assessed fee. we have a number of ways to push information out to the media. we have a lot of folks who are sort of just generally interested. it's really kind of hard to tell why, but they seem to be interested in the issues. we're happy about it in any event. and then with twitter you're inevitably going to get people following you who are more of the commercial sites, you know, they just -- because they want you to follow them as well. which is okay. we have a policy, actually, for people who want to, you know, sign up, post comments, so they have to follow the comment-posting rules which i think we provided to you in writing. so it's a mix of people, but one of the most important groups that follow us are other consumer advocacy groups which we think is very useful that we follow them and vice versa because they're useful sources of information for us. whether it's the fraud fighters' program at aarp or the better

business bureau, we like the way that we're able to intertie with them because it helps us push out even more information to the public on consumer issues. .. you follow if you understand hash tag's, with twitter we announced this for a while and then for an entire hour i was on twitter. she would ask me some questions. i would answer, but anyone who

wanted to join anywhere in the world, you just go to pound stateside chat and they could follow the conversation. they could throw in their own question. there is no filtering, nobody getting in the way. it's just another way to connect directly to your constituents and people without having to go through a media filter. i'm encouraging people to get involved. >> great idea. we will segue into our last quick topics here. >> i thought we would not have time for all six, which was true, because as usual we had a lot of interest in this. we have about five minutes left. okay, juicy how much interest there is in this. five minutes left from procurement fraud. who wants more than five minutes? right. this is an old-fashioned topic from twitter to procurement fraud. and i thought what we would do in this time is i'm just going

to outline a little bit of some of the issues as i see them, but see if you have questions or comments. i approached this topic with the idea that part of our job as attorney general i think is to protect consumers and taxpayers, to make sure that the money that i use, stand in our commonwealth come in our states are used properly. in order to do that you have to have the right tools to do it. i came to look at this more seriously, given the situation at the big dig when i first came into office, and we had a huge number of civil, criminal waste, fraud, and abuse allegations that have been going on for 15 years, et cetera, et cetera. but you all have in your states varying responsibility for this. and it may be a topic that you think is a couple steps removed from what your responsibility is. and i just want to raise it as a potential opportunity for you outside of the medicaid fraud area, which another we all do very well, to think about if

there are ways in which you can either use your current, you may have a procurement broad statute that is civil or criminal penalties. you may have false claims statutes. a show of hands, how many of you have false claims state statutes? so a lot do but not everybody does. one of the things when it first came in '07, one of my chief deputies said to me with a false claim statute in massachusetts, we don't use a very much. i said how do we change that? we started to look at ways we could focus on bringing false claims in the financial front area and others, and it's been very effective. i think you've got a many instances potential treble damages and damages. if you don't have a false claim statute you may well. if you don't have a procurement fraud statute you knew what when. you may want to think about what are some of the remedies that are available to you and is it worth it to you for your resources to put it there.

we have done a couple things, not only in enforcement of false claims and procurement, we've also used his idea as a way in the convening authority, for instance, before our money was coming into the state, just coming off the big dig. i was concerned we would all be getting stimulus money that we did know he was getting and where it was going to go. and 10 years later you as attorney general, army, would be asked what happened to this money. one of the things i found effective was the convening authority to say we want to meet with inspectors general at the federal level, at our state level, to make sure we identify how much is coming into the state, what buckets is going to do, who is going to oversee. and as you all know, the money went to different places. some of it went directly to contractors on different projects. some of the winning to cities and towns. but i think that were able to, with a federal inspector general was also a resource for you if

you're interested in this area, he's happy to come out and tell you what he does, he can present the federal resources at the inspector general. and if you haven't thought about it in terms of what resources are able to you as an auditor, inspector general in your state, what is your ability to provide additional eyes, ears and maybe enforcement ability as a fiscal watchdog, it's probably worth thinking about at a time when every penny counts. i have talked a couple of you about what happens in your state. i was talking earlier with the great about the idea of inspector general, how many states have inspectors general? some but not all. how many would like some gray, let me to it over to because we all have, you all have auditors probably. some appointed or elected or inspector general have, putting more recent as someone who is supposed to be independent but also can be so independent they are not accountable to anybody, so greg, what's been your

experience around this issue? >> we got a recent inspector general that is only four years old. there was a lot of argument within the legislature about where to put this. i thought the inside of the office of the attorney general there was the resources. the problem is that they didn't want to have the attorney general give more authority as related to inside of state government. we work with a state board of accounts outside of state government, so all the localities and municipalities and counties, but to do it inside of state government they created inspector general. the issue really became who would appoint the governor in indiana of points, so there is this question, now there's some inspector general activity centered on things close to the governor's office. so it's particularly, let's say, some of the problems that people have identified earlier about having the governor appoint somebody who is thin, has to do

an investigation over the governor's office raises questions of impartiality. so that's a real issue. we knew talked about, we have a fairly complex nature between inspector general, state board of accounts. we do have, when you talk about false claims, i was going to suggest that if you do have a false claims, always have a key element because as much as we like to thank the investigations will lead to this, nine times out of 10 it will be somebody inside coming to you and explaining how it was done. and i think the same way the inspector general is not going to have the resources -- [inaudible] some opportunity of people come forward. and i think the statute ends up being critical for all these areas. >> and that's right. and then, if you have a source

of these cases and you are prepared to do them, you can make an impact not every case, but you can send a message that you're going to look at these cases. it's obvious an issue in public corruption cases as to how independent you are can be and doing that investigation, but having some agency that can do that work or can screen things in for you i think is really important. and again, just as in a school scandal or something else, it ends up on your plate and people want to know why didn't do anything about and what are you going to do about it now. and i think being able to think about ways in which you can enhance other agencies, or other referrals, to come to you that you can then handle, help on this idea. we stand up for consumers, we stand up for taxpayers. we want to make sure that our communities are handled fairly in the public can have confidence in the. any questions, comments on that? yes. >> in guam we have a number of

officers, their competence seems to border on in competence. it gets real close to fraud. but we didn't see any particular. so we have done in the office is starting a series of training, training and procurement loss for our different agencies and a procurement officers, and the directors, because a lot of directors are the chief procurement officers. it's been working out well. i've just reviewed the evaluation sheets for our first series, and it was well taken. so we are going to be doing a series of those. and again, i suggest something like that for those of us who have a number of these agencies that seem to be muddling through this, and it is, it is something that we could end this session on, something as mundane as self procurement fraud. but it's something that happened but it happens every single day. we have to deal with it.

>> i think you are right, that you can, for instance, when we pull together our groups around the stimulus, we called it stop fraud, stimulus oversight and fraught commission. we put together really a handbook of red flags where auditors, investigators come inspectors who want to do a good job at having been trained to look at the ways in which the books may indicate to them that something is wrong. how do you do that? so that is something clearly and attorney general's office can undertake to do that, or to make sure that that training is done. >> right. and we put together a to our three-page checklist of everything that needs to be covered. we have got to see that checklist before we do anything. >> it can be a deterrent in itself, the people know you're a watching. >> on the things to do list, when you talk about the convening power, if you go back and ask your staff to send something out throughout the state government, asking how many agencies and offices have

investigators, just, that's the time, investigators, you will find that they're all over state government, and the coordination, let's say, communication is really lacking. so i think you'd do well just to ask, to convene, let's have all the numbers of investigators throughout the state government and have the time they don't know what one another dear and share information. >> my experience has been when you do that they are eager to come forward and be trained. they would rather be doing good work. agencies get big and people lose track and they don't have the budgets for training, but as attorney general you can do that. thank you. anybody else? all right. >> yes. we did three things in new york that i commend to everyone. the first thing is three years ago we surveyed all the false claims act in the country, and took what we thought were the strongest approaches, cleaned up some burden of proof problems and had it enacted into law. we worked with folks to make sure that we made it

user-friendly. we have a terrific statute, which obviously we're happy to share. the second thing we did was when we came in we realized in new york, we have tens of minutes of dollars a year just pouring out in state and local contracts every year, but unlike medicaid fraud there was never a dedicated group of lawyers who felt it was their job to look after it. so we set up a taxpayer protection it with a small number of attorneys who have been doing outreach, meeting with private attorneys. and also meeting with our colleagues and local government. because if you think state government has a hard time, local government borders on catastrophe. waste hauling contracts, supplies to schools, the road construction. we have been able to get some very significant recoveries for them. the third thing we did, and this is new and we'll see how it goes, but it's looking promising. we entered into a joint executive order with the new york state comptroller. every state is different but our

control is the one who is in power to audit state agencies and keep track of expenditures state funds. we now have a situation where, under this order, the comptroller's office is designated people to work with our staff when they see something funny in an audit they can refer to was, we can combine our investigative abilities with their auditing powers. there are several local governments would have acted and joint investigations under way. so i feel we've made good progress in the last few years on this, and anyone who's interested in talking about it we are happy to talk further. >> yes. you know, there's lots of resources in your states, if you bring them together, you don't even need a budget increase to do that. you just marshal those resources and you can beat up as a fraud fighters. we have been able to go to our legislature and say if you give me a retained revenue account, i will dedicate it, not unlike we do and medicaid fraud, to this thing, false claims. will get this back and more. if you get them to do it for a

year -- >> and you got money? >> yes. >> wow's. we bring back anywhere from 10 to 15 times what they give us. so it's hard to argue with that. you all have seen the success we've had in the medicaid fraud area where we have done that dedicated work. you could do that in your state around her german fraud and these other things you know is happening. so i think with that, mr. president i think we're all set. thank you all very much. david and i thank you. [applause] >> well done, dave and martha. once again this seems to be a good format. this is a good approach to the hot topics. good. so we will take a 15 minute break. we will reconvene at 3:10.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> watch super tuesday election results tonight on the c-span networks. >> this crazy world of ours we have atom bombs. the question is not how to use them. the question is how do you restore a and your cell phone using them. that's particularly when your commander in chief, any fool can get this country into trouble. it takes a wise man to get it out. >> as candidates campaign for president this year we look back at 14 and ran for the office and lost. go to our website,

c-span.org/thecontenders to see video of the contenders about a lasting impact on american politics. >> shouldn't the president have the highest moral and ethical standards and be an example to our children and young people in this country? ask yourself that question, please. shouldn't his life make him a role model for your future children? should anyone you like to this office always keep his promises? >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> u.s. attorney general eric holder asserted on monday that it is lawful for the government to kill american citizens if officials deem them an imminent threat to the country, and if their capture was not feasible. the attorney general made his remarks during a speech at northwestern university law school in chicago. this is 40 minutes.

>> good afternoon. it is my great privilege and pleasure to welcome me to northwestern law school on this very special occasion. we are pleased this afternoon does the honorable eric holder, jr. attorney general of the united states, will deliver an important policy address regarding national security. the obama administration's counterterrorism efforts and some other specific ways that today's justice department is working to protect the american people from terrorism and other urgent threats. before i welcome our speaker i want to acknowledge and welcome several distinguished guests who are among us this afternoon. first joining us from department of justice are gary grimwood, chief of staff and counsel to the attorney general, and former acting attorney, a proud northwestern law alum from the class of 76, and also an alumnus of northwestern school of speech, now the school of communicate and. we welcome gary back home. [applause]

we also welcome stewart, senior counselor to the attorney general and acting assistant attorney general for the civil division for the department of justice. there is shapiro, first assistant u.s. attorney for the northern district of illinois, and christopher beach, deputy chief of the national security section of the u.s. attorney's office for the northern district of illinois. i'm also pleased to welcome president emeritus henry, and his wife and northwestern law professor. and other northwestern university senior officers in dean's, and also many of the law schools and universities distinguished alumni including members of the university's board of trustees and members of our law board. we are very pleased that you could join us. the students are at the center of everything we do here at northwestern university's law school, and in that regard i want to give special thanks to general holder for meeting

earlier this afternoon with a group of law students to discuss his career and his work on behalf of department of justice. a distinguished lawyer and devoted public servant, attorney general eric holder has held a wide range of positions in his career. as a federal prosecutor, and estates attorney, superior court judge, justice department's deputy attorney general under janet reno, and an attorney in private practice. a graduate of columbia university and columbia law school, general holder joint department of justice do the honors program following graduation, and was assigned to the newly formed public integrity section where he investigated and prosecuted corruption involving officials and local, state and federal government. in 1988 present reagan a voided mr. holder to the district of columbia 20% over hundreds of criminal and civil trials during his five years on the bench. he remained a judge until 1993, when president clinton appointed him to the post of u.s. attorney

to the district of columbia. in 1997, president clinton promoted mr. holte deputy attorney general of the united states, a position he held until the end of the clinton administration. in july 2001 mr. holder joined the washington, d.c. law firm representing clients in complex civil and criminal cases as was an internal corporate investigations. in 2008, president barack obama nominating mr. holder to be the 82nd attorney general, a nomination confirmed by the u.s. senate on february 2, 2009. general holder is the first african-american to serve in this critical post. he is also a key member of president obama's national security team, and in this role overseas efforts of federal prosecutors, investigators, analysts and fbi agents who work on counterterrorism and counter espionage issues. during attorney general holder's tenure, the justice department's work has been marked by significant national security

achievements, which include successfully confronting some of the most significant terrorist threats our nation has faced since 9/11. strengthening the department's decade-long trucker of success for prosecuting terrorists in our federal courts, dismantling and disrupting a number of potentially deadly plots including a plan to attack the newark subway system with bombs, a plot to set off a car bomb in times square, and a plan to send printer cartridge bonds overseas to the united states. he has forged and strengthen the international partnerships that have proven so integral to our success in combating terrorism. he has secured convictions and life prison since against the so called christmas day bomber, the times square bomber, and many other danger -- dangerous stairs but he participate in a successful operation that resulted in the killing of osama bin laden last year. on behalf of northwestern law community i want to thank attorney general holder for his commitment to our country. our safety as americans at home and abroad, and for his service

to the legal protection over a distinguished career. please join me in welcoming the honorable eric holder, jr., attorney general of the united states. [applause] >> this is my kind of crap i haven't said a word and i already got a standing ovation. my kind of crowd. thank you, dean rodriguez, for your kind words, and for the outstanding leadership that you provide, not only for this academic campus, but also for our nation's legal community. it is a privilege to be with you today, and to be among the distinguished faculty members, staff, alumni, and students who make northwestern such an extraordinary place. for more than 150 years, this law school has served as a

training ground for future leaders, as a forum for critical, thoughtful debate, and as a meeting place to consider issues of national concern and global consequence. this afternoon, i am honored to be part of this tradition. and i'm grateful for the opportunity to join with you in discussing a defining issue of our time, a most critical responsibility that we share. how we will stay true to america's founding, and enduring, promises of security, justice and liberty. since this country's earliest days, the american people have risen to this challenge, and all that it demands. but, as we have seen, and as president john f. kennedy may have described best, in the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. half a century has passed since those words were spoken, but our

nation today confronts grave national security threats that demand our constant attention and our steadfast commitment. it is clear that, once again, we have reached an hour of danger. we are a nation at war. and, in this war, we face a nimble and determined enemy that cannot be underestimated. like president obama, and my fellow members of his national security team, i begin each day with a briefing on the latest and most urgent threats made against us in the preceding 24 hours. and, like scores of attorneys and agents at the justice department, i go to sleep each night thinking of how best to keep our people safe. i know that, more than a decade after the september 11th attacks, and despite our recent national security successes, including the operation that brought to justice osama bin laden last year, there are people currently plotting to murder americans, who reside in

distant countries as well as within our own borders. disrupting and preventing these plots, and using every available and appropriate tool to keep the american people safe, has been, and will remain, this administration's top priority. but just as surely as we are a nation at war, we also are a nation of laws and values. even when under attack, our actions must always be grounded on the bedrock of the constitution, and must always be consistent with statutes, court precedent, the rule of law and our founding ideals. not only is this the right thing to do, history has shown that it is also the most effective approach we can take in combating those who seek to do us harm. this is not just my view. my judgment is shared by senior national security officials

across the government. as the president reminded us in 2009, at the national archives where our founding documents are housed, we uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. time and again, our values have been our best national security asset. our history proves this. we do not have to choose between security and liberty, and we will not. today, i want to tell you about the collaboration across the government that defines and distinguishes this administration's national security efforts. i also want to discuss some of the legal principles that guide, and strengthen, this work, as well as the special role of the department of justice in protecting the american people and upholding the constitution. before 9/11, today's level of interagency cooperation was not

commonplace. in many ways, government lacked the infrastructure, as well as the imperative, to share national security information quickly and effectively. domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence operated in largely independent spheres. but those who attacked us on september 11th chose both military and civilian targets. they crossed borders and jurisdictional lines. and it immediately became clear that no single agency could address these threats, because no single agency has all of the necessary tools. to counter this enemy aggressively and intelligently, the government had to draw on all of its resources, and to radically update its operations. as a result, today, government agencies are better postured to work together to address a range of emerging national security threats. now, the lawyers, agents and analysts at the department of justice work closely with our colleagues across the national

security community to detect and disrupt terrorist plots, to prosecute suspected terrorists, and to identify and implement the legal tools necessary to keep the american people safe. unfortunately, the fact and extent of this cooperation are often overlooked in the public debate, but it's something that this administration, and the previous one, can be proud of. as part of this coordinated effort, the justice department plays a key role in conducting oversight to ensure that the intelligence community's activities remain in compliance with the law, and, together with the foreign intelligence surveillance court, in authorizing surveillance to investigate suspected terrorists. we must and will continue to use will go the intelligence-gathering capabilities that congress has provided to collect information that can save and protect american lives.

at the same time, these tools must be subject to appropriate checks and balances, including oversight by congress and the courts, as well as within the executive branch, to protect the privacy and civil rights of innocent individuals. this administration is committed to making sure that our surveillance programs appropriately reflect all of these interests. let me give you an example. under section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, the attorney general and the director of national intelligence may authorize annually, with the approval of the foreign intelligence to surveillance court, collection directed at identified categories of foreign intelligence targets, without the need for a court order for each individual subject. this ensures that the government has the flexibility and agility it needs to identify and to respond to terrorist and other foreign threats to our security. but the government may not use this authority intentionally to target a u.s. person, here or abroad, or anyone known to be in the united states.

the law requires special procedures, reviewed and approved by the foreign intelligence surveillance court, to make sure that these restrictions are followed, and to protect the privacy of any u.s. persons whose nonpublic information may be incidentally acquired through this program. the department of justice and the office of the director of national intelligence conduct extensive oversight reviews of section 702 activities at least once every sixty days, and we report to congress on implementation and compliance twice a year. this law therefore establishes a comprehensive regime of oversight by all three branches of government. reauthorizing this authority before it expires at the end of this year is the top legislative priority of our nation's intelligence community. but surveillance is only the

first of many complex issues we must navigate. once a suspected terrorist is captured, a decision must be made as to how to proceed with that individual in order to identify the disposition that best serves the interests of the american people and the security of this nation. much has been made of the distinction between our federal civilian courts and revised military commissions. the reality is that both incorporate fundamental due process and other protections that are essential to the effective administration of justice, and we should not deprive ourselves of any tool in our fight against al qaeda. our criminal justice system is renowned not only for its fair process, it is respected for its results. we are not the first administration to rely on federal courts to prosecute terrorists, nor will we be the last. although far too many choose to ignore this fact, the previous administration consistently relied on criminal prosecutions in federal court to bring terrorists to justice.

john walker lindh, attempted shoe bomber richard reid, and 9/11 conspirator zacarias moussaoui were among the hundreds of defendants convicted of terrorism-related offenses, without political controversy, during the last administration. over the past three years, we've built a remarkable record of success in terror prosecutions. for example, in october, we secured a conviction against umar farouk abdulmutallab for his role in the attempted bombing of an airplane traveling from amsterdam to detroit on christmas day 2009. he was sentenced just last month to life in prison without the possibility of parole. while in custody, he provided significant intelligence during debriefing sessions with the fbi. he described in detail how he became inspired to carry out an act of jihad, and how he traveled to yemen and made

contact with anwar al-aulaqi, a u.s. citizen and a leader of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. abdulmutallab also detailed the training that he received, as well as aulaqi's specific instructions to wait until the airplane was over the united states before detonating his bomb. in addition to abdulmutallab, faizal shahzad, the attempted times square bomber, ahmed ghailani, a conspirator in the 1998 u.s. embassy bombings in kenya and tanzania, and three individuals who plotted an attack against john f. kennedy airport in 2007, have also recently begun serving life sentences. and convictions have been obtained in the cases of several homegrown extremists, as well. for example, last year, united states citizen and north carolina resident daniel boyd pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim, and injure persons abroad, and u.s. citizen

and illinois resident michael finton pleaded guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction in connection with his efforts to detonate a truck bomb outside of a federal courthouse. i could go on. which is why the calls that i've heard to ban the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity are so baffling, and ultimately are so baffling, and ultimately they are so dangerous. these calls ignore reality. and if heeded, they would significantly weaken, in fact, they would cripple our ability to incapacitate and punish those who attempt to do us harm. simply put, since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in article iii courts and are now serving long sentences in federal prison. not one has ever escaped custody. no judicial district has

suffered any kind of retaliatory attack. these are facts, not opinions. there are not two sides to this story. those who claim that our federal courts are incapable of handling terrorism cases are not registering a dissenting opinion, they are simply wrong. but federal courts are not our only option. military commissions are also appropriate in proper circumstances, and we can use them as well to convict terrorists and disrupt their plots. this administration's approach has been to ensure that the military commissions system is as effective as possible, in part by strengthening the procedural protections on which the commissions are based. with the president's leadership, and the bipartisan backing of congress, the military commissions act of 2009 was enacted into law. and, since then, meaningful improvements have been implemented. it's important to note that the

reformed commissions draw from the same fundamental protections of a fair trial that underlie our civilian courts. they provide a presumption of innocence and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. they afford the accused the right to counsel, as well as the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. they prohibit the use of statements obtained through torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. and they secure the right to appeal to article iii judges, all the way to the united states supreme court. in addition, like our federal civilian courts, reformed commissions allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence gathering, and for the safety and security of participants. a key difference is that, in military commissions, evidentiary rules reflect the realities of the battlefield and of conducting investigations in a war zone. for example, statements may be admissible even in the absence of miranda warnings, because we

cannot expect military personnel to administer warnings to an enemy captured in battle. but instead, a military judge must make other findings, for instance, that the statement is reliable and that it was made voluntarily. i have faith in the framework and the promise of our military commissions, which is why i've sent several cases to the reformed commissions for prosecution. there is, quite simply, no inherent contradiction between using military commissions in appropriate cases while still prosecuting other terrorists in civilian courts. without question, there are differences between these systems that must be, and will continue to be, weighed carefully. such decisions about how to prosecute suspected terrorists are core executive branch functions. in each case, prosecutors and counterterrorism professionals across the government conduct an intensive review of case-specific facts designed to determine which avenue of

prosecution to pursue. several practical considerations affect the choice of forum. first of all, the commissions only have jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who are a part of al qaeda, have engaged in hostilities against the united states or its coalition partners, or who have purposefully and materially supported such hostilities. this means that there may be members of certain terrorist groups who fall outside this commissions because, for example, they lack ties to al qaeda and their conduct does not otherwise make them subject to prosecution in this forum. additionally, by statute, military commissions cannot be used to try u.s. citizens. second, our civilian courts cover a much broader set of offenses than the military commissions, which can only prosecute specified offenses, including violations of the laws of war and other offenses traditionally triable by

military commission. this means federal prosecutors have a wider range of tools that can be used to incapacitate suspected terrorists. those charges, and the sentences they carry upon successful conviction, can provide important incentives to reach plea agreements and convince defendants to cooperate with federal authorities. third, there is the issue of international cooperation. a number of countries have indicated that they will not cooperate with the united states in certain counterterrorism efforts, for instance, in providing evidence or extraditing suspects, if we intend to use that cooperation in pursuit of a military commission prosecution. although the use of military commissions in the united states can be traced back to the early days of our nation, in their present form they are less familiar to the international community than our time-tested criminal justice system and article iii courts. however, it is my hope that, with time and experience, the reformed commissions will attain

similar respect in the eyes of the world. when cases are selected for prosecution in military commissions, justice department investigators and prosecutors work closely to support our department of defense colleagues. today, the alleged mastermind of the bombing of the u.s.s. cole is being prosecuted before a military commission. i am proud to say that trial attorneys from the department of justice are working with military prosecutors on that case, as well as others. and we will continue to reject the false idea that we must choose between federal courts and military commissions, instead of using them both. if we were to fail to use all necessary and available tools at our disposal, we would undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to protect the nation and its people. that is simply not an outcome we can accept. this administration has worked in other areas as well to ensure that counterterrorism professionals have the flexibility that they need to fulfill their critical

responsibilities without from values. our values. last week brought the most recent step, when the president issued procedures under the national defense authorization act. this legislation, which congress passed in december, mandated that a narrow category of al qaeda terrorist suspects be placed in temporary military custody. last tuesday, the president exercised his authority under the statute to issue procedures to make sure that military custody will not disrupt ongoing law enforcement and intelligence operations, and that an individual will be transferred from civilian to military custody only after a thorough evaluation of his or her case, based on the considered judgment of the president's senior national security team. as authorized by that statute, the president waived the requirements for several categories of individuals where he found that the waivers were in our national security interest.

these procedures implement not only the language of the statute but also the expressed intent of the lead sponsors of this legislation. and they address the concerns the president expressed when he signed this bill into law at the end of last year. now, i realize i have gone into considerable detail about tools we use to identify suspected terrorists and to bring captured terrorists to justice. it is preferable to capture suspected terrorists where feasible, among other reasons, so that we can gather valuable intelligence from them, but we must also recognize that there are instances where our government has the clear authority, and i would argue, the responsibility, to defend the united states through the appropriate and lawful use of lethal force. this principle has long been established under both u.s. and international law. in response to the attacks perpetrated, and the continuing

threat posed, by al qaeda, the taliban, and associated forces, congress has authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those groups. because the united states is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerents under international law. the constitution empowers the president to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack. and international law recognizes the inherent right of national self-defense. none of this is changed by the fact that we are not in a conventional war. our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in afghanistan. indeed, neither congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in afghanistan. we are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country. over the last three years alone,

al qaeda and its associates have directed several attacks, fortunately unsuccessful, against us from countries other than afghanistan. our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats. this does not mean that we can use military force whenever or wherever we want. international legal principles, including respect for another nation's sovereignty, constrain our ability to act unilaterally. but the use of force in foreign territory would be consistent with these international legal principles if conducted, for example, with the consent of the nation involved, or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the united states. furthermore, it is entirely lawful, under both united states law and applicable law of war principles, to target specific

senior operational leaders of al qaeda and associated forces. this is not a novel concept. in fact, during world war ii, the united states tracked the plane flying admiral isoroku yamamoto, the commander of japanese forces in the attack on pearl harbor and the battle of midway, and shot it down specifically because he was on board that plane. as i explained to the senate judiciary committee following the operation that killed osama bin laden, the same rules apply today. some have called such operations assassinations. they are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. assassinations are unlawful killings. here, for the reasons i have given, the u.s. government's use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful,

and therefore would not violate the executive order banning assassination or criminal statutes. now, it is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that some of the threats we face come from a small number of united states citizens who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad. based on generations-old legal principles and supreme court decisions handed down during world war ii, as well as during this current conflict, it's clear that united states citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted. but it does mean that the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to united states citizens, even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent americans. of these, the most relevant is the fifth amendment's due process clause, which says that

the government may not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law. the supreme court has made clear that the due process clause does not impose one-size-fits-all requirements, but instead mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances. in cases arising under the due process clause, including in a case involving a u.s. citizen captured in the conflict against al qaeda, the court has applied a balancing approach, weighing the private interest that will be affected against the interest the government is trying to protect, and the burdens the government would face in providing additional process. where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat. here, the interests on both sides of the scale are extraordinarily weighty. an individual's interest in making sure that the government does not target him erroneously could not be more significant.

yet it is imperative for the government to counter threats posed by senior operational leaders of al qaeda, and to protect the innocent people whose lives could be lost in their attacks. any decision to use lethal force against a united states citizen, even one intent on murdering americans and who has become an operational leader of al-qaeda in a foreign land, is among the gravest that government leaders can face. the american people can be, and deserve to be, assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws. so, although i cannot discuss or confirm any particular program or operation, i believe it is important to explain these legal principles publicly. let me be clear, an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a u.s. citizen who is a senior

operational leader of al qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances. first, the u.s. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the united states. second, capture is not feasible, and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles. the evaluation of whether an individual presents an imminent threat incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the united states. as we learned on 9/11, al qaeda has demonstrated the ability to strike with little or no notice, and to cause devastating

casualties. its leaders are continually planning attacks against the united states, and they do not behave like a traditional military, wearing uniforms, carrying arms openly, or massing forces in preparation for an attack. given these facts, the constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear. such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail, and that americans would be killed. whether the capture of a u.s. citizen terrorist is feasible is a fact-specific, and potentially time-sensitive, question. it may depend on, among other things, whether capture can be accomplished in the window of time available to prevent an attack and without undue risk to civilians or to u.s. personnel. given the nature of how terrorists act and where they

tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a united states citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack. in that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the united states with lethal force. of course, any such use of lethal force by the united states will comply with the four fundamental law of war principles governing the use of force. the principle of necessity requires that the target have definite military value. the principle of distinction requires that only lawful targets, such as combatants, civilians directly participating in hostilities, and military objectives, may be targeted intentionally. under the principle of proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. finally, the principle of humanity requires us to use

weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering. these principles do not forbid the use of stealth or technologically advanced weapons. in fact, the use of advanced weapons may help to ensure that the best intelligence is available for planning and carrying out operations, and that the risk of civilian casualties can be minimized or avoided altogether. some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a united states citizen who is a senior operational leader of al qaeda or associated forces. this is simply not accurate. due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. the constitution guarantees due process. it does not guarantee judicial

process. the conduct and management of national security operations are core functions of the executive branch, as courts have recognized throughout our history. military and civilian officials must often make real-time decisions that balance the need to act, the existence of alternative options, the possibility of collateral damage, and other judgments, all of which depend on expertise and immediate access to information that only the executive branch may possess in real time. the constitution's guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the united states is at war, even if that individual happens to be a u.s. citizen. that is not to say that the executive branch has or should ever have the ability to target any such individuals without robust oversight.

which is why, in keeping with the law and our constitutional system of checks and balances, the executive branch regularly informs the appropriate members of congress about our counterterrorism activities, including the legal framework, and would of course follow the same practice where lethal force is used against united states citizens. now, these circumstances are sufficient under the constitution for the united states to use lethal force against a u.s. citizen abroad, but it is important to note that the legal requirements i have described may not apply in every situation, such as operations that take place on traditional battlefields. the unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue to face terrorist threats that, at times, originate with our own citizens. when such individuals take up arms against this country, and join al qaeda in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow americans, there may be only one realistic and

appropriate response. we must take steps to stop them, in full accordance with the constitution. in this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out, and we will not. this is an indicator of our times, not a departure from our laws and our values. for this administration, and for this nation, our values are clear. we must always look to them for answers when we face difficult questions, like the ones i have discussed today. as president obama remind us is at the national archives, our constitution has endured through succession and civil rights, through world war, and cold war. because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically. it provides a compass that can

help us find our way, unquote. our most sacred principles and values, of security, justice and liberty for all citizens, must continue to unite us, to guide us forward, and to help us build a future that honors our founding documents and advances our ongoing, uniquely american, pursuit of a safer, more just, and more perfect union. in the continuing effort to keep our people secure, this administration will remain true to those values that inspired our nation's founding and, over the course of two centuries, have made america an example of strength and a beacon of justice for all the world. this is our pledge. i thank you for inviting me to discuss these important issues with you today. thank you. [applause]

>> watch super tuesday election results tonight on the c-span networks. use our second screen webpage with your tablet or laptop computer to see result maps, social media post from candidates and reporters, and a public forum for your tweets and those of other viewers. use a laptop or tablet to extend your c-span viewing at our brand-new webpage. made especially for super tuesday coverage. c-span.org/screen 2. >> u.s. senate about the gavel and to start the day.

general speeches up for the first hour or so. around 11 a.m. eastern lawmakers will return to the surface transportation bill and will take a procedural vote on the measure at noon. party lunches will put the chamber in recess between 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. during that time we'll have live coverage of president obama's first news conference of the year. that is scheduled for 1:15 p.m. eastern. when the senate returns, they will vote on a pair of judicial nominations. now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god who put into our hearts such deep desires that we can't

be at peace until we rest in you, satisfy the longings of our souls with your merciful presence. lord, open the minds of our lawmakers to the counsels of your eternal wisdom, breathing into their hearts your peace which passes understanding. increase their hunger for justice in our nation and world, as they find the grace to seek first your kingdom. may their moments and days ever flow in ceaseless praise. we pray in your holy name.

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., march 6, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable richard blumenthal, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business for

an hour. the majority will hold the first half. the republicans the second half. following morning business the senate will resume consideration consideration of s. 1318 which is the surface transportation bill. the filing deadline for second-degree amendments is today at 11:30. at noon there will be a cloture vote on the substitute amendment. the senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for weeksly caucus meetings. at 2:15 there will be two votes on confirmation of phillips and rice to be judges. would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business for 60 minutes with senators permitted to speak therein up to ten minutes, with the time equally controlled and divided by the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half.

ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington state. mrs. murray: mr. president, i come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to vote in support of thomas rice. he's been nominateed to serve as the next federal judge for the eastern district of my home state of washington. mr. rice is a distinguished attorney who has dedicated hits professional -- his professional career to serving the public in the u.s. attorney's office. in that time he earned the respect of federal judges, opposing defense attorneys, his fellow prosecutors and local law enforcement officials. mr. rice has a deep connection to eastern washington and its legal community. he graduateed from gonzaga university with a degree in accounting. then he returned on a full scholarship to earn his law degree. after earning that degree, mr. rice moved directly into public service as a trial attorney with the department of justice in washington, d.c. he then returned to the eastern district to work in the u.s. attorney's office climbing the ranks to become the first u.s.

attorney responsible for the management of the spokane office. and he is currently the highest-ranking d.o.j. official in the eastern district. over his 20 years in practice, mr. rice has tried over 1,000 criminal cases dealing with nearly every area of federal law. he has gone above and beyond his duties, volunteering additional hours at the office, taking on extra cases, and establishing the local antiterrorism advisory council which brings together representatives from every law enforcement agency in the eastern district. as the assistant u.s. attorney, he has earned the reputation of being tough on crime, but also levelheaded and fair in the conduct of his prosecutions. mr. rice clearly meets the standards of fairness, evenhandedness and adherence to the law we expect of our federal judges. so, mr. president, i know i speak on behalf of so many in the washington state legal community in supporting his

nomination today. mr. rice's nomination was the product of a bipartisan selection commission that we use in the state of washington. and he received strong endorsements from both sides of the aisle. we continue to use our bipartisan selection process in washington state despite the fact that it does take more time and a lot of effort, because it works to select judges of the highest quality and base it's intended to remove partisanship in the selection of our judges. so, mr. president, you would think that someone like thomas rice would be able to move through this process very quickly and get to work on the court. well, unfortunately, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have slowed down and delayed this vote. mr. rice's nomination was actually reported out of the judiciary committee in october of last year. unanimously, with strong bipartisan support, almost four months ago. but his nomination has sat on the executive calendar because some senate republicans refuse

to consent to debate and vote on nominations just like his. now i haven't heard any objections from republicans about mr. rice's qualifications, nor have i heard any republican claim that they have been unfairly blocked from any process. this delay is the result of an unprecedented effort by senate republicans to delay and block all of president obama's judicial nominees. there are now 20 judicial nominations reported favorably by the judiciary committee that are still sitting and waiting on a final senate vote. 14 of those nominations have been pending since last year, and should have been confirmed before the end of last year. 18 of those nominations received strong bipartisan support from the judiciary committee, and they deserve to move through this process in a fair way and get a vote here on the floor of the senate, especially when both sides have agreed they're going to pass. because even though republicans are making this about politics here in d.c., this does have a

real impact on our families and the court system throughout america. nearly 10% of the federal judgeships remain vacate right now. 10%. 130 million americans live in districts or circuits that have a vacancy that could be filled today if the republicans' obstruction would end on nominations that have been vetted, considered and favorably reported by the judiciary committee, including families in the eastern district of my home state. this kind of obstruction is not good for our country, it hurts families' ability to access the courts in a timely fashion, and it puts politics before -- ahead of our judicial system. so i urge all of our colleagues today to vote in support of thomas rice. he's a great lawyer. he's a community leader who i believe will make an exceptional federal judge. and i really come today to also call on republicans to end their obstruction, allow us to move forward quickly on debates and

votes on these judicial nominations that have been backlogged for far too long. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: we live in a time when public trust in all of our government institutions is at an all-time low, and unfortunately continues to deteriorate. recent polls indicate public confidence in congress is at 11%, which is a record low approval rating. americans have been skeptical of politicians in general and congress in particular from the beginning of this republic. it is a healthy skepticism which reflects the freedoms that are part of our democracy and the right of people to disagree with leadership with impunity under our constitution, with some limitations. and so i take it in historical context but still cannot escape the reality that the numbers today are lower than ever. the legislative branch is not the only branch of government that the public holds in low regard. polls also indicate the u.s. supreme court has recently

received its second-lowest approval rating in history. one way that those of us who serve in government can increase public trust and confidence is to be more transparent about how we operate and the standards to which we are held. the passage of the stock act in the united states senate is an indication of continuing effort to alert the public about things that we do as members of congress which bear scrutiny. i make a disclosure each year which goes beyond the requirements of the law, and many others do as well. the stock act will bring many members of congress to an even higher level of disclosure, as they should be. one way that we can increase our confidence in the institutions of government is to address those aspects which add to transparency and add to trust. i think it's time for the supreme court to provide more transparency and accountability in two specific areas. first, the supreme court should allow live television cameras to

broadcast open-court sessions so the general public can see firsthand how the court operates and arrives at critical decisions that literally change our lives. second, the supreme court should formally adopt the judicial code of conduct which currently applies to all other federal judges, but for some inexplicable reason does not apply to justices at the supreme court. the court should also make public the other ethics rules it follows. the supreme court decisions impact the lives of every american, but access to open sessions of court -- of the court is incredibly limited. as a result, the court's proceedings and the way it arrives at decisions are a mystery. most americans will never see the supreme court at work unless they're willing and able to travel to washington, d.c., wait in line for hours or sometimes sleep outside overnight on the pavement in an effort to secure one of 250 seats in the supreme

court courtroom. in a democratic society that values transparency and openness, there is no valid justification for such a powerful element of our government to operate largely outside the view of american people. i'm pleased to have partnered with senator chuck grassley, my republican colleague from iowa, the cameras in the courtroom act, s. 1995. he and i continue the work of our former colleague, senator specter, on this important issue. our bill would require televising of all open sessions of the court unless a majority of the justices determine that doing so would violate due process rights of one or more of the parties before the court. we give to the court the last word on any given argument or case as to whether or not it will be public and televised. in the coming weeks the supreme court is going to t-r the -- consider the constutionality of one of the most important pieces of legislation to be considered

by congress and signed by the president in decades: the affordable care act. during the yearlong congressional debate on health care reform, every hearing, floor debate and vote was accessible to every american with a television set or a webcast and a computer at all times. the american people should have the same opportunity to watch the open session of the supreme court as it considers the constutionality of health care reform legislation. on this point, there is bipartisan agreement. despite our strong disagreements about the substance of the affordable care act, democrats and republicans from both chambers have written to the supreme court urging them to permit live video and awed owe broadcasts of the health care reform argument. the court should how live broadcasts of the health care reform hearing and all other open sessions of court since each of the court's decisions has the potential to have a

transformative impact on the lives of so many men's. there are some who say weerkd not allow cameras in the supreme court because only bits and pieces would be tell very liced and they might be taken out of context. that remiewndzs me of the editorial from a few years ago. "keeping cameras out to prevent people from getting the wrong idea is a little like removing the paintings from an art museum out of fear that visitors might not have the art history background to appreciate them." similar arguments were made when consideration was given to televising these proceedings. nevertheless, for two decades, the legislative sessions and committee meetings of the house and senate have been broadcast live and the legislative branch is better for it. the majority of states permit live video coverage in some or all of their courts. it is time the supreme court did the same. mr. president, i'm sure you have found when you've gone back home there are people who watch c-span nonstop. i have literally had people in my hometown of springfield come up to me in the grocery store

and say, "is senator bernie sanders feeling well? i saw him sitting at his desk and he looked a little bit pale." they follow it with such close regard for the members and the speeches that it's a surprise to many of us who live in this institution and work in it every day. in my view, the cameras in the courtroom act is are a reasonable approach that balances the public's need for information and transparency with the constitutional rights of those who are appear before the court. as in past years, cameras in the courtroom act enjoys bipartisan support. i want to are thank my colleagues, senators klobuchar, cornyn, the presiding officer senator blumenthal, senator schumer, harkin, gillibrand and begich for cosponsoring the bill. they bheeive that public scrutiny of court proceedings will produce greater transparency and understanding. i'd like to thank senator leahy for scheduling my bill, the cameras in the courtroom act,

for a vote in the judiciary committee. it was reported out with a strong bipartisan vote, and it's now pending on the senate calendar. the bill has been cleared by every democratic senator for a vote by the full senate. i'm still hoping we can bring it to the floor as quickly as possible. and now i'd like to tough on a relate issue. just as the supreme court hearings should be televised, so, too, should the court's ethical standard be available for review the public. the ethics rules for all branches of government should be clear and public. when ethics decisions arise in the senate -- for example, the senate equit ethics committee is eresponsible for enforcing the rules for our senators and employees. they are a matter of public record. that cannot be said for the supreme court of the united states. our supreme court has publicly adopted some limited ethics rules but not others. the court does not have an ethics office, nor is it subject

to the judicial conference which regulates all other federal judges outside the supreme court. instead, as the highest court in the land, the supreme court polices itself, and it asks the american people to just trust them. of course, i have the highest respect for the justices' abilities and their judgment, and it's been my honor to come know some of these justices personally over the years. but if the public is asked to trust the justices to police themselves, we're at least entitled to know the rules that they play by. to its credit, some of the supreme court's ethics rules are already pretty clear. through an internal resolution, the supreme court has adopted the same financial restrictions that apply to all other federal employees. i recently sent a letter with senators leahy, whitehouse, franken, blumenthal to john roberts asking them to publicly release one of the court's resolutions which says that the justices will follow the same regulations on outside

employment, honoraria and income which apply to other federal judges. the chief justice agreed to our request and publicly released this for the first time since it was adopted in 1991. i applaud chief justice roberts' action. i encourage him and the other justices to continue on this path by releasing all of their ethics rules. there is more work for the supreme court to do to increase transparency and accountability. the court should either adopt a court rtle agreeing to follow the judicial code of conduct, the same ethics code that applies to all other federal judges, or adopt and publicly disclose their own ethics code. many have called for the supreme court to adopt a judicial coved conduct. in response, chief justice roberts vs complained that the justices use the code as one source of guidance but not the only source to decide ethics questions. give than they already apply the code in practice, it seems like a logical next step for the court to adopt its own

resolution formally affirming this practice, or they can adopt a resolution making it clear which ethics rules do or do not apply. all of the justices deserve respect for the difficult and weighty decisions that they face, but as some of the most powerful members of our government, it is not too much to ask of them to make their ethical standards open and clear. by making their ethics rules more transparent, the justices will foster greater public trust and confidence in the court and its decisions. in conclusion, let me emphasize that i have a high regard for the supreme court and all of its justices. i do not intend to question or impugn any justice with my suggestions. but let's be clear: we live in an era where there is a great deal of mistrust in government institutions, starting with congress, but through all branches of government. at the same time, modern technology enables us to provide the american people with more access to the workings of

government which could help to reduce some of this mistrust. i and many of my colleagues in the senate have worked for many years to increase openness and transparency in congress and the executive branch. i encourage the supreme court to take the same approach. televising supreme court proceedings and making public the court's ethics rules would be a good start. the american people deserve to be able to watch the supreme court arguments in cases that can affect their lives, and they deserve to know the ethical standards that govern the court when it decides cases. mr. president, i ask that the next statement i'm about to make is placed separate in the record from this opening statement relative to camera in the courtroom. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: as i went home in weekend, mr. president, i mentioned i.e.d. on the floor -- i mentioned yesterday on the floor i spent a good deal of time in deep southern illinois where some devastating, fatal tornadoes hit last week. as i said then, the amazing outpouring of volunteerism and

support from people far and wide was inspiring to meevment it isg to meevment it is great to that he that the people in my state rallied to help the victims. there were formal organizations like the american red cross, informal organizations like operation blessings, there was a methodist church with about 20 of their parishioners, some children with rakes doing everything they could to help clean up the mess. it was inspiring to see that, and i was happy for that. but i will at the you that in addition to the tornado issue that we faced, the one thing that hit people between the eyes in illinois this last week were gasoline prices. i was up in the suburbs of chicago on friday evening and saw a gas station with regular gasoline for $4.09. i saw some lower prices over the weekend, but that was the hig high-water mark, or high

gasoline mark in my state that i observed. people are very sensitive to this. gasoline prices literally affect the lives of individuals and families as well. they also have a direct impact on business. i asked the vice president of walmart about monitoring retail sales and how to increase retail sales, and he told me that with all of the hundreds and thousands of walmart stores and employees, that they literally monitor sales by the second in realtime. he said, i can oa observe the ss pattern in a story somewhere in america and -- in a store somewhere in america and tell you within a few pennies or dimes what the price of gasoline is in that community. people put the money into the tank instead of on the counter and they stay home instead of going out to shop. that's how the price of gasoline directly impacts economic recovery. i've listened to so many of the comments that have been made on the floor here by individuals on the other side, their approach

on how to deal with the issue of gasoline prices and what to do with them. and i sometimes wonder -- i see the senator from california is here. i sometimes wonder if we're reading the same basic information. keystone pipeline could serve a valuable purpose but to believe that this is going to somehow have an immediate impact or any major impact on gasoline prices is not realistic. currently the pipelines from canada that export these oil sands to the united states are operating at less than 50% of capacity, so there is plenty of room for more oil sands to come to the united states for refinement. in fact, one of the piper lines goes directly to my -- one of the pipelines goes directly to my state. this refinery has capacity that could be used to process these canadian oil sands right now. so to argue this keystone pipeline is somehow holding back the export of canadian oil sands that might have an ac impact one

price of gasoline is just not correct. i also note there has been an increase in the refining of oil in this nation. it's two years after the b.p. spill and it's i think time for us to reflect on the fact that we never, ever want that to happen again. the devastation caused to so many lives, to so many businesses, and so much in terms of wildlife will not be calculated. perhaps it never will be. but we know that we can't allow that to happen again. we shouldn't exalt speed over safety. we've got to make sure that as we move forward to develop our energy resources -- both oil and gas -- we do it in a sense it wil-- we do itin a sensible way.

i hope we aagree that that is the way do it slong with the administration premium -- as long as we do it with the administration policy. mrs. boxer: would the senator yield for a question? mr. durbin: i would be happy to yield. mrs. boxer: i want to thank my colleague for putting the gas price situation into the larger picture and also note that one other factor playing a role is definitely manipulation due to some of the instability in the world that we are -- our president is certainly dealing with and many of us here. the instability in iran, the fact that we've got sanctions, the fact that there's also a greater demand coming for this product from china and other very high-growth areas. so i say to my friend, is he aware -- i know he is, but

because of the rules, i have to ask it in a question -- is he aware that we are producing far more of this resource, oil, in this country than we have done since 2008; we have many more rigs out there? and is my colleague also aware that the oil companies are sitting on well over 50 million acres of leases that they're not -- they're into the drilling on when they could? and the last point, is my friend aware that we are exporting more than we ever had from america and that's also a very important point? those who say "drill, baby, drill," that's not an answer if it's "export, baby, export. requests "the fact is, we are drilling more and more is leaving america. so i say to my friends here, where have all these pac phak -o i say to my friend here, is he aware of all these factors?

and is he concerned about playing more politics with this because drill, baby, drill is not the answer. we only have 2% of the world's proven supply of oil. i wonder if my friend could commend. mr. durbin: in response, i'd like consent of the chair to enter into the record "the new york times" editorial of monday march 5, 2012, entitled "drill, baby, drill: redux." i'd like read a portion. "domestic crude oil production is actually up from 5.4 million barrels to 5.59 million now. imports have dropped by who are than 10% in the same period despite a temporary slowdown in exploration in the gulf of mexico after the b.p. oil disaster. the number of rigs in american oilfields has quadrupled over three years. there have been new discoveries and the administration has promised to open up more offshore reserves. to say that mr. obama has denied

industry access is nonsense. equally nonsensical is the republican claim that mr. obama has proposed the repeal of $4 billion in annual tsm breaks for the oil and gas industry whose five biggest ploirs posted $137 billion in profits last year would drive prices upward. as is newt gingrich's claim that a proposal now taking shape in the e.p.a. and fiercely opposed by refiners to lower sulfur content would add 25 cents to the cost of a gallon. experts say it would add about a penny. oil prices are set on the world market by forces largely beyond america's control. chief among these is soaring demand in country's like china. unrest in oil-producing countries is anothe another fac. gas could jump to $5 if the standoff with iran disrupted

world supply. a country that consumes," as the senator noted, "more than 20 prs of the world's oil supply but owns 2% of its reserves cannot drill its way out of high prices or dependence on exports from unstable countries. the only plausible strategy is to keep production up while cutting consumption and embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels. let me add to this conversation a topic which i think we have been loathe to address on the floor because of its political controversy which was driven home to me over the weekend. i believe our energy conversation has to parallel an environmental conversation. we have got to talk about the consumption of energy and the impact it has on the world that we live in. i would say to the senator from california that in the midwest we live in tornado country. i was raised with them. i know how to run to the basement when you hear the air raid sirens and protect your children and which rooms to go in and which corner of the

house. it's built into our lifestyle in the midwest. so far this year we have had over 272 reported tornadoes. early in the tornado season. last year 50. 272 to 50. i would just say to anyone who would like to come challenge me, is this worth asking a question or two? what is going on with the extreme weather patterns that we are seeing more and more of? in a given year you might say, well, those things hafplt but as these pat -- those things happen. but as these patterns phaoerpblg, last year chicago, the biggest blizzard in its history and in june the largest rainfall in an hour in history. this is not the world we grew up in. things are different out there. are these within our control or beyond our control? i think we have to rely on experts and scientists to lead us in that conversation. but let's at least embark on that conversation by

understanding the connection between energy and the environment. as we find more efficient ways to move our cars and move our economy, as we better than less energy in doing it, there's less damage to the environment. that is a positive thing. it also rewards innovation, creation and new business and industry. so the united states can lead in this area as we've led in other areas before. i thank the senator from california. she is on the floor with a bill she's spoken of time and time again, the new federal transportation bill. there is no single piece of legislation that will create more jobs, specific jobs that can be identified, than this bill. we have spent two weeks, mr. president -- two weeks, if i'm not mistaken. three? the senator from california would know better. three weeks on the floor of the senate arguing about contraception on the federal highway bill. arguing about whether or not we are going to embark on a foreign policy amendment to the federal highway bill. three wasted weeks trying to come to a conclusion about a

handful of amendments. this is what gives our, unfortunately gives our senate a bad name. we should have resolved this long ago and moved to this bill so that we can say if you want a real jobs bill, a real jobs bill, the senate is leading the way. to do it, we need bipartisan support. at noon there will be a vote. those who are following the proceedings can take a look, see how many on both sides of the aisle will support moving forward on this bill. i think our earlier vote was 85, if i'm not mistaken, 85 senators who said let's move forward on this bill. i hope we can do that again. mr. president, i at this time would make nine kwraourbgs for committees to -- unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate and ask that these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. chambliss: -- mr. isakson: and be asked to speak in morning business. i want to talk about a subject that was talked to me about a lot during the president's day break in georgia. i spent most of that week traveling my state. did town hall meetings listening to georgians from savannah county and murray county and everywhere else in between. it was easy to tell what the issue for the average family is, and that's what the price of gasoline is doing to their budget. gasoline prices continue to escalate. i have a chevrolet seive rad dough pick -- silverado and i had to fill it up. it costs $78 to fill it up and it wasn't total limbty. that is a -- totally empty. i think of kwraefr every farmer or student and thinking about how much they have to pay for

gasoline, i realize how harmful current gas prices are and i fear how high they're going to go. we need a comprehensive energy policy in the united states of america. i was listening to the distinguished majority leader speak before me. he made an interesting comment about the keystone pipeline. he said even if we approve the keystone pipeline, it wouldn't do anything for gas prices today. he well, he's right because you've got to build the pipeline. but if we had approved it two years ago when it was operating, we'd have 70,000 barrels of petroleum more a day coming into the united states of america. so to say that just because it the wouldn't be ready today doesn't help gas prices, is not looking to keep your eye on the ball. in the absence of a comprehensive policy, in the absence of foresight, in the absence of putting all the general things on table that generate energy, we're putting off the day that the united states is energy-independent.

what goes on in iran, in the straits of who are muse, in venezuela affects the speculation on gasoline and petroleum which affects the prices of gasoline in the united states of america. now, i'm not one of these burn gas right and left, drill as much as you can, fossil fuels are fine. i know we have problems with carbon. i drive a hybri high vehicle, nt because i'm trying to drive a point, but because i think it makes sense. any time you can reduce carbon, that makes sense. but can't eliminate it. we've got to put all sources of energy on the table and one of those is to continue to explore for gasoline and petroleum in the domestic united states of america, off the gulf of mexico, off of our coastline, in our national lands that we own where we know we have shale oil, where we also know we have oil gas. so we're expanding our supply and reducing or dependence on

foreign exports. the congress of the united states and the president of the united states need to have a comprehensive energy policy that embraces alembraces all forms o. to the credit of the president, he approved not too long ago the loan guarantees on reactors 3 and 4 at plant vogel. the first energy reactors built in the united states since three mile island. nuclear is a impar bonn-free generation of energy. every time we can expand our energy capability, we are lessening our dependence on fossil fuel to be burned. the marcella shale -- we have gone from having a finite supply of energy gas to an infinite supply. yet because there is some contest over whether hydraulic frabbing fracture is good or not good, we are not exploring

natural gas like we should. we should be exploring it as much as possible because it is a cleaner-burning fuel than is petroleum, liquid petroleum, and gasoline. we ought to be doing renewable energy where ever it makes sense but we've seen renewable energy has its limit. we spend $6 billion a year subsidizing ethanol in hopes it would reduce foreign exports but it hasn't. it's had its own problems with two-cycle engine. but ethanol has its place. it is scalable on the farnl. solar is a good source of energy where it works. but it only works as a supplement. it is not a primary supplier source. wind is great but it is only great in the midwest and down towards the southwest. but we ought to be using it and encouraging t what we ought to be doing is encouraging all forms of exploration, all forms of generation, and all of them domestically in the united states of america. that will bring down gas prices. the distinguished majority leader -- majority whip was right, it won't bring it down today because we've put off

having an energy policy. once we develop an energy policy and stick to it and sploarl all forms of fossil fuel and coal anden hasn't energy, then we have a plethora of energy and less competition with foreign oil where the united states of america needs to be. we all realize what's going on in the middle east is the cause of most of the increase in the cost of oil because of speculation and every time we can improve our position and be free of those influences is better for the united states of america and most importantly it's better for the average citizens that we all represent. so my message from the people i represent in georgia, the wunsz i talk to all during the president's day recess in that week, is do everything you can to expand your supply of energy where ever you can find it. take us out of a dependence on foreign imports and get us independent of foreign oil. that will bring down the cost of oil and as a by-product that will be in the best national security interests of the people of the united states of mecialg.

i yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. boozman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from remark arc. mr. boozman: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you. as february came to a close, it left behind an unfortunate new record. $3.73 per gallon, the national average for unleaded gasoline was the highest ever recorded during this month. prior to this morning's drop of .03 cents, gas prices had been on the rise for 27 straight days. just three years, gas prices have dawnldz they are not stopping there. back home in arkansas, the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline is up over 25 cents from a month ago many analysts are predicting we will hit $4 a gallon by summer. think about what that does to the economy. for small businesses and owners, it means much higher overhead. those costs ultimately get passed on to the consumers.

in very dire cases, which many of our small businesses are facing today, due to reduced profit margins, threats of higher taxes and increased regulations, high gas prices could be the final straw. it puts extra pressure on the budgets of ardent, cash-strapped local governments. just the other day i was reading a story from the boonville democrat that documented the negative affects that the price of gas has on logan county, arkansas. the county judge noted that if gas prices reached $4, it's going to take away from the other things that need to be done. in blyt h*eville, arkansas, a 300-mile trek from boonville, those same concerns are being voiced. in the blytheville carrier news, the former mayor described how

in recent years, despite efforts to use more fuel-efficient vehicles and to cut down on idle time, the city would still end up having to amend the budget at the end of the year due to the high fuel costs. and for hardworking arkansans, it is changing the way that they live and not for the better. it is especially painful for our seniors and single parents who live on fixed incomes. the high price of gas is one of the top issues i'm hearing about in calls and letters during my visits across the state. i also recently posed the question about how the rising price of gasoline in arkansas is affecting them on my facebook page. i want to share a few of the responses that i received. tim in rogers, arkansas, said "the more we have to pay for gas, the less money we have for the other necessities and pleasures of life and living."

melody in central arkansas said "the it -- it cost our family nearly $65 to fill up their truck and said they limited their driving to the doctor and the grocery store. it goes on from there. many respondents said that it limits their spending at places like the grocery store and will affect their vacation plans. the overwhelming common thread in those responses is that washington needs to do something about the high cost of gas. there is no denying that the rising fuel prices are hurting americans and further complicating our efforts to revitalize the economy. there is also no denying that we are not moving fast enough to address these concerns. americans want to know why, while their gas bills mount washington does still not have an energy policy. it is past time that we move forward on one and that begins

with increasing our energy production here at home. we have the largest recoverable resources of oil, gas and coal of any nation on the planet. america's recoverable resources are larger than the combined supply of saudi arabia, china, and canada. despite that, we depend on hostile regimes and nations who have agendas that are often at odds with our own for much of our oil. the current tension between israel and iran only serves to make matters worse. if israel strikes iran, there is a good chance that the iranians attack saudi arabia's oil fields to retaliate against the west. it doesn't have to be this way. the keystone x.l. pipeline, arctic national wildlife refuge, anwr, and drilling in the eastern gulf of mexico alone would produce three million barrels of oil per day.

the lack of will in washington to increase production here at home is unnecessary. it is a literal roadblock. it prevents our economy from picking up, increases the cost americans pay for fuel, and it creates an enormous liability for our national and economic security. president obama has said that increased domestic oil production is unnecessary as he contends it is at the highest it has been in eight years. however, you only get those numbers by relying heavily on production, on private lands in north dakota, texas, and alaska. we are simply not using the resources that we have been blessed with on the public lands. we can make a major dent in the problem by simply opening the outer continental shelf and anwr to drilling in an environmentally responsible way. the outer continental shelf alone is estimated to contain

enough oil and natural gas to meet america's energy needs for the next 60 years. energy exploration and production in anwr would take place on just a small portion of the 1.5 million acres but will allow us to safely produce 900 barrels of oil per day for the next 30 days. i've been there, i've seen firsthand that this can be done in an environmentally safe way. the keystone pipeline would transport 700,000 barrels of oil a day from canada to u.s. refineries in the gulf coast. it can be constructed and run in a safe manner. tapping into the oil sands would help ease our dependence on hostile regimes for oil. as global demand for oil surges and the canadians increase production, the addition of the

keystone pipeline would allow us to get reliable and secure oil from our largest trading partner and trusted ally. unfortunately, president obama punted on every opportunity we have given him to move keystone forward. thank you. i appreciate it and note the absence of a quorum. mrs. boxer: would the gentleman withhold? mr. boozman: yes. i'm sorry. mrs. boxer: mr. president, would you tell us what the order is at this time. the presiding officer: we're in -- morning business is closed, ma'am. i'm sorry. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of senate bill 1813, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 311, s. 1813, a bill to reauthorize federal aid highway and highway safety construction programs and for other purposes. mrs. boxer: mr. president, we

are back on -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 12:00 noon will be equally divided and controlled between the two sides with the final ten minutes equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority leader controlling the final five minutes. the senator from california. box mr. president, thank you so very much. we are back here on our fourth week trying to get a transportation bill through this body. and to me, it is a very sad statement about the dysfunction of this body that we spent approximately three weeks dithering here over a contraception amendment that had nothing to do with the highway bill and other threats to offer foreign policy amendments and so on. well, mr. president, we have a chance today to vote to end this

dithering. and the chamber of commerce is asking us to do that. the afl-cio is asking us to do that. 1,000 organizations are asking us to do that because they know that thousands of businesses and well over a million jobs are at stake. now, i wanted to say that i heard the tail end of senator boozman talk about the keystone pipeline. i wanted to make sure that it was on the record, a conversation that i had with senator durbin that under this president, we're drilling now more than we've ever drilled before. so anyone who says drill, baby, drill doesn't understand that the number of rigs that are now moving are four times as many as in 2008. they don't understand that we are now exporting oil. they don't understand the fact that we are importing less. does that mean we're done?

no. the oil companies have more than 50 million acres of approved leases. they ought to drill there and hands off my coast, because my coast is an economic gold mine the way it is because we have tourism and recreation and fishing. and those jobs far outweigh any jobs that would come from oil drilling, which would tend to undermine the very economy of my great state. so, if we have to vote on keystone, we'll vote on keystone. if we have to vote on offshore drilling, we will. but i will be here to point out that if we care about jobs and we care about making sure the price of gasoline goes down, when we have keystone, let's make sure the oil stays here. let's make sure that oil is made in america and stays in america. and so these issues are not one dimensional. they are many-sided, as my friend knows. and he and i have agreed on much

and we've disagreed on some. and the fact is what we need is the kind of balance that president obama brings to the table when it comes to energy. he says we will do all of the above, but we will do it wisely. and interestingly, on the keystone pipeline, we now have the tea party talking about property rights and the fact that they have to be respected as well when we build a new pipeline such as this. so we'll have votes. but can i make a plea to my colleagues? at noon, just about 50 minutes away from now, we can have a clean vote. 60 of us could vote to move to this transportation bill, to get rid of, as my friend olympia snowe has said, polarizing amendments. why not move to something that was voted out unanimously out of our committee, 18-0 was the vote. republicans, democrats, all

together, senator inhofe and myself, together. senator shelby and senator johnson together on a bill. senator baucus working in a bipartisan way with his committee, and senator rockefeller, once they got rid of some bumps working in a cooperative way with senator hutchison, we now have pending an agreed-upon bill. plus we've added to the package, is it 29 amendments? 37 amendments, bipartisan amendments. what more do my friends want? we've got a bipartisan bill. we've added more bipartisan amendments to it. all these jobs are at stake. and today we can end all this dithering and wasting time. the people of america look at us and wonder what we're about. vote yes for cloture. so i want to talk about what's at stake if we don't invoke cloture and we don't wind up

with a bill. because this isn't just hyperbole, mr. president. these are facts that are fact checked. all of our transportation programs expire on march 31. my friend who is in the chair, the president, served as a great governor of his state of west virginia, and he knows how important the highway bill is. we worked together with the states. we worked together with the planning organizations, and we get those funds out there. on march 31, i say to my friend, we're done. this bill reauthorizes that program. and 1.8 million jobs are at stake. as soon as we fail there,'s no more program thr-fplt's no more -- more program, there's no more authority to support a federal gas tax that supports the highway program. there is no more authority to spend any money on transportation. 1.8 million jobs are at stake. let's go to the next chart.

i did a breakdown of the various states, mr. president, and in this time i'm going to highlight just a few of the states, but these charts will be available for everyone. what are we talking about? in alabama, we're talking about almost 27,000 jobs. in alaska, 18,000 jobs. i'm just skipping around. in my state 164,000 jobs. that's california. in florida, 76,000 jobs. right here in d.c., 18,000 jobs. in georgia, almost 50,000. in i will tphoeul, in illinois 65,000, iowa 17,000. in louisiana, 25,000. in maine almost 7,000. we'll go on and give you the rest of the states just to give you a sense of how many jobs will be lost if we do not act to reauthorize this bill. in maryland, 26,000. in massachusetts, 31,000.

in michigan, 39,000. in montana, almost 14,000. in nebraska, 10,000. nevada, almost 14,000 jobs. in new jersey, 50,000. in new york, 118,000. in north dakota, 8,000. in ohio, 50,000. in oklahoma, 22 thousand. in pennsylvania, 68,000. in rhode island, 8,000. i'll continue with another chart to show you other examples. and i will be sure to say what west virginia is when i get to the w's here. in south carolina, 22,000. in south dakota, 9,000. in tennessee, 30,000. in texas, mr. president, 128,000 jobs. i call on senators to vote "yes" to stop debate and get to this bill. for months -- vermont almost 7,000. virginia 41,000. washington state, 34,000. west virginia, 15,133.

wisconsin, 27,000. wyoming, 8,400 jobs. so when we talk about this as a jobs bill, this isn't some exercise in our verbiage. this is a fact of life. these are the jobs and they add up to 1.8 million. i also want to make a point. in our bipartisan bill, we have increased a particular program. this is a reform bill, and we've taken 90 programs down to 30. it's a real reform bill. we've done away with every earmark. but one particular program we've increased is the tifia program, the transparence infrastructure financing. it lerches federal dplars, mr. president 30 times. so let's say one of your counties voted to tax themselves a half a cent to build a transit system. we would come up and the federal

government, you make an application for your staivment we would front that money, so you could build it all in one or two years instead of waiting for the funding over ten. this was an idea that came from mayor antonio villaragosa in los angeles, so bottom line here is, not only are we saving $is.8 million jobs but, mr. president, we had the potential of creating another 1 million jobs. so if we fail today to cut off debate and we don't have a path forward, which i hornings you know, the leers will figure out, if w abandon this 2 boy 8 millin jobs are at stake. let's look at some other charts of u unemployment. mr. president, you know as well as anyone in your state -- and i know moo my state -- that construction workers have been hit very, very hard.

the national unemployment rate is 8.3%. we're very hopeful it's on the downtake. but the construction industry rate is 17.7%. it could be even worse in some areas. it is an average. so we're talking about here about if we add to the unemployment in the construction industry, we're looking at a total crisis, a total disaster, because right now we have 1.48 million construction workers out of work, and if we fail to do this bill, we're adding another $1another.8 million. this could be a depression for the construction workers. it doesn't stop there. the industry is feeling feelin. we have a chart that talks about the thousands of businesses. i don't know you're away of this, but there are over 11,000 transportation construction companies who would be adversely

impacted by a shutdown on march 31. so in addition to the 1.8 million workers who would be laid off, 11,000 transportation construction companies would -- many of them would have to shut their doors. that's a very modest number. and i'll show you a picture that i often show about the construction workers. mr. president, i'm sure you're a super bowl fan. we all are. this is a picture of a stadium at the super bowl. every seat there, about 100,000 seats are filled. if every one of these seats were filled with an unemployed construction workers, mr. president, you can close your eyes and envision 14 more of these stadiums filled with unemployed construction workers. that's where we are today. you would have to envision another 25 or 30 of those. we cannot afford to go down this road. so today let's vote aye for

cloture. now, the last thing i want to show you is the strong support for this cloture vote. the u.s. chamber of commerce -- this is today's letter? yesterday. we received this yesterday. the chamber of commerce strongly supports this important legislation ... "passing surface transportation reauthorization legislation is a specific action congress and the administration can take right now to support job growth and economic productivity without adding to the deficit." because, as you know, this bill is 100% paid for. we also have a history-making group of organizations supporting this. we'll give you a sense of that as well. we have a coalition of 1,075 organizations from all 50 states. and they sent us a letter on january 025, 2012. and they said, "in 2011,

political leaders -- republican and democrat, house, senate, and the administration -- stated a multiyear surface transportation bill is important for job creation and economic recovery. we urge you to follow words with action." i want to repeat that. "we urge you to follow words with action. make transportation job number 1 and move immediately in the house angz senate to invest in the roads, the bridges, [and] transit systems that are the backbone of the u.s. economy, its businesses, large and small, and communities of all sizes." now, they didn't ask us to take up keystone pipeline. they didn't ask us to take up repealing clean air laws. they didn't ask us to tank drilling off the coast. they didn't ask us to take up conextra ception. they didn't. they asked us to take up this transportation bill. and i am saying to colleagues, please, you've had three weeks

to discuss contraception. we've disposed of it. it's tabled. let's move on. there are other days we can tock about -- there are other days we can talk about that. the state of our highways and our transportation system is just not what it should be. 70,000 bridges are deficient. bridges are falling down. we had -- senator inhofe is eloquent on the point about a woman taking a walk and having a piece of a bridge fall on her and she died. we've seen what happened in minnesota when bridges start to fall into disrepair. you know, when i was growing up, my parents always taught me, be responsible, be responsible. and i am not always living up to their expectations, but i try. and if somebody tells me, there is a problem over here, i try to fix it. and when i hear that 70,000 bridges are in trouble and they're deficient and 50% of our

roads are not up to standard, i now know this information. if i was ignorant and i didn't know it, that would be one thing. i know no now know t how can i y back on this bill? i know how many unemployed construction workers there are. how could i turn my back on them? i know how many businesses, whether it is gravel companies or cement companies or general contractors -- they all are begging us to do this. these are republican-leaning groups, along with labor democratic-leaning groups. bridges are not partisan. roads are not partisan. this is our moment. we can vote "yes" on cloture. what does that mean? it means we're not going to garrett these very difficult, inflammatory amendments, bus we're going to stick to the highway bill, stick to the transportation bill. and this vote is a very

important vote for folks. because i think if you don't vote to move to the bill and you vote to prolong this debate, you have to answer to your folks back home and tell them why you're playing russian roulette with the highway bill, because on march 31, it all stops. and, mr. president, it is true, in the past we've had extensions. this is different than usual because the trust fund is short of funds. so you can't just extend. if you just extend, there's a price to be paid. because the trust fund doesn't have the funds it needs, which is repaired in this bill, you'd have an immediate cut of a third, a third, right there 500,000 jobs if you just did an extension. we don't want that. we want a bill that is a reform bill, that takes this from 90 programs to 30. that uses leveraging in a smart way, that is totally bipartisan.

do we have any other charts that i'd want to show at this point? we've done that. so i will sum up, there's -- we've got, you know, in a few minutes we'll be voting and just say to my friends again, you have all the facts at your hand. if you don't know what your state job loss would be, if we fail to act, we have that. we'll give it to you. but there is no way, you know, you can run away from what you know. now, we voted 85 votes to proceed to this bill. that was a long time ago. it seems like ages ago. and we can't get off dead center because people are offering unrelated amendments. so my hope is we'll get to 60, my hope is we can in short order get this bill done, send a message of hope to the people. now, i heard just now that speaker boehner has said that he's very interested in the

senate bill and that he's going to take a look at the senate bill. because at this point they haven't been able to get a bill that they feel has a chance. this bill, i would reiterate for america, is bipartisan. the most bipartisan bill i've ever seen around here. and it unites people who fight and argue on everything else. when inhofe and boxer agree on something, you know that's a real good compromise, and we do agree. when vitter and baucus come in and they agree with the same thing that inhofe and boxer have agreed to, it's a good day around here. and that's what we have before us. so i call on colleagues to vote aye on the cloture vote and let's get on with this, and let's spare the people the suffering, the untold suffering that will come if we have to lay off 1 boy 8 million workers -- 1.8 million workers and hurt more than 11,000 businesses.

thank you very much, mr. president. and i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mrs. boxer: mada mr. president,i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: i would ask unanimous consent that these quorum calls be charged to both sides equally. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: