majority system. and if you don't think someone is qualified, if you don't believe they have judicial temperament, if you don't believe they have enough experience, if you don't like them for any reason, vote "no." that's entirely within the prerogative of a senator. but to hold them up despite judicial emergencies, despite high caseloads is to impact the system of justice. and i think this 10% vacancy factor now indicates that the condition of justice is, in fact, being affected throughout

our country and particularly in ninth circuit and in california cases, as well as many other states. so i thank the chair, and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i beg your pardon. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized.

mr. coons: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: madam president, i rise today to continue to address an issue which i've just had the joy of hearing you and the senators from new york and from illinois speak to and that concern that i raise today is the ongoing crisis in our cour courts, the nearly 10% vacancy in judicial positions all across the united states. i rise today as the senator from delaware, a senator from delaware, the junior senator from delaware, but also as a member of the tell dell bar and a former -- delaware bar and a former federal court clerk and someone who has i think a personal sense from that experience and my service on the judiciary committee of the consequences of these delays, the consequences of steadily climbing caseloads, significant judicial vacancies, judicial emergencies in districts across our great country, including the state of california, and what that means for people, for companies, for communities for whom justice is being delayed

and thus denied. earlier this month, i attended the investiture ai ceremony of judge richard andrews who was sworn in to the u.s. district court for delaware. this is the first time in six years that the very busy district court of delaware has had a full complement of all of its district court judges. and although i am relieved and the people of delaware are grateful to have a full bench, and although judge andrews is an extremely talented lawyer and a devoted public servant and utterly nonpartisan, just the sort of district court nominee of whom the presiding officer just spoke, his nomination took nearly six months to be confirmed by the senate. i'm glad that judge andrews has made it through because in the senate, the confirmation process seems to be even more broken this year than last. when i joined the senate in 2010, judicial nominations had slowed to a crawl and i watched with dismay as folks who i viewed as highly qualified were blocked.

goodwin liu, for example, a brilliant and qualified legal scholar, a nominee twice to the ninth circuit, could not overcome a g.o.p. filibuster, in part payback for a view i believe on the other side of the aisle of the rough handling of miguel he is stra estrada, who'n was defeated during the bush presidency. what i've been frustrated about as a freshman senator is the history of this chamber lying about the chamber seems steadily pile up session after session and the process seems to be weighed down by this burden of history. but next, caitlyn hal halligan s nominated to the d.c. circuit you tell. and her nomination, in my view, also blocked, was based on a grotesque examination of his record. the major talking point against her nomination, if i recall right, was that the d.c. circuit already had more than enough judges. judge halligan would have been

the ninth judge on that court. notably all the g.o.p. members who spoke against her had no qualms when this senate confirmed a 10th and 11th judge to sit on that circuit during the bush nomination period. but these sorts of fine points of history i think are lost on the people, the communities and the companies across our nation who go to the courthouse seeking justice and find none. in 2012, as some of the previous senators have spoken, we have so far confirmed just five judges. today there are 19 nominees on the floor, 12 who came out of our judiciary committee unanimously. and are now languishing it our executive calendar. republicans have no stated objections to these nominees but refuse to grant consent for a vote to be scheduled. president obama's nominees have waited four times longer after committee approval than did president bush's nominees at this point in his first term. the senate is more than 40 confirmations behind the pace set during the bush administration. it's not just judges that have

also been the subject of this ongoing weighting down. the executive calendar, which i have the privilege to flip through every time i preside, is filled with vacancies, with nominees to complete, complement in every major department in every major independent agency in this government, it is more than a dozen pages long of nominations that have sat for months and months. last month, in response to the republican obstructionism in moving to executive calendar and in filling these administrative vacancies, president obama made recess appointments. the consumer protection chief, richard cord ray, and the -- richard cordray, and the national labor relations board. some ofous both sides of the aisle do agree that congress and not the president has the right to declare when the senate is in recess. but whatever your view of these appointments, there is no questioning that in either case, republicans forced the issue through their unprecedented refusal to vote the president's nominees up or down and allow him to proceed with the progress

of our nation. as senators, we have a responsibility to advise the president as to nominations and where we agree, to consent. and where we don't, each of us is free to vote a "no." some senators have suggested they oppose all nominations in opposition to the president's recess appointments. and in my position -- in my opinion, a pledge to oppose all nominations is a pledge not to do his or her job. in my view, we ought not to make such a pledge. in my view, while so many americans are out of work and so many of us are here on the public payroll, we can, we should and we must move forward with judicial nominees. madam president, this session began this morning with a very encouraging moment of harmony between the majority leader and the republican leader on the concept of moving ahead with appropriations. it is my hope and prayer we will do the same on judicial nominations as well. i call upon my colleagues on the other side to rethink this strategy of obstruction at all costs because it is in the end

the american people who pay the price. with that, i yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my republican leagues for up to 30 minutes. -- republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: thank you. madam president, i think it's obvious all around our country that americans are struggling right now with gasoline prices. the average american family spent more than $4,000 a year last year and it will be more this year before the additional devastating price increases that we're seeing now just wreak havoc on our economy. the national average price of a gallon of gasoline has gone up every single week, every single day for the last three weeks.

every single day for the last three weeks. in many parts of our country, prices at the pump are around $4 a gallon. but instead of encouraging an all-of-the-above approach, which the administration has said it is doing, the administration instead has been frustrating every domestic source of energy production that doesn't conform to a narrow view of alternative fuels. the president is opposed to increasing drilling in the arctic nationaarctic national we preserve and opening additional areas of the outer continental shelf off the alaskan coast. now, the people of alaska have voted to support the anwr drilling because they know that anwr is an area the size approximately of the state of south carolina and the part

would be -- that would be drilled is approximately the size of washington national airport. so they know that this would be good jobs for alaska and it would not harm the environment at all because the drilling area is so very small in this vast wildlife preserve. the president has also restricted drilling on federal lands, opposes the development of shale gas and coal, will not open additional areas of the outer continental shelf in the lower 48 states, even though some state legislatures, like virginia, have said they would like to do it, but the president has shut that down. the president opposes further drilling in the gulf of mexico. and nuclear energy is also now on the -- on the list, i guess, of moratoria.

and he has rejected the keystone x.l. pipeline. what the president does favor is the saudis increasing oil production and increased use of solar, wind and algae here at home. mr. president, does that really substitute for an energy policy? is that something that americans can count on to increase the supply of energy in our country? last week, the president said we cannot drill our way to lower gas prices. this statement is inaccurate. increased domestic production will go a long way towards stabilizing gas prices. why does this president want to turn his back on critical sources of domestic energy which

seem incomprehensible to anyone looking at this issue? so i have colleagues here on the floor that have -- they come from different states, states where unemployment is high and people are looking for jobs and looking for alternatives, and i would just like to turn to the senator from the great state of missouri, senator blunt, and ask the senator from missouri if he has a view, is he hearing from his constituents in missouri? mr. mr. blunt: i just actually, i met with disabled veterans who are here in town today and i told them i was going to be talking about energy and they said we're really -- just the long-term effort of the veterans administration to get veterans to their health care appointments is dramatically

impacted by these high gas prices. just like what veterans and retirees of all kinds are going to do with the number that went into their -- the number of dollars that went into their gas tank. as they see that gas tank go to $10 and maybe they decide i'm going to have to quit because that's all the money i've got with me or i'm going to fill up the tank and see it go go 40, 50, 60, as families look at that, as retirees look at that, as veterans look at that, they've got to be thinking as that -- as that gas tank number changes, something else they were going to do that week is something that they're not going to be able to do. this has dramatic impact on families. it has dramatic impact on the way we live. it has dramatic impact on the confidence people have in thur economy -- in our economy. if you look at charts of gas prices going up, you see consumer confidence going down. it happens in states like yours or in states in the middle of

the country like missouri or senator portman's state of ohio and senator, have you got -- we've all been home. i'm sure you can't have been home and not heard a lot about gas prices. mr. portman: you're absolutely right to my colleague from texas and missouri, they are right on in terms of the impact on ohio families. i've been home the last week and in fact i just drove from ohio to washington last night, and had to fill up a couple times on the way. and the price was over $3.70 a gallon. according to aaa that's the average price is over $3.70 a gallon. this is impacting families. i met with people in the trucking business, some small operators who are trying to make ends meet and they're saying rob, i don't know how this is going to work because gas prices keep going up at the time when our expenses are going up as well and they're getting squeezed out. hire prices affects everything that we buy because that cost is

embedded there. this is hurting our economy in very fundamental ways. record levels for this time of year and this is not just a seasonal issue. this is a longer term failure of an energy policy by the obama administration and that's something we all need to fake on, not just to be critical of bad policies that have gotten us here but how do we get out of it, what do we do? that's what i'd like to talk about for a minute today. let me give you a couple interesting numbers. the price of gas has increased by 94% in the last three and a half years in the obama administration. sewer talking about almost a 100% increase in cost of gasoline. all-time high last year $3 53 and this year -- and the average amount spent by a family, over 4,000 bucks. this is a big part of people's bnls.

we've been hit hard and a time when millions of americans are struggling mid a continuing weak economy it's particularly tough because budgets are already stretched thin. we need to produce more in my view, and if you produce more, you're going to see prices come down and it's sort of the basic laws of supply and demand. so right now we have demand around the world may be picking up a little bit and yet we are not producing as much as we should be and frankly, we're producing less than we have been. some interesting numbers here that actually surprised me in terms of what the president is saying versus the facts. the president says we're producing more than we have in the past. decline in production of natural gas on public lands and waters went down 11% last year. decline of oil production, 14%. in the gulf of mexico there was a 17% drop from 618 million barrels in 2010 to 514 in 2011.

the senator from texas talked about this. we're not seeing an increase, we're seeing a decrease and this is at a time when all of us, i hope, realize we've got to be focused on producing more here at home, one so we exan get prices down and get less dependent on these dangerous and volatile parts of the world. if we don't, we'll be subject to what happens in libya or iran and see gas prices spike up as we're seeing now. we've got to produce more and here at home to get away from the opec cartel, the washingtonways time by not acting now to immediately ex pant that production. and -- expand that production. the white house says it takes some time. well, all the more reason to get started with it as the senator from texas said. if we started a few years ago, we'd be in much better shape but the price of gasoline of course reflects what people think it's going to be in the future. even if we made a commitment

today to get busy on more domestic production of oil and natural gas, it would affect the price because it would affect what folks think what the future prices are going to be. mrs. hutchison: would the senator from ohio yield? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. portman: absolutely. mrs. hutchison: the senator from ohio is making such a good point because here the president is saying just producing more won't lower prices. does that seem like the fundamental supply and demand economic explanation that most economists have adopted in our country, that if you supply more, that the price will go down? doesn't that seem like a nonsek witter? -- nonsek wit your? is mr. portman: most people understand, even if you don't have a degree in economics, i don't, if you cut the supply, you're going to see prices go up and let me give you an example of this. in 2010 the president canceled

leases in the gulf of mexico, the mid-atlantic, in 2011 put forward a new five-year plan that reinstitutes a moratorium in the atlantic and pacific, halves the number of leases. the supply goes down. he slowed down permits for deep water and shallow water drilling in the gulf. he has set to impropose regulations on refineries that will further raise costs. about 11% of the costs according to the american petroleum institute comes from refining and by putting more regulations and costs on refining you'll have an impact that's hurting our economies. the e.p.a., the cap-and-trade president obama didn't get through the congress so they're moving ahead with it with regulations causing a lot of uncertainty, a lack of construction of refineries. the first new refinery in a generation in fact has been delayed because of it which brings us to the second problem

to my colleagues from missouri and texas. this is not just about gas prices, it's about jobs. because by stopping the construction of a refinery, putting new regulations on it, not allowing the kind of drilling we want to do in the state of ohio to bring jobs, you're hurting the very jobs that americans need to be able to pay for their gas bills. these are good-paying jobs. they tend to be jobs that have good benefits and so a pro-growth energy strategy doesn't just result in a more secure energy source, it also results in more jobs which we need des rattily. the president seems to be -- desperately. the president says he's going to reverse course. in his state of the union address he said he's for an all-of-the-above. but a week after that he rejected the keystone x.l. pipeline. talk about all of the above, we should be getting from our strong ally to get the cost down

and that pipeline also picks up american oil. i'll bet our colleague from north dakota is going to talk about that in a little while because he has been governor of north dakota, understands the importance of the keystone x.l. pipeline. whether it's the offshore drilling we talked about, moving ahead with crilg on shore and exploration that can help create jobs and energy security, whether it's the keystone x.l. pipeline, whether the regulations on our refineries, there are things we can and should do and do immediately. if we do these things to have more domestic energy production, yes, we will begin to see these prices go down and stabilize. i come from ohio, as the senator from missouri said, and we have a tradition of producing oil and gas. it goes back to the turn of the century, the last century. then we kind of got away from it for a while and people like my colleague from texas here started producing a lot more oil and gas. we're back in the business thanks to the shale oil finds and it's the utica shale,

natural gas but also oil. what they call wet gas which is very valuable. by tell you having spent lot of the time in eastern ohio over the last several days, people are really excited about this. it's bringing back good pailg jobs, allowing 0 people to stay in these communities and have not just a living gauge but real hope for the future and it will also have an effect on our gas prices. we have an opportunity before things get worse to come up with a different solution, a sensible national energy policy that stops our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and leads to prices that we can afford at the pump. mrs. hutchison: i want to say to the senator from ohio that i am very pleased that ohio is getting back into the drilling business. that's creating jobs if a state that i know has had high unemployment. and it's just so clearly in america's best interests to have our people working, and of

course the keystone pipeline which our colleague from north dakota is going to talk about in just a few minutes, is the perfect place to create jobs, instant jobs with not one dime of taxpayer dollars. this would be private dollars invested in a pipeline that would bring oil from our friends in canada all the way through the united states to the refineries in texas which it is estimated would produce 830,000 barrels of oil and -- into gasoline a day. a day. think of what that would do to the price. i'm going to ask my friend and colleague from missouri, the secretary of energy has actually made the statement that we want gasoline prices to increase

along the lines of europe. oh, really? so i would just like to ask my friend from missouri, how would the working people in your state feel about $8 or $9 per gallon, which is what they pay in europe, as a cost at the pump? what would that do to the economy of missouri? what would that do to the unemployment in missouri? mr. blunt: i was asked the other day when i ways home, does the administration have a plan and i said dwelling if you listen to what they say, this is their plan they're these gas prices to go up. we're not europe. in spite of what the secretary of energy said the month before he was named as secretary that our big problem was that our gas wasn't as high as gasoline in europe, that was according to him our big problem, now, the president who appointed him said just a few weeks before that at

the san francisco croingle editorial -- editorial board, energy prices will skyrocket, and so apparently they're well along the way on the plan. as we've mentioned a couple of times already, gasoline twice as high as it was in january of 2009. we're not europe. we're a big country that is dependent on transportation. we -- we drive to go to work longer than most europeans do, we transport our goods more than most europeans do. we have this big agricultural economy that feeds a whole lot of the world and only really works with affordable energy. and two points that both you and the senator from ohio have made that i'd like to drive home, one is that more american jobs mean more -- more american energy means more american jobs and not just the jobs to build

something like the keystone pipeline but also the jobs at the refinery when that 800,000 barrels of oil a day gets to our refinery, there are american workers running that refinery. and if our economy's prosperous prosperous, more people working in manufacturing and transportation and all the things that we do for a living and the shortest path to more american jobs is more american energy and we should be working on that. and then the impact on families. you know, as families see what's happening at the gas pump, as i said earlier, they just give up on other things that they would hope to do. the president said at the state of the union message that he was for an all-of-the-above strategy. apparently the regulators don't know about this. the regulators that the president has appointed seem to have no clue that the all-of-the-above strategy of coal, of natural gas, of oil

needs to be part of what we're doing as we invest in the future. nobody is opposed to looking for what comes next after fossil fuel. the concern is we're not there. and even if we knew we were going there, mr. president, we wouldn't get there for a long time. even if we knew what would power our cars 30 years from now, most cars 20 or 25 years from now would still be pulling up to a gas pump. most trucks would still be pulling up to a gas pump. frankly, the economy probably couldn't absorb it any other way and we don't know yet what is the likely next thing. i'm for seeing us invest in that. i'm for conservation so we use our energy more wisely. but let me just say, the poorest people are the people -- they're the last ones that get the -- the new high-mileage vehicle or the energy efficient refrigerator or the new windows. retired americans, americans struggling to get by are going to be the last people to benefit

in most cases from those ideas. well, let's just conserve our way out of this or let's price our way out of this, more american energy is good for us, energy from our next-door neighbor is the next best thing to what is energy that we produce ourselves and we ought to be doing all we can to produce all the competitive energy we can on our own. we then ought to be doing all we can to encourage our -- our closest trading partner, our most equitable trading partner, when we send them a dollar, they send us almost a dollar back every single time. and energy security. the odds that we're going to have a problem with our canadian neighbor are a whole lot less than the odds something's going to happen in the middle east that's a problem for us. we can become, because of these new finds in oil shale and gas shale and tar sands and other things, we can -- and the small platforms we can now use to

access oil, that we wouldn't want to disrupt in a significant way but a small drilling platform doesn't do that. and, you know, i think our good friend, senator hutchison from texas -- i thank our good friend, senator hutchison from texas, for putting this discussion together today and for being such a leader on thi thisse energy issues. but senator hoeven, when he was governor hoeven, saw exactly what can happen to an economy of a state when you decide you're going to make the most of your natural resources. and the economy of north dakota changed dramatically while he was governor because it became an energy producer and now one of the biggest energy producers in our country. and i know he wants to talk about the keystone pipeline and i want to hear him talk about that, but if you're ready, senator, we -- let me go back to you and then we'll hear more i'm sure from governor hoeven, senator hoeven, about the keystone pipeline. mrs. hutchison: well, i want to thank the senator from missouri because i think the point you made about trading with canada,

our closest neighbor, our biggest trading partner, as opposed to having canada ship their oil that they're now produce not guilty the albert alberta -- producing in the alberta sands over to china or over someplace else and sometimes it would be shipped back in or we would be taking oil from the middle east and all of the things that can happen when oil is being shipped from the middle east to america are risks that we would have to ta take. mr. blunt blunt: could i make oe final point on that? you know, every other country in the world looks at its natural resources and the first two words they think of are economic advantage or economic opportunity. and that's what the canadians are doing. only in the united states do you have a significant -- any significant number of leaders who look at our natural resources and the first two words they think of are

environmental hazard. what's the worst thing that can happen and what would happen if that happened every day? and the canadians, you know, their prime minister was in -- in china within the last month talking about selling their -- their oil to the chinese, who want to buy it. and that's what the canadians should be doing. they would prefer to sell it to us. we should buy it. but they're not going to just decide, well, if our most logical partner doesn't want it, we'll just let our economy suffer and not doing anything with it. nobody else looks at its energy resources that way. we shouldn't either. we shouldn't expect the canadians to. that pipeline is going to go either south to our refineries or west to the coast that will then ship all of that oil to asia. and we should -- we shouldn't let that happen. they don't want it to happen. but we shouldn't be upset with them if we won't buy it and they decide that they're going to benefit from their own

resources, as they should. mrs. hutchison: the senator from missouri is making the impact right point. of course they should look for markets so that their people can be employed. the folly is that american wouldn't be the logical place to say, yes, we want it. of course. and let me just give you a statistic because i want to ask the senator from north dakota his opinion because, frankly, he has been "the" leader -- "the" leader -- in the united states senate to try to get the keystone pipeline approved by the state department and the white house. he's been the leader. and i was amazed just yesterday that the white house did a kind of a double bakeflip with a twist. and the "wall street journal" said it best. "obama's keystone jujitsi."

and what the administration did in a mind-numbing kind of logic, was say, well, you know, we said no after four years of environmental studies that all approved the keystone pipeline coming from canada, down through oklahoma and into the refineries in texas. instead of approving that after four years of good environmental studies that came out positive, the president said no. but yesterday, the president said, well, we'll approve and say it's really a good idea to do the pipeline from oklahoma down to texas. well, you know, that's not bad. it's great to have that. but the problem is, if you do the 830,000 barrels a day that would come from can do -- canada

all the way down to the refineries in texas, it would produce 34 million gallons of gasoline a day. 34 million. now, i would just ask the senator from north dakota, who would be bypassed with this new plan, how is that going to affect the rest of america, not the america between oklahoma and texas but the rest of america, including the state of north dakota, and why would he think that the president would think that is a solution? so, mr. president, i would just ask the senator from north dakota -- and i would like to make sure that the senator from north dakota has up to ten minutes. but i ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. there's five minutes left now, so you want an additional five? mrs. hutchison: that will be

fine. i will just turn it over to the senator, then, from north dakota for up to ten minutes and just ask him the question, how on earth could this affect the price of gasoline when we could be putting 34 million gallons of gasoline a day into people's tanks, how could the president say that won't lower the price? how could he say it? mr. hoeven: exactly. i'd like to thank the esteemed senator from texas, both for organizing this colloquy with the esteemed senator from missouri and the senator from ohio on this very, very important issue. we have our american consumers paying more than $3.70 at the purposat thepump today. today i think the price is exactly $3.72. that's exactly the right question, because that hits every single american, every single one. and as you and the other senators have pointed out, when the administration took office, the price of gasoline, the price of a gallon of gasoline at the

pump was about $1.85. today it's $3.70. actually, this chart we made yesterday, it's already old. today the average price in the united states is $3.72. and, of course, in some places, it's already well over $4. the projection is that by memorial day, gasoline will be $4 a gallon. $4 a gallon. and by later this summer, it could be as much as $5 a gallon. so let's put that into perspective for just a minute. following up on the question put forward by the senator from texas. recently the president wanted a payroll tax cut and the congress passed that payroll tax cut. as the administration, as the president liked to point out, that was about a thousand dollars a year, the benefit of that payroll tax averaged about a thousand dollars a year for the american worker, or about $40 a paycheck. right? you get a paycheck every two weeks, so $40 a paycheck for the

average working american. that's about $20 a week. now, when you're paying somewhere between $4 and $5 a gallon for gas at the pump, you more than pay that additional $20 you got in that payroll tax, don't you? in other words, it costs you more than that. so, in essence, you've gone back because of the high price of gasoline. so what's the administration doing? well, as the senator from missouri just pointed out, the administration has an all-of-the-above strategy. what is that? that means we produce more energy from all our resources, from oil, from gas, from biofuels, from solar, from wind, from nuclear, from biomass. and i agree with that. we should produce all of our energy resources an, an all-of-the-above strategy. the problem is, the administration is saying that but they're not doing it. i repeat, they're saying an

all-of-the-above strategy but they're not doing it. and not only are they not doing it, they're actually blocking oil and gas development in our country and they're blocking our ability to get oil from our closest ally, canada. and the keystone x.l. pipeline, which they've turned down, is a great example of just that. 830,000 barrels a day that we're not getting from canada because, after more than 3 1/2 years of study, the administration has turned down the project. but the keystone x.l. pipeline and projects like it are very important -- very important parts of the solution. we still get 30% of our crude from the middle east and venezuela. oil prices are going up because of instability in the middle east. that creates a risk premium. a risk people are july t risk pf gasoline which we could reduce substantially by producing more oil and gas here at home and

with our closest friend and ally and trading partner, canada. so ironically, the president wanted a payroll tax cut he said to stimulate our economy and to help the american worker, but then he more than takes away any benefit from that payroll tax cut by blocking our ability to develop oil and gas in this country and our ability to get oil from canada. so in my home state of north dakota, not only can we not get our oil to market because we can't put it in the keystone x.l. pipeline and get it to the refineries, we can't get that oil from canada, either. our consumers, working americans pay the price at the pump. well, why would the administration do that? why would they do something like that? well, i think some insight is provided by ted turner's letter on the cnn web site. ted turner has a letter on the cnn web site right now. you can go check it out.

mr. turner cites a number of arguments as to why we should not get oil from canada. first, he says well, that oil that we get from canada, we'll just export it so it won't reduce gas prices in the united states. but a recent department of energy report dated june 22, 2011, u.s. department of energy report says just the opposite. it says that the crude we bring in from canada will be refined in the united states and that it will lower gas prices in the united states on the east coast, on the gulf coast, and in the mid-midwest. not "may" reduce gas prices, "will" reduce gas prices, east coast, gulf coast and the midwest. well, then mr. turner's letter says, well, the pipeline will leak and, gee, we -- we don't want a pipeline that leaks. yet, as my second chart shows here, this is the second keystone pipeline.

this first keystone pipeline's already been built. he said, well, that keystone pipeline leaked and so we can't build the second one because the first one leaked. well, the first one had no underground leaks. the leaks he's referring to were some minor leaks at some of the joints as they constructed the thing, which is natural and normal, and they were quickly and readily handled and they were no problem. that pipeline is functioning today. it's functioning just fine and there are no underground leaks. so that's not accurate either, is it? and, as a matter of fact, let's take a look. geez, those aren't the only two pipelines we've got in the united states. let's take a look. there's a few other pipelines. we have thousands of oil and gas pipelines across the country. but somehow building one more that brings in 830,000 barrels a day to help us reduce the price of gas is a problem? really? doesn't make much sense. well, so then let's go on. the other argument he says is, well, the -- you know, we're

producing that oil in canada in the oil sands and that that's not good because we have to excavate to do it. well, what's the reality with producing oil sands oil? it does have somewhat higher greenhouse gas emissions. how much? about 6%. 6%. that's how much more greenhouse gas emissions you get. but we're moving from excavating to in situ. it is drilling, like just we do for conventional oil. that means same amount of greenhouse gas, same footprint. 80% of the new reading of the amendment is insit to you -- 80% of the new development is in situ. we deploy these new technologies, we produce new energy and do it with better environmental stewardship.

so these aren't accurate. but the reality is this: folks like mr. turner, rich and famous, i guess they can pay $4 a gallon for gasoline, they can pay a lot more. the problem isn't for thm. the problem is for hardworking americans who have to pay the price at the pump every single day. and so the administration has to decide, hour the who are they go side with on this issue? are they going to continue to side with the rich and powerful interests that want to see those gasoline prices go higher and the price of gasoline at the pump really isn't an issue, or with hardworking americans for who this creates real hardship? and that's the issue we have here with this vote that we'll be having on the keystone x.l.

in fact, if we include the work we're doing with natural gas, biofuels, and with energy efficiency, i believe we can truly have north american energy security, meaning supply our energy needs in the united states and north america with our friends in canada within five to seven years. but we have got to get started. we have got to get started. so let's get started, mr. president. let's start by approving the keystone x.l. pipeline project. let's show the world that we're serious about getting this done.

asking that -- the saudis for more oil like some of my colleagues have done, that doesn't solve the problem, or taking oil out of the strategic petroleum reserve, that doesn't solve the problem. we solve the problem by truly producing all the above. not saying it but by doing it. it is ironic that the administration praises transcanada for moving forward on building the only portion of this pipeline that they can build without a presidential permit. praising them for moving forward at the very time they're blocking the project. and while they are blocking it, that means not one more drop of oil coming into this country for canada, not one more oil -- one more drop of oil coming from my state of north dakota down to the refineries to help reduce the price of gasoline at the pump. that's not an all of the above energy policy. that's not helping american workers, and that is exactly why gasoline is $3.70 a gallon and

going higher. it's time for congress to act. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, first let me express my disappointment that we are not here debating the surface transportation reauthorization bill. we had a bill that came out of the environment and public works committee, came out several others of our committees by unanimous vote. it's a bipartisan bill. it's a bill that will save jobs and create jobs here in america. it will reinvest in our own infrastructure to make america more competitive, and it's been done in a bipartisan manner thanks to the hard work of many people. i see senator boxer is on the floor. her incredible leadership on it. and we have an agreed path forward from the point of view of the relevant amendments. so what is holding up the

process? it's these amendments have absolutely nothing to do with the transportation programs of this country. we're talking about a policy in egypt which had nothing to do with our transportation needs here. so i just start by saying how disappointed i am that we haven't yet started the real debate on our transportation reauthorization bill which will create jobs, save jobs and modernize america and make us more competitive. and let me just yield for a moment to my colleague from california, senator boxer. mrs. boxer: if my friend would just yield for a question and keep the floor. i ask unanimous consent that this time for a colloquy not be taken off his time. or does he have unlimited time? the presiding officer: he has ten minutes. mrs. boxer: let me just say thank you to my friend. i know he is here to talk about judges, which is a critical, critical issue. i'm very happy that he is going

to do that. the lack of action on these qualified nominees is hurting our people. but i just wanted to thank him for his comments. this senator from maryland, senator cardin, is a senior member of the environment and public works committee and worked so hard along with his staff, invaluable staff and invaluable contribution to the the -- to the transportation bill. i guess the question i'll get to is this one. with 2.8 million jobs on the line, that's 1.8 million jobs that we have currently attached to a highway bill, and then an additional million jobs which will be created because of some of the work we did on tifia to leverage the funds, does not my friend believe that this is the time to move a jobs bill when we are in the process of seeing this economy finally turn around, it's not as fast as we

want. doesn't my friend believe that the timing of this couldn't be better and that if we pass this bill which is so bipartisan, it will kick this economic recovery into higher gear? mr. cardin: s, you're absolutely correct. i congratulate the obama administration for turning the economy around. mr. cardin: we have to create more jobs. now is the time to be bold in looking for responsible programs that can move this country forward in creating more jobs not only initially in the road construction, bridge construction, transit construction, but create permanent job great for america, jobs that cannot be exported. that's why the surface transportation bill is so important for us to bring up and debate and pass, and quite frankly, you have performed i think something that's unprecedented -- not unprecedented but unusual here,

you got bipartisan support from three committees. working now on the fourth. you got all the committees together. it's time to move this bill forward for jobs for americans. mr. boxer: my last question if i can, through the chair, i hope nigh friend is aware that right now the leadership is working very hard to take this very unwieldily list of amendments and get them down to some responsible list so that we can begin finally in earnest. i have to point out that i don't understand how my republican friends think it's appropriate to add to a highway bill the issue of birth control. i don't know how my friends on the other side think it's appropriate to repeal environmental laws on this highway bill. i don't understand, as my friend from maryland pointed out, how they can try to say they can see a connection between a highway bill and what's happening in egypt.

now, we care about all these issues, and the senate will address these issues. but we have a jobs bill, a bipartisan jobs bill, and i just want to end by thanking my friend for yielding to me and i look forward to his remarks on judges, and i look forward to getting back to our transportation bill, which i'm hopeful will happen at some point today. mr. cardin: let me thank senator boxer. i ask unanimous consent i speak up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i rise today to urge the senate to confirm judge george levi russell iii of maryland to be a united states district judge for the district of maryland. judge russell was reported by a voice vote of the judiciary committee on february 16, as the presiding officer, the president of the senate, knows. judge russell currently sits as a trial judge in the baltimore city circuit court. i take the obligation very seriously in terms of the advice

and consent role played by the senate. i am concerned, mr. president, that our judicial confirmation process here in the senate has broken down due to partisanship, particularly for noncontroversial judges. judge russell's nomination now joins a long list of backlogged, noncontroversial judicial nominations that are stuck on the senate floor. as of yesterday, the senate calendar contained 20 judicial nominations approved by the senate judiciary committee still awaiting final vote. 15 of these nominees have been pending since last year, and 18 of them have received strong bipartisan support from the senate judiciary committee. these are noncontroversial nominees that are due the up-or-down vote on the floor of the united states senate, and there is no justification for the delay of the senate carrying

out its constitutional responsibility. the senate is therefore responsible for our rising vacancy rate in our nation's article 3 courts. the real victim here is not only the nominee and their family that are waiting final senate action, the real victim is the american people who face increasing delays in courts that are overburdened and understaffed, a higher vacancy rate means that lack of timely hearings and decisions by our federal courts, affecting our citizens' ability to have access to justice in a fair and impartial resolution of their complaints. in maryland we are trying to fill a vacancy that was created during the end of president bush's term of office. when judge peter macetti took senior status in 2008. so this vacancy has been there a long time. it's time for to us act. judge russel is an excellent candidate, received bipartisan support in the judiciary

committee, and is ready to take office upon being confirmed by the senate. the time for action is now. judge russell brings a wealth of experience to this position at the state and federal courts. earlier in his career, he served as a federal prosecutor and as an attorney in private law firm. he now sits as a state court trial judge in maryland. he has the experience. judge russell graduated from moorehouse college with a b.a. in political science and a j.d. from maryland law school in 1991. he passed the bar examination and was admitted to practice in maryland in 1991. he then clerked for chief judge robert bell of the maryland court of appeals, our state's highest court. he worked as litigation assistant for two years as hazel thomas and then served as assistant u.s. attorney for the district of maryland from 1994 to 19999, handling civil cases in that capacity he represented

various federal government agencies in discrimination, accident, and medical malpractice cases. he then worked as an associate at the peter angelos law firm for two years. in 2002 he went back to the handling criminal cases. he represented the united states if the prosecution of violent crimes and the investigative stage at trial and on appeal. this included the initiation and monitoring of wiretaps to break up violent gang issues in baltimore city. he also served as the project safe neighborhood coordinator for the office from 2002 until 2005. he participated in community outreach programs including attending community meetings on behalf of the office and attended meetings with the baltimore state's attorney's office to reduce violent crime in baltimore neighborhood. now, mr. president, in 2007, january of 2007, governor easterlyic as governor ehrlich,

appointed judge russell to the bench for a term of 15 years. he has presided over hundreds of trials that have gone to verdict or judgment, and has the experience in handling jury trials, bench trials, civil cases and criminal cases. he has the experience, the professional experience, which has been recognized by a republican governor and a democratic president. he should be voted on on the floor of this body, and he should be confirmed. judge russell has strong roots, legal experience and community involvement in the state of maryland. he was born and raised in baltimore city and has an extended family who live in baltimore. he serves as a director and trustee on the board of the pratt free library which serves the disadvantaged throughout the state of maryland and served on the community law center, an

organization designed to help neighborhood organizations improve the quality of life for their residents. he is a community activist as well as his professional experience. he's served as a board members for organizations that help disadvantaged including big brothers and big sisters of maryland. he has often spoken to young people in schools about the obligation, duty and mandate of a judge and tries to demystify the role of a judge in a black robe. judge russell is particularly concerned with addressing the drug violence and mental health problems that plague baltimore city. mr. president, the reason i went through all his qualifications right now, even though his nomination is not pending, we've got to put a face on the people who are being denied the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the floor of the united states senate. you're hearing the numbers. 20 backed up. that's a large number when you look at the vacancy rates on our courts. when you look at this vacancy that's been pending now for the people of maryland for three

years, they have a right for action on the floor of the senate. they have a right to have these nominees heard in regular order. but i wanted people to know about this one individual, and how qualified he is to assume the position on the district court of maryland. i just would urge my colleagues to do everything they can to let's carry out our responsibility. i am absolutely confident that judge russell possess excess qualifications, temperament and passion for judge that will make him an outstanding district court judge for the district of maryland. he will serve the people of maryland very well in this position. i therefore urge my colleagues not only to allow to us vote on judge russell's confirmation but let us vote on the 20 nominees that have been reported out of the judiciary committee and show the american people that we are ready to carry out our responsibilities. i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my republican friend, it's time, way past time for us to carry

out our responsibility. stop putting filibusters or holds on these judicial nominations. let's vote on them and carry out our responsibilities as united states senators. thank you, mr. president. with that i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, recently i came to the floor of the senate to talk about the lack of faith that the american people have in the political system and in our government. my focus that day was on campaign finance laws and the impact of the citizens united decision by the supreme court two years ago. today i'm here to discuss along with my colleagues another dynamic of capitol hill that is making people lose faith in washington, the apparent inability of congress to get routine business done, specifically, the failure of the senate to fill the dozens of judicial vacancies that combis around the country. this doesn't need to be a partisan debate. i know senators on each side have their own reasons why it's the other party's fault but we need to put those arguments

behind us and agree to do the people's business. we've actually done a good job as senator cardin has pointed out on the judiciary committee with having a number of judges that have come through that committee and are waiting approval on the floor. but often we approve judges and then they don't get floor votes for months and months and months. also, the vast majority of judges that get approved, get approved unanimously in committee. that was my experience with the judge that i recommended for minnesota, who now is a judge, so we got her done, but there are so many more as, you know, and so many jurisdictions with heavy caseloads awaiting judges. one these judges get to the floor, almost all of them just get a handful of no votes. why is that? they've been vetted. they've been -- their records have been looked at, gone through a committee hearing, looked at by senators on both sides of the aisle in the judiciary committee and if they've reached he reached that point it's no surprise they might get just a few no votes.

so i don't see this as a partisan issue but it's an issue that we must get done. if almost all the senators support almost all the judges, this isn't just about pushing one side's agenda or judicial philosophy. these are extremely qualified judges who senators believe will be fair impartial jurists committed to interpreting the law. the fact that we are lagging hyped the confirmation -- behind the confirmation pace with the previous parties. by this time in the presidency of bill clinton, the senate confirmed 183 judges. by this time in the presidency of george w. bush, the senate confirmed 170 budges. as of today we have only confirmed 129 judicial nominees of president obama. it's important to know that president bush actually ended up getting five more judges approved in his first term than president clinton. we don't have a case where there's suddenly been a decline over time with the judge's

approval. in fact, it went up after clinton. now it's going down. it doesn't seem to be any indication at this very moment in time that we are speeding up the process, while early in the year we did confirm a number of judges, there was an agreement, there's still way too many out there and we need to move on them now. typically the senate will approve noncontroversial judicial nominees before the end of the session in december, but that did not happen this past year and we have not made too much progress since returning in january. it doesn't take too long to approve a judge on the floor. often we have an hour or two of debate and then vote on two or three judges so we can get these judges confirmed quickly if both sides consent. some people listening are thinking there must be an explanation, that i'm somehow leaving out key numbers when i explained we only need an hour or two for each of these 20-something pending judges. maybe they are thinking there aren't as many vacancies as

under previous presidents. under president clinton there were 53 vacancies at this point in his presidency. under president bush there were 46 vacancies. under president obama there are in fact 45 judicial vacancies. maybe people at home are thinking this process is the result of controversial nominees. but, no, it's not that either. as i mentioned earlier, most of the judicial nominees awaiting a floor vote were approved unanimously by the senate judiciary committee. that is not a committee as the president knows from serving on that committee, that is for shrinking violets, people with very diverse views. most of these nominees, as i explained, came through with all of their support. in fact, 16 of the 19 nominees waiting for a floor vote received unanimous votes in committee. they were approved by every single member of the judiciary committee from both parties. most of those unanimous judges have been waiting for a vote for months. we should confirm them right away. we should confirm them this

week. we can have a vote so the few people on the other side of the aisle who do not agree with those nominees can register their objections and vote no. but there is no reason to hold up all of these nominees for all of these jurisdictions across the country. for the judges that have come out of committee more recently, i understand senators need time to look at their records and qualifications. that is an important part of process. but let's vote up or down on all the judges and get them on the bench. i also want to point out that the judicial nomination process is bipartisan. that may surprise some people watching at home. they may think i'm making that up. but the truth is that nominees don't move forward in the judiciary committee unless both of the home-state senators sign off. whether it is two democrats or two republicans or one from either party, both senators have effective veto power over the judicial nominees from their

state. usually the judges are proposed by the president, first are recommended by senators. so it's not a question of president obama just picking whoever he wants and appointing them to the judiciary. he has to pick people who are okay with both senators regardless of party. it forces a president of either party to choose high-quality, well-respected mainstream judges. i remain hopeful we can rectify this situation and get judges approved in a timely manner and catch up to where we were under previous presidents. it is not about keeping some score card from president to president, as much as i've loved using these statistics today, mr. president. or from congress to congress. in truth, it is about justice. and we all know that. we are con stapbtly hearing complaints -- constantly hearing complaints about the slow pace of federal courts. those complaints are real and they impact real people every day. whether we are talking about people seeking to protect their rights under the americans with disability act or companies trying to resolve commercial

disputes -- i have a few of them in my state -- unreasonable delays in court proceedings undermine our system of justice. and things won't get any better if we understaff our federal judiciary. there are many problems facing our country that do not have simple solutions. there are many problems for which the two parties have vastly different solutions. but in this case with judicial vacancies, there is only one solution, and it is well within our grasp given that so many of these judges were noncontroversial. this is the solution, mr. president. it's two words: let's vote. let's vote on all of the pending nominees and let's continue to vote as more nominees emerge from the judiciary committee. if a senator wants to vote "no" on a particular nominee, if he or she wants to get a long and glorious speech about why they are opposed to the nominee, please let them do that. let them do that today. all we are asking for have a

vote. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and

that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: