and over time you say, well, you're still making a lot of money. well, companies don't fail in a year or two, it takes ten yearses, twenty years, thirty years for the deterioration and the rot to really impact the viability of the company. so we can't be sitting here in 2030, 2035 and saying, well, what happened? the decisions that were made in 2012 are dispositives of the future of the, the future of the company. so we're in pretty good shape, but we have a lot of work to do, and, um, we still have many issues that need to be addressed and resolved. ..

>> and i know we have become somewhat of a punching bag in this political season. i don't want to get into the political arena but i will say this much, if you were in private equity and we had $100 billion portfolio around the globe, front row seat, it was coming off the wheels. and as americans we ought to be very proud argument stood up regardless of the party affiliation. just like blood is critical to the body, liquidity is critical

to the economy. and yes, we liquidate, net liquidated, we provided liquidity into the markets. and i'm also the senior director at american express which is one of the larger financial institutions, with a going to be viable. and it was a different set of circumstances and the financial arena than it was in the manufacturing specifically in the automotive. not at the end of the day, regardless, i don't want to debate it. i wouldn't join the board. i wouldn't join a company if i didn't agree. pragmatism has to enter into the economic dialogue. i went to graduate school, to london school of economics and everybody knows that but it's one of political science because you can't separate politics and economics on a macroeconomic scale. my opinion, and george bush, and by the way, these two presidents

of divergent political perspectives put money into this company but it wasn't just one. and they weren't running for office at the time. they were in the arena. they had to face the hard facts, and in my opinion they made the pragmatic decision to save this company. because it's now been estimated 1 million jobs were at risk. that's 1 million households. and on a personal level, this is a wealthy state and a wealthy community, and you all are very passionate you all look wealthy and prosperous to me. but when you go to detroit and you go to ohio and to go to pennsylvania, indiana and illinois rakish of the automotive industry reside, whole communities have been negatively impacted, just by the downturn. it would have been significantly worse.

as president bush said, a million jobs in $150 billion in tax revenue would have been foregone by the government if it been allowed to fail. then there's the infrastructure, the national infrastructure is great nation would've been severely damaged. so i don't care how we got there. the question is, did it work? well, chrysler is life. we are alive and. we are not just alive, we are prospering. we are around the globe come in this country. since bankruptcy we've hired almost 17,000 employees in the united states alone and we have invested almost $10 billion. i know against trillion dollar deficit it sounds like. it's not. and the ability to build new cars. so we are focused on, you can what is the evolution of the industry. we can't afford to focus on the near-term. what's going to be like in 2030? why we spend so much money on alternate forms of propulsion.

whether elected, hybrid, hydrogen fuel cells which were are a lid on a global basis in hydrogen fuel cells but if i mention names of companies you all would say wow, that german company is looking at your technology? it's because this company is a repository of a huge amount of intellectual property that is associate with alternative fuel, as the false. this country now has an industry that has been totally revitalize that can make the necessary investments to transition our economy to a higher tech and more efficient, cleaner industry. >> one way to separate politics from economics would be to pay back the remaining money that is lent by the u.s. treasury pick do you have a timeframe for when that 30% stake? the stock is still below the ipo price. do you have an idea when the treasury will get paid back the other have?

>> well, not to parse words but you said land. okay, they lend us money. we paid all that back. they provided preferred interest, preferred stock with 9% coupon. we paid all that back plus dividends and interest. and we held largest ipo in history of the world, and most of that went to the federal government. they own 27% on fully diluted basis, and they're just like every other shareholder. they can sell it when they want. it is perverse but i have some understanding of capital markets, and although we produced record profits, the stock is at record levels, part of it is because whether big shareholder in we don't know when they're going to lead. because as part of the bankruptcy, you've heard that the structure in the financial world was let's take the good assets of the bank called the bank and had been. we had liquidation motors.

and liquidation motors was we left all the toxic acids behind him if you will, and there were hundreds of names of shares -- there was a complicated, i won't draw any conclusions or make judgments about who got a good deal. it had to be done quickly. and again there are many paths to the solution, did it work. but we had to give those several hundreds of millions of shares to the liquidated, liquidation motors shareholders. some of those largely for bondholders. well, when the stock really swooned late lester was because we dropped a couple hundred nine shares and they flushed into the market. a lot of our big shareholders said when are they going to exit? the answer is candidly, i don't know. >> you can understand the crime congress so if the u.s. government sold shares that are 30% below the ipo price, tax soldiers are getting -- they sold at a loss.

>> again, i asked, i will tell you what asked the question him is the federal government and private equity firm or when acting on behalf of we the people, we of the government? so was our economy, was her citizenship properly served? what if we didn't click that $150 billion in taxes? by the way, if we feel we would have 23, $24 billion pension shortfall which would now work down to around 12 or 13 billion. that would've gone to the pbgc. the government would've had to take up that liability. it's much more complicated than you get in a 20-second blurb on the evening news or a quick thing in an article. it's -- this is a complicated bankruptcy on a scale that i think the average citizen in this country doesn't have the interest, quite frankly. so i would say, how would you like us to sell? >> how would i like them to sell?

well, recognizing this may show up in washington -- [laughter] i think about to be a very controlled fashion i think a good was is we own 500 million shares, we so 59 shares every quarter for the next 10 quarters. something -- >> dollar cost averaging? >> i would just say they're not there to get the last dollar. by the way, there's only, when you say oh, there's only one automobile company that owes the government any money. that's for do. for -- we were offered 12 billion. michigan delegation was working on our behalf when i came in. we could apply, i'm sure would've been granted 10 to $12 billion of low interest department of energy loans for clean and high-tech. and i said we're done with that. we nixed it, so did chrysler. ford has taken a. the pre-first miss of it all is

governments help their companies to kind of shape and mold without to much of the heavy hand, shape and mold direction of technology and how the economy evolves. i don't see anything -- it's not a religious issue. it's something that is pragmatic, and companies, that's done for companies around the globe all the time. >> another pragmatic issue for a lot of americans is high gasoline prices, and you said last year, told cnn, that gasoline at about $4.50 would affect people going into showrooms. so how are high gasoline prices affecting car sales and the kind of cars americans by? >> well, just as my intent here, we have shifted if you look at the type of trucks, crossover suvs, vans, initiative almost 12% of her production to small

to medium-sized sedans away from large trucks. that's a function of energy cost and thus producing better cars, low-end of the market i don't mean low in price but low in small in cars, more fuel-efficient cars. for example, our member president obama when i was in private equity, and i think in an unguarded statement of exasperation look at the whole industry i guess in the depths of the recession said why can't they build a car like a corolla? well, we did. the best selling compact car in america today is the chevy cruise. it's not just the corolla. all of them, one year. and it makes about 40 miles per gallon. >> do you make money on the cruise? >> yes, we do. speak so you can make money -- the wisdom is bigger cars bigger margin. you can make money on the smaller to medium size cars the?

>> yet, but you make a lot more than you do some of the ones. we are not coming in, we don't make money on the volt on a one off basis. but the volt can we sold as many volt's first as toyota sold previous their first year. sometimes you have to be a pioneer to do the right thing. kind of shape and mold our own future. so we'll make investments where we think the long-term future is in our interest. >> last year you said that a dollar a gallon gasoline tax would be preferable to the efficiency standards that were being talked about at the time, and to subsequently became law in california in the united states. do you still think increasing the 18-cent a gallon gasoline tax is a good idea? >> i think there are a number of approaches to how you want to impact consumption. there are laws, economic loss

just like there are physical laws. and one of them is you don't tax production. you tax consumption if you want to change behavior. and so there are a number of ways to get to that. that was an example of one of several. but i do think you can affect consumer behavior by a number of different ways speak so maybe a gasoline tax increase? >> i think about to be, it's on a list of potential alternatives, yes. >> we put this program on, announce this on facebook and got a bunch of questions but a particular issue. i like to redo one of the questions we got from facebook today. please ask mr. askers and why gm's fund, a group that is try to push misinformation about climate change into our public schools, is this funny consistent with their companies message and marketing, those of the chevy volt? >> well, i actually am glad you asked me that. i wasn't aware of this until the

last day or so. a couple things in terms of good governance. i cannot sit on the foundation's board or steer anything because -- >> you are saying it was the general motors foundation that gave this -- >> yes, that's the company. let me say another factor first on i was interviewed by the press i was done of the following reaction to some guy said you believe in global warming? i said yeah, i do. several gm executives say you don't say that in public. [laughter] best may surprise you, my underwear doesn't have gm stamped on and i am an individual and i do have my own convictions. and get they sometimes, they agree and sometimes they don't. i think it's action healthy the different points of view and perspectives around the table. >> let's talk about, i always say actions battle more than words. so just last week the epa named as their star energy provider

because of consistent reduction of emission controls. 60% of our plant, where 60% more efficient in use of fuel than we were just five years ago. landfill usage coming off of our plant is essentially zero. you can put it in a coffee can. that's how we are trying to improve -- [applause] most of our plans come with some plants that are completely run off of landfill methane. they are at zero emissions, and we have plans that are the size of small farms, two, 300 acres under one roof. we put $40 million behind the chevy program with the cruze and said we would reduce 8 million metric tons of co2 in this country in one year, and we have done. we bought and paid for a forest the size of the state of connecticut. this is $15,000 that was committed to before i came in.

i also think the heartland institute, until, does other things. and i find this interesting. i will go any further but i'm going to take another look at it when i get back to detroit. i will leave it at that. [laughter] >> we had a lot of conversation sure, a lot of companies think you but will there be a price on carbon someday. a lot of markets around the world in europe, your global conference, europe has a price on carbon very low. australia went on carbon tax. china is moving in that direction. when you think there'll be a price on carbon and how will that affect your planning for general motors selling cars around the world? >> you know, when i was a midshipman in the naval academy we are told yes or no, sir, i will find out, sir. [laughter] so i don't know. i actually think, i don't know. >> lots of people have metrics

and scenarios. >> all i got to say is, i try to be very pragmatic. we have to allow for all possibilities, and we have, we were an active participant in willing participants in café standards this year. we are going to do our level best to be a corporate, a responsible corporate citizen, and if the wisdom of our political leadership is to put in a carbon tax, we're going to react to it and we will react to it as best we can in interests of our shareholders. >> in the past california's putting a price on carbon pollution through a.d. 32, a law that governor schwarzenegger past signed and other legislators wrote. in the past general motors spent a lot of time litigating against those sorts of things rather than getting the engineers out there to say how do we meet these goals. so i may, the auto industry signed up for the current round

to increase mileage standards to 55 miles a gallon. >> no, no, no. we didn't sign a. we were parties to a. we could have. and believing, there were factions of the company that i -- this is -- >> the lawyers wanted to go at its? >> today, this is the new gm, and rather than sit in the corner, the obstreperous, we're going to be, we want to be part of the solution. we do not want to be part of the problem. we live in this country. i have grandchildren, and children, and i want them to inherit a better earth and we did. i think quite frankly our generation, it was 1970, epa was put into water, the air is cleaner than what has gone up in the '50s and '60s. and i think it ought to be cleanup next year than it is today. we're not going to get there for free. and i don't think a huge manufacture such as general motors or any other company can

not be part of the solution, and that's what our goal is to be. and so, we were active participants. we were not drag to it. spinning not because the government owns 27% and you couldn't sue your boss we had to go a long? >> no. [laughter] what he said. [laughter] >> so, kathy, the mileage standards were basically flat for 25 years in the senate, and from 2010 to 2025, they will go up, they will double from about 20 miles a gallon to 55 miles a gallon. here in california there's a lot to decrease the carbon intensity of liquid transportation fuels 10%. and oil companies, particularly independent refiners are fighting that tooth and nail in court. like your comment on that jerks position, otto companies increase efficiency 100% and

there at the table voluntarily. the energy compass, oil companies are fighting 10% your response? >> i'm a car company. unicom i respect i respect they have got to serve their owners as their owners want them to behave in the marketplace. you know, what i'm proud of them in our company and if you look back 25, 30 years, we've taken almost 99% out of the emission of a car. still a lot. i don't know if it's a lot or too much, but we want to be better. so what are we doing? we are producing cars like the volt. we are producing cars like the bit of which is better electric vehicle which will be here next year. this week, this week we came out with a new engine that will burn liquid gasoline as you see it at exxon or chevron or anybody else

today, and same engine, not to mention, the same engine will also burn natural gas. where to spend more on the lifters, ceilings and pistons and whatnot, and it will cost us, i'm not going to give you a number but it is not prohibitive, but it allows us to migrate a way to a clean form of energy over time. so we are not sitting still. we want to be part of the solution. and that comes at many different levels. we looked at c.a.f.e. for example, you probably didn't know this, but mercedes, as long as you produce from 24,999 of a particular model, you were so check it to the -- you were not subjected to the tax. so why in hell did someone agree to that back in the old days? i just had we are at the table, we are ready to talk turkey.

and i says, but why give an advantage to reform competitive? we are not getting it to germany to guess who did show up at the announcement of the new c.a.f.e. standards? which i thought was a mistake. i don't think i would have done that. >> some of those european companies when they exceed the rules they pay a slap on the wrist fine and they go about their very business, the penalty for noncompliance? >> we are pushing everything on cleaner energy, more fuel-efficient. we have many cars now that are epa rated at 40, 42. the new eco-cruze, coming out with a clean diesel next year for the cruze. the collateral impact, positive impact of all of our work on volt, we're putting in what we called the assist on trucks. we're putting that on midsized sedans and small cars. for example, the new next-generation if you want a good car that will get good

mileage is the new malibu that is coming out. i mean, this car has just gotten rave reviews and we put a battery string in the back and a congested city like san francisco or make any big city in america, we estimate that one in every five minutes you are sitting still or in traffic or at a stoplight. well, you goconduct a 12-volt battery that will run your radio everything else but we go to a string of lithium ion batteries in your trunk and your mileage will jump anywhere from 25 to 30, 33%. again, it's cleaner and in the city when you're on that mode, so you are saying that evolution here and you can see where it's going over time. and the more creative we are, the greater energy density that we can get into a cell battery, the better off we're going to be. so we were investing, i mean, this is the new gm, with a $100 million in the gm ventures. sounds like a private equity

firm, doesn't it? we don't have all the answers, and you have these entrepreneurs, these wonderful entrepreneurs that their life and the soul and their grandmother's inheritance, they invest in everything and they live and die with that. i like that intensity, and look at the opportunity to kind of walk around the technology and see if it has automotive application. so here in california, i think is picked up in your papers you, that's a very promising technology. we'll go if if it's industrialized yet but we have seen the money -- >> we should clarify, it's a comfy claims it made a breakthrough in energy density and car batteries spent lithium ion. so we're excited because the batter in the volt is a 400-pound battery. that's a lot of weight. it gives you 16 kilowatts of energy. what happens if it's four times as dense? 64 kilowatts. what does that do? the battery can run a lot further instead of 40 miles it will run maybe 140 miles.

and so i believe, my lifetime, technology, there's this ever escalating improvement and you got to be optimistic about it. battery tech out of will improve over the next five, 10, 20 years. >> it sounds like a way from petroleum, batteries. >> i think the crowning, the holy grail if you will with the hydrogen fuel cells. >> by the way, we the fleet of hydrogen -- this technology works. it's just very, very expensive. the chemistry is extraordinary complicated. and quite frankly we're spending come it takes about at first it costs about two ounces of platinum. have you looked at platinum prices lately. now we've got it down to have to a quarter ounce of platinum. but when i was with general instruments, as you mentioned, with the company that literally invented digital high-definition television, the first copy costs us 350-$400,000.

you find them now at wherever you're buying or televisions, for a couple hundred dollars. it took a while, but you're going to see cost of hydrogen fuel cells, -- today, we put 3 million miles on hydrogen fuel cell cars today. by the cars cost three, four, $5000. now we're down to three, 350. over the next years will get down to maybe 35 or 40. >> dan akerson is chairman and ceo of general motors. he is our guest today at climate one. the chevy volt is the centerpiece of a lot of gm strategy right now. it is brought something of a halo effect to the company and yet recently the company announced it was suspending production. you sold less than you wanted to last year. are you a little disappointed with the volt or is this something that is natural with a new technology in the market place? >> i hope the audience understands what i'm about to say.

you never have perfect knowledge of what these markets are going to do and how well it will receive a product. so this cruze i mentioned, the best selling compact car in america, we close the plant for two weeks last november. they didn't know that there's so much intensity around the volt because although it was designed probably when president obama was in the senate, it's now his car. speak he said he's going to buy one? >> i'm happy to do that. i wish he would buy one this year. [laughter] but he's not. and -- >> not dish i don't think. but it's become somewhat politicized. in fact, the volt always come is always in the background. and so we're going to match the production to inventory. and if it was your company, that's exactly what you do whether it is the cruze, whether it is a truck. i mean, we over inventory to

truck this year. why? because we're going to shut our truck bound -- truck lancaster 26 weeks this year. the average guy on wall street since look they are building inventory. we're going to shut the plant staff for 26 weeks this year. so you got to accept that there's some intelligence behind our decisions. and the volt we shut down because we saw inventory building and we want to get in line with production, demand in the market place. >> we want to show brief clips of a 15-second ad that is running about the chevy volt now and ask you about it. so if we can to that a. this is an ad that chevy volt had that has been running. you can see it but we will certainly, can certainly hear it. >> for our town, for our country. for our future.

this isn't just the car we wanted. it's the car america had to build. the extended range electric chevy volt from the heart of detroit to the health of the country. chevy runs deep. >> from the heart of detroit to the health of the country, why is this good for america's? >> well, the great thing about the volt is that it represents american innovation, american ingenuity, clean technology, and i think it's a statement about what this company represents, the very best america can produce. it's clean and it produces dash that reduces our dependence on oil, especially foreign oil. >> dan akerson is chairman and ceo of general motors, arkestra did at climate one.

last year, toyota downscaled, reduce downward its profit expectations for the year because of supply change disruption in thailand. intel did the same thing. >> we get it, to speak you have something related to japan. >> and thailand. >> so the floods that struck thailand are precisely the kind of extreme weather events, drought, floods, fire, the climate scientists as i heard you earlier, usage et cetera science, say it will happen with increased intensity and frequency. so my question is, how do you plan for these kinds of unexpected supply chain disruptions, but then get you from the other side of the world's? >> you know, we have an operational risk management functions within the company, and so when i came and i said we will give you a 25 biggest things that could happen to you. and if you want to lay awake at night worrying about dash to i

did that for a while. is so tragic what happened in japan. an earthquake, tsunami, and a nuclear disaster. but he tells you if you have to diversify your supply chain, we are actively doing that. and you know, to be honest with you, depending on how far your supply chain went around the globe, some manufacturers were impacted much more so with what happened in thailand that what happened in japan. so we have taken a hard look at that, as i'm sure all of our competitors have. it's been a lesson learned, and i will tell you, we were very concerned in both instances, but we marshaled our resources as best we could. we shut our shreveport plant down for i think four or five days to ensure we had supply to a different set of issues we

had. and we were lucky that's all the impact we have for those to natural disasters. >> so climate driven weather can be a business risk? >> oh, yeah. and in the case of the climate wasn't the issue, it's -- thailand was probably more likely. i would like to think is more likely than what happened in japan. >> you mentioned gm ventures. gm ventures invested in car sharing i believe with relay ride. i'd like to talk about, the future of car sharing, and automobile does a service, not something that people buy and own spit we are in the mobility business at the end of the day. when you step back at it, and you don't know what shape or form that mobility will take place, we looking at autonomous cars. to you all know what i mean by autonomous cars? with a kind look at everything a. we can't afford to run around

with blinders and say we're going to build just trucks. we're going to build every sector of the market we'll try to be in the best, most efficient we can in every segment of the market. if it evolves to a zipcar type or a peer-to-peer type application that relay cars represent, we want to be part of it. we have unique technology in on star we can enable that so if you own a car and you want to make it available come you can read it to me for 250 a day, they want to take this to all 50 states. so we want him to be an enabler. and, of course, nothing you do in this world satisfies everybody. i was criticized for being stupid on that one. well, but what if this takes off? what if urban mobility takes that? we don't want to be late to the game so we decided to be proactive rather than reactive, and i think, you know, if it works out we are going to be, it's always if you write your a genius and if you're wrong, well, of course we knew you were stupid.

[laughter] but there must be some people as they waited in a, that means we will sell your car's. we are in the business of selling cars. if people read cars that's bad for our production, et cetera? >> there are people like that. [laughter] spent i'm sure they're sitting around there are guys like dan that got us into this thing. but that's, you know spent bill ford was you and said it will happen whether we like it or not. we might as will be part of it. we also talked about some young consumers these days, companies are interested in young consumers. they might take the iphone over their car as a social tool for connecting to get to think about that. so bringing the cloud into the car speed we're very interested in that. >> i have seen advertisements that are more about the entertainment and the council than the car it's so. it's more about the entertainment expense in the car than the car it's a. it seems like a real interesting approach for a car coming to sell the entertainment value of the car. >> well, i don't know exactly

what you're referring to, but let me put under the broadband of infotainment. but we don't want to jeopardize the safety on the road, because i will tell you, i've been going down a road and i see them come over, and they say it's as distracted, provides us must distraction and risk to oncoming traffic as a drunk driver would. i have to admit, -- when i was ceo of next and we talked about short message service and nobody had the full keyboard like you get on the iphones and whatnot today. but that being said, we want to have a hands-free, eyes free application in our cars. that's the thrust we're trying to make. so if someone text you don't the first phase will be a couple of voice recognition, did you answer yes, no, i can't talk

right now, i will talk about. so let's say your wife or your husband apologizes when you're downtown can you pick up the dry cleaning? yes, no, i will call you back, or whatever. but eventually we are interested in some of the work that apple is doing because you get voice recognition technology which is going to continually improve. again, let's get in on the ground for. we have five more people from that space then would probably surprise you the people we are hiring out of bell labs, listen, these type of industry. so we can be up on that. the new cadillac user system has millions of lines of code written into that infotainment system that will facilitate the introduction into this, the guiding principle is hands-free, eyes free. i know it's distracted even to talk but my wife talks to me all the time when she is driving. we have been married for years

and still here, no crash. >> we are going to put our audience microphone at her and invite your participation. invite you to come with one, one part brief question for mr. akerson. and a line will form back there with her producer. if you're on this side of the room, we please ask that you go through that door over there rather than crossing these cameras. yes, so please go to that room and the line will form over there. while we get that going, our guest today at climate one is dan akerson, ajinomoto's. i'm greg dalton. there is a shanghai auto company that owns 1% i believe of general motors. let's talk a little bit about the future of china, how big a part it's going to be for general motors, and will that 1% share, could it be increase of there's more cross ownership with china?

>> well, to be clear, they bought $500 million, i'm not sure if that equates to 1%. >> okay spent we are in a joint venture with shanghai auto in what is now the largest automotive market in the world, and we're more proud of that and we've been gaining market share spent and record sales in china. >> yes, just like here. but everything is not great at general motors. we have our issues. europe is a problem for us. south america, we are kind of doubling down in terms of our capital expenditure and whatnot. this is a complicated business, but yes, in asia, generally in china, specifically we're doing well. where the largest market share, but we aren't put the same press that there, hand in glove with her manufactures just like you're trying to get us to be cleaned, more efficient and we're working diligently to do

it in china as well as we are here. >> that's our first audience question. >> great conversation. as founder of grassroots or position called don't be fueled, host and producer of environmental radio show, i get a lot of questions about the hybrid car, not electric or. a lot of intelligent people. i'm a big advocate for cleaner vehicles. what i'm getting more questions about and not shy to answer is what about the safety and environmental hazards of these batteries? there are two concerns, emf and also disposal of these batters but that's my first question. >> is one question. we have a big line. so the safety of the batteries and recycle. >> one reason we chose the path we went down with batteries, we given each year guarantee, and because we cool it with liquid. it's called mexico but it's not dissimilar to what you see in an ordinary car.

but we do that whenever allow charge to go above 85% or decline below 15%. in that way we can guarantee this battery for ages. and air cooled battery a sonar testing today is going to last only two or three years. so a, we're going to get longer so it's going national with it will go long. that's what we're willing to work it or guarantee for. we have open come with an open dialogue with some utilities in terms of storing for various applications. coming from the cell phone industry i can tell you you need have after he and all the self towers or you will loose commercial power at times. so this is a work in progress. i don't have a clear-cut no questions asked, but we are in dialogue with the number of people and how we're going to use these thanks spent i think the other part of the question was emf, electromagnetic, concerns around electromagnetic aspect of the battery? >> i am unfamiliar with it. >> and recycling of the battery

after its useful life spent we will try to use them in some sort of application of electrical energy. >> let's have the next question for dan akerson from jim oberstar. >> many consumers alike to be able to buy the 100 flex-fuel vehicles, not e-85, but e-whenever vehicles and mileage is optimized for ethanol, not gasoline. what would we have to do to get general motors to offer these vehicles in the united states? >> well, we will build cars or trucks, people say why are you building these big cars? because that's what this market once. in order to meet the market, and that's what you would expect to do, we're a profit oriented organization. ethanol isn't in high demand now. and if there was a demand for

not 10,000 or 20,000, but 100,000, all of a sudden we get more interested in a. and we don't see that demand in the marketplace today. so, if the market is there we will be there. if the market is not their we will not be there. >> let's have our next audience question for dan akerson. >> hi. i was intrigued by your statement that fuel cell cars are ultimately where you want to be. i'm curious why you think that's the final goal for technology development? >> well, let me say there's a prodigal application that we need infrastructure. we need a distribution system for not only natural gas but for hydrogen. but why am i intrigued with it? because literally you can take a two -month-old baby and put a baby underneath that exhaust just as long as the dripping water doesn't impact on the child's ability to breathe, you're in as good a shape sitting where you're than that

child. at the turn-of-the-century there was 6 billion people on this planet. by midcentury there will be 9 billion people. and will have to be good stewards of our environment and i think ultimately you want zero emissions. >> one of the challenges for hydrogen is where does the hydrogen come from, how much energy does it take to agree that hydrogen? >> do know what it is producing today? refineries. >> i'm sure the oil conference will be very happy to get some revenue for that, others transportation and infrastructure issues -- >> they largely don't use it today. that's their business. we're not going to get into that business. we are not that smart. that's a tough business. >> but governor schwarzenegger has tried a lot, pushed hard on hydrogen, has only taken off in

california. >> you know, leadership is a tough thing. sometimes you got to make tough decisions and sometimes you're going to be wrong. and, of course, everyone remembered when you're wrong and not when you're right. at some point in time, this is i think the future, and it may not materialize. the market may not be there. if it's not, that's why volt and, you know, this is the first chapter written in the book called alternative forms of propulsion, or alternative propulsion. and it will evolve over time. the chapters have yet to be written, and maybe i'm wrong. always have to allow for the possibility. my wife tells me i have been wrong. and if it is in hydrogen, well then, we've got to figure out a way to produce a lot of electricity. let's face it, electricity produced at a coal-fired plant

doesn't have a missions, pure emissions either. their strong points of view around all that, whether it be natural gas or nuclear or coal. but at the end of the day, modern societies, competitive societies have to figure out how to get the cleanest, most efficient form of energy to the marketplace. and i think as the world evolves and energy evolves, you will see, you may see this evolve in the hydrogen fuel cells. >> let's have our next question for dan akerson. >> my name is john thomas. i'm from -- i have a personal question for you. when you were offered the post a running gm, what initially came to your mind? are you crazy? are you out of your mind? what was in this job that lured you to accept the offer and who specifically made that offer? >> well, i think gm is the most,

one of the most complex, most interesting and most challenging business opportunities of my generation of management. and where i was in private equity, thought i would just finish my career there, it was genuinely intriguing. and i thought i could make a difference. i've been overseas for two, came to the board meeting, and -- >> would you clarify, you are on the board for? >> i was part of the new board that was brought on post-bankruptcy, and then ceo said well, he was leaving, he was 68, going to be 69, and he was interim because we lost our ceo from the gm, the prior management. and candidly, i had this vacation, and my daughter was

pregnant, so she couldn't go anywhere so we took her, and my other granddaughter come and almost turned the job down because my wife and i kind of wanted a couple days to think about it. when i told my granddaughter i was going to be around so much, she started crying. but i already accepted by them. a man is only as good as his word, but i'm glad i did a. i mean, there are some personal aspects of it that aren't all that attractive, but, you know, i'll be back in the home range of my granddaughter in century here in the future. and that will settle that concern. >> hi, dan. you touch very briefly on business conditions in europe that you're seeing right now. do you think is way too much capacity over there? i wonder what we're doing to address that as they close some plants there, and could you clarify how much money we are

actually losing in europe at the moment of? >> well, what's going on in europe is not similar to what happened in the united states prior to the great recession, and to give you an idea, we shut 14 plants in this country. because the average plant utilization in the united states prior to the recession was at about 70%. so we overproduced to cover our fixed costs. and then we tried, and this is the unnatural act that was being perpetrated. we tried to bend the supply demand curve, so we overproduced to cover these fixed costs, because we were not efficient and thereby we supply too much versus demand and we would dump those cars into rental fleets if the corporate or rental. and so what did that do? it diminished the retail price because when to sell those cars at a lower price. the residual and the cost of

ownership over three to five years, and we destroyed the channel distribution. and it was people were overproducing to hold share, so prices are coming down generally and it was just kind of like a whirlpool. and so we shut down 14 plants, 14 plants. the disruption and the dislocation was pretty significant. in europe today, we shut a plant and when we restructured post parent bankruptcy, and we were profitable. when we were on a road trip we were losing about a billion dollars including restructuring costs and i made able statement i thought we would get back to profitability. we were actually profitable by about 300 odd million in the first half of 2011, and then we lost about that much in the third quarter because when we were going to our crisis last year when we got downgraded as our national debt rating was downgraded and there was a lot of controversy in washington

where we're going to to lift the debt ceiling or was the country going to default, think about we finally got that sorted out. but in europe, they are hearing about potential sovereign debt default, twice a day every morning when they get them before they go to bed. it hurt their customer, the consumer confidence. people stopped buying. we can see. i can say i see it everyday in our sales reports, and so same thing is happening. everybody is, they are doing what we call short weeks where they send them home and there are certain benefit packages, so we still have those plans open. so it's estimate there may be as many as seven to 10 plants access across the entire industry, take it from the volkswagen, mercedes, bmw, fiat, opel, all of them. and we have to kind of right size our operations in order to

to gain, achieve profitability taking. this last year, last year including a write-down of goodwill which is a non-cash charge and restructuring for another 200 no, we lost about 709, a little over $700 million in europe. it is a very troubling situation. we have already taken action to address that. but i think it will be a good maybe you're or two before we can achieve profitability in europe again. we are not giving up on it, and we are in dialogue, discussions with our various constituencies, our dealers, our unions, our management to effect a solution that is satisfactory and optimizes the outcome for us. >> we are discussing the auto industry with dan axon, chairman and ceo of general motors. i'm greg dalton. we have a few minutes left for a few questions. >> i work at silver city, the

nation's largest residential solar installer. about 20 months ago we launched our electric vehicle charging division and it's been drawing quickly. we see a lot of customers think about the energy powering their home is tied to the energy that powers their vehicle. anyway but didn't really exist before. the volt tied you to your customers homes in a way that you really were not before. so how does this affect your company's strategy, and what challenges and opportunities does it present to be so much more tied to your customers home of? >> well, we actually invented, not invented, we invested in a company that may build a little kind of, i'll safely into but it's not really, you drive in and it's got solar panels and driving there and you plug the car in and you're home free. could that happen? >> carport. >> that's a good technical term,

i like it. [laughter] i think, is that a solution. we do a lot of -- like with yourself will come you can put it on a pad. we invested in a company like that. you will see that in our models coming out where you take a phone and you throw it in an giunta rebut the jack and all his other stuff. convenience. you'll see the in our cars in the upcoming years. then someone said why don't we just get one the size of, put on your crotch will and you drive on that? of course then you think of fido walking across a very. [laughter] i mean, you've got to worry about all this stuff. so we are think about everything because, for example, if natural gas is a solution, and i have natural gas in my home, why not choose fuel your car at home? well, i can tell you that wouldn't go down well with exxon and the boys, because all of a sudden they have another form of distribution. but we are thinking like that because you know, once one company solution is another's

bad news. but there may be alternates dashed the alternate plans for distribution in the coming decades. i don't know. but i can take, you would have to pressurize natural gas from a residential be into a car. you'd have to take the pressure off to get in there. and so there are a lot of practical problems that need to be solved or addressed, but we are looking at everything and everything is on the table. whether it is really cars, we'll look at anything that people say well, why would jean do that? well, i think bill is right. we are a company, we have to react to reality we want to predict a future so we can be proactive. so i don't know if it's going to be electric and infused into the architecture of the home or if it's going to be natural gas but i don't think anybody will be

putting nuclear raptors on cars anytime soon. but if they did we would start thinking about it. [laughter] >> you have a charging station in your garage? >> yes, i do and i love. i'll tell you. i have not driven probably, i'd one of the first volt, what we call captured testily. i drove for 2500 miles. i put one-tenth of a gallon of gas in it. we talk to 20 volt owners today and there was one fellow who i driven, 12 months, driven at 13,000 miles and is to lead the initial gas that he got when he bought the car. on your volt it tells you how much you have got. but with the volt i bought about a month ago i had used one-tenth of a gallon of gas. so, you know, you're averaging 90, 100 miles equipment on these cars, and i think that's good news. and if we can get this battery density up, instead of going 40 miles, you will maybe go

240 miles. but the thing that is great about the electric range vehicle, a me, it's this huge step forward in innovation and creativity and ingenuity. but also you can driv try that r from here to florida and back. >> it is not an urban car. it is a car with all those wonderful adjectives, and high degree of utility. you don't have to restrict your thinking. you don't have to have range anxiety. >> let's have our last audience question. spent drop the purple pill in the thing and it will work really well. [laughter] >> mr. akerson, i'm a vietnam era veteran and i understand you were a naval officer that serve off the coast of vietnam. i was wondering if you could say a few words for the naval sailors that are serving off the coast of iran, and what would happen if they engage in military conflict there and gasoline prices rising, how can we just as much higher gasoline prices? >> thank you for your service.

i was in the navy for five years but i did not serve in vietnam. i was in the sixth fleet which was in europe, we faced off against then the soviet union. you know, i think that's beyond my pay grade. i have come i have, unlike a lot of people in this country today, i believe in our political leadership, that they will come to the right decision. i actually think it the benefit of served in the military because i think those are the folks who are the last to want to go to work. and i would think seriously, deeply and hard about committing our young men and women to combat, whether it's iran or vietnam or iraq. and that's the citizen of the. i don't want to bash the i want

to restrict my commentary to my role as ceo of general motors. but i hold these young men and women in the highest regard. it breaks your heart when you hear that, well, they give so much to us. and we are a big sponsor of everything to do with veterans. we have 3000 veterans. we made a choice if someone goes, like when i, back in the day as they say, as i say to my children, when one of our employees goes way, we still pay them at the same, if they're getting paid $3000 a month when they go to, economic, 1000, we will make a the 2000. the benefits will continue. we want them to feel like their families are protected upon that we in conjunction with the uaw, we give to wounded warriors. personally am very involved with veterans affairs. we have a veterans affinity group within the company that is reactive.

we do food baskets and send stuff. we are very active in cell phones for soldiers, everywhere in the country, and we support the wounded -- in fact we saw the army navy game. it's very important that we meet with these wounded veterans. i share your concerns, and pray for peace. >> will have to end it there, and thanks to dan akerson, chairman and ceo of general motors. [applause] i'm greg dalton. thank you all. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to start the day. general speeches at first for an hour or so. legislative work will get underway at about 11 a.m.

eastern with more debate on the transportation programs and projects bill. at noon and will be to an image to be voted on. lawmakers will break for the weekly party caucus lunches between 12:30-2:15 eastern eastern today. majority leader reid has warned senators to expect votes on the remaining 18 or so and maintenance throughout the afternoon. and to live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the chaplain will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious and merciful god, we praise you that none of your purposes can be thwarted. you have been our refuge from

one generation to another. continue to guide our lawmakers may they find fullness of joy in your presence and pleasure forevermore at your right hand. today equip them with what they need to do your will, working in them that which is pleasing in your sight. help them to live today with a sense of accountability to you, understanding that their thoughts, words, and actions are open to your review.

we pray in your merciful 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 13, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher a. coons, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform the duties of the chai. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks this morning the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour. the majority will control the first half. the republicans the second half.

following morning business, we'll resume consideration of the highway bill. there will be two roll caller votes in relation to demint and bingaman amendments at noon. the senate will then recess until 2:15 to allow for our weekly conference meetings. at 2:15 there could be as many as 20 roll call votes this aftermoon to complete action on this transportation bill. i'm told, mr. president, there are two bills at the desk due for second readings. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3606, an act to increase american job creation, economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies. s. 2186, a bill to amend the americans with disabilities ablght of 1990 and so forth. mr. reid: i would object to further proceedings with regard to these two bills. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be posted on the calendar.

mr. reid: mr. president, today we resume consideration of the most important piece of jobs legislation we've had here in a long time, and that's the highway bill. but it's more than a highway bill. it's a surface transportation bill. it deals with all aspects of helping our failing bridges -- there are 70,000 of those. we have 20% of our highways in nonsafe condition. we have problems with our mass transportation system, rails, and other such things. so we have to move forward building this nation's infrastructure with this legislation alone. it will save or create 2.8 million jobs. this is an effort to build a world-class transportation system that was started during the presidency of dwight eisenhower. and every president since then has recognized the need to go forward with the vugs that general ice en-- with the vision

that general eisenhower had. presidents in recent years have gone out of their way to do that. president reagan gave a number of speeches about how important it was that we begin to renew our commitment that we should have to infrastructure in this country. president clinton did the same thing. the legislation is very, very important, and a commitment to the renewal of the vision of general eisenhower is the essence of this bipartisan bill. it has the endorsement of the one the most conservative members of the senate and one the most liberal members of the senate. i was disappointed that it took as long as it did to get where we are, but we're here. we invoked cloture quite a long time ago, and it's taken more than a month to come within sight of the finish for this bill. i'm pleased that we're on track to dispense with the remaining amendments and vote on final passage during today's business.

mr. president, i am hopeful that the house will act immediately to pass this bipartisan compromise rather than pursuing what we've all read about -- the extreme ideological bill they were considering last month. it failed every test but it failed the test of the their own caucus. the republican caucus said, no, we can't do this. the highway bill is important to democratic members and republican members of the house, as it is democratic and republican members of the senate. and i would hope that the speaker understands that it is not gad fo good for this countro have a situation where he tries to pass everything with a majority of the majority. what that means is that the republicans have a majority in the house, but that isn't -- i served in the house, and we -- the way things that were done

with bob michel and tip o'neill and jim wright thereafter. bob michel worked with both of them to get legislation done. they worked to get the number of 218, that's the majority in the house. they got those votes from democrats or republicans. so i hope my friend, the speaker, won't just try to get this surface transportation bill done with republicans. let the democrats voice their opinion. that's the way we should do it. passing a bipartisan transportation bill the president can sign would be a victory for both parties and our country. the senate's pressing business doesn't end with completion of this bill, though. we have a small business jobs bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the house and supported by president obama. and we are -- i had a conversation on the floor publicly here last night with the republican whip, senator kyl of arizona, and we talked about

the need to get this done. and we're going to move forward with this expeditiously. there are obviously bumps in the road and i hope there will be very few bumps in the road. i haven't had an opportunity to talk to my friend, the republican leader, but i was told this morning that the ranking member of the banking committee, my friend from alabama, senator shelby, has indicated that he wants to make some improvements in i think bill we got -- in the bill we got from the house. i suggest he work with senator johnson and they can do something on a bipartisan basis and do it quickly. i'll be happy to take a look at it. we need to move forward. i think you kind of get the message when there's about 390 vote for a bill and 20 against it. so i think we have to move forward on this. the one thing i am going to do is have a perfecting amendment prepared that will allow us to move forward on reauthorizing

ex-im bank. the business community thinks it's extremely important. the head of boeing said that it is a trai tremendously importanl for the airline industry. it is important to other segments of our industrial base. it's an important piece of legislation, and i hope that we can add that to the small business jobs bill. if we can't, i understand that. but it would be a shame to miss that opportunity to do that. we are interested in this i.p.o. bill that has been supported by the house and the president of the united states. i'm convinced it'll spur small business growth. it's not going to create the jobs that we have in the highway bill, but it's good for job growth. it will bring more capital into

the business world and that's what we've needed for several years now. and it would streamline the way companies sell stock. so i look forward to working with my friend, the republican leader, to finalize a path forward on this bipartisan legislation. in the coming days the senate must also consider postal reform legislation, reauthorization of violence against women act, cybersecurity, and additional measures to create jobs and provide for our economy. the only thing preventing the senate from moving quickly to tackle these items, including the bipartisan small business jobs bill is what we've had this whole congress -- obstructionism by my friends, the republicans. they have forced the senate to waste weeks on unrelated amendments to this bill, this bipartisan bill, this surface transportation bill. so i hope they're not going to hold up progress on the small business jobs bill. i'm confident they will not. i really hope that's the case. yesterday i filed cloture on 17

consensus judicial nominations. i've worked with the republicans for months to find a way forward to timely conversation for many of these nominations, including some who have been waiting for up-or-down votes since october. mr. president, i had here today -- i don't have it today; i'll show it to my caucus today -- a visual aid to show what happened in the clinton years, the bush years, and the obama years. it is so clear what's happened. it doesn't fully represent what happened because in the clinton years we had dozens and dozens of nominees that were what we called "pocket vetoed" -- they just wouldn't hold hearings on them. but with the length of time that judges are reported out of committee, clinton a few days, yobush a few days and of course now we're talking about many

months with obama's nominations. that's not fair. they should all be entitled to up-or-down votes, especially when they came out of the committee so overwhelmingly with rare exception. there's no reason that we should eat up one day of precious time that the senate has to pass these commonsense measures. presidenthe senate wants to con8 of president bush -- the senate once confirmed 18 of president bush's nominations in a single day. there's too much to do. the senate doesn't have the luxury to waste anymore time. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: later today the senate is likely to finish the highway bill, and once we do, i listened carefully to the majority leader's remarks --

once we finish the highway bill, we ought to immediately turn to the bipartisan jobs bill that passed the house last thursday. the vote was 390 to 23. let me say that again. the vote in the house was 390 to 23. the president has also indicated he would sign the house bill, so it strikes me with the jobs emergency that we have in this bill with 8.3% unemployment, many more millions of americans having given up trying to get into the workforce, the thing to do is to pocket this broad, bipartisan bill and rye to create jobs immediate -- and try to create jobs immediately. i a heard my friend, the---- i'e heard my friend, the majority leader, say he wants to recraft it. all that will do is slow down the process and make it more difficult to get this important jobs legislation to the president's desk rapidly.

so i hope the majority leader will reconsider whether we need to kind of reinvent the wheel here. i mean, this is already broadly supported, bipartisan bill which the president has said he will sign as soon as we send it to him. i don't know why we would want to make something that is simple extraordinarily complicated. the majority leader has indicated that instead we're going to turn to something contentious instead of trying to do something that almost all of us agree on, certainly in the house, and the president agrees on, that would focus us on jobs and actually do some good. the american people think we spend a lot of time spinning our wheels around here. i think they'd -- rather than sort of try to manufacture gridlock and create the illusion of conflict where none should

exist, why don't we demonstrate we can actually get something done together. in a moment when millions of americans are looking for work and millions more are struggling with the high price of gas, we have an opportunity to do something together right now. as soon as we finish this highway bill. we could send a small but important signal to job creators and innovators that we want to help make it easier for them to hire and later today we'll have another chance to move forward on the keystone x.l. pipeline. despite the president'ses continued stubborn opposition to it, we'll have another vote related to that subject offered by senator pat roberts. the hous bill isn't just important for what it does but for what it also represents. it's a rare and welcome signal that lawmakers in washington still value, the risk takers and the entrepreneurs have always been so vital to our nation's

greatness. after three years of policies that undermine free enterprise through the picking of winners and losers, this legislation sends an entirely different signal. it's a welcome step back in the right direction. by clearing away red tape, it should encourage the kind of entrepreneurship that not only leads to new pockets of industry and the jobs that come with them, but which also helps people fulfill their dreams and without adding to the deficit. this bill doesn't add anything to the federal deficit. this is precisely, mr. president, precisely the kind of thing we should be doing right here in washington. it's the message we should send. we tkphaoepbtd fewer apples -- we don't need fewer apples or microsofts or facebooks. we need more of that. we need them for the value they add to our lives, the edge they

give us in the world economy, the jobs they provide hundreds of thousands of american workers, and for the satisfaction they bring to those who help turn them from an idea into a reality. so let's send this important signal that we still believe in opportunity. we still believe in innovation. and that's -- and that when a common good is in sight, when we can see a common good right before us, we can still work together to actually achieve it. this is so crucial that i want to renew what my colleague, jon kyl, did last night, which is to offer a consent -- i told the majority leader i'm going to do this -- that we turn to this important bipartisan piece of legislation that passed overwhelmingly in the house, supported by the president of the united states, immediately after we finish the highway

bill. let me say again there is no purpose served by manufacturing controversy here in the senate. manufacturing controversy when none should exist. we have an important piece of jobs legislation passed overwhelmingly in the house, supported by the president. the highway bill will clear here late this afternoon or tomorrow. i think most senators would rather be working on things that the american people believe would actually help create jobs than to see the senate embroiled in another controversy which i fear my good friend, the majority leader, is seeking to precipitate as soon as the highway bill is concluded. so, hr-pt, i ask unanimous consent -- so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent not withstanding any other rule of the senate that immediately following the disposition of the pending transportation bill the

senate proceed to consideration of h.r. 3606, a bill received from the house which would increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to public capital markets or emerging growth companies. i further ask consent that the bill remain the pending business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: reserving the right to object. mr. president, i know when people talk, they're always afraid that people aren't listening. maybe my friend, the republican leader, didn't hear my presentation this morning. there's nothing to fight about. i just said we're going to move this bill as quickly as we can. i said that i've heard that the ranking member of the banking committee wants to take a look at this. i encourage him to do so, talk to senator johnson. i said that we're going to have an opportunity on a perfecting amendment to vote on something i

thought everyone wanted. republicans want it. democrats want it. the business community wants it. the workers of this country need it. and it's an ex-im bank, to reauthorize that which goes out of business at the end of may. that will take, it will slow this bill up maybe a half an hour, one half-hour. so, mr. president, there is no -- i've said many times, let's -- if we're going to have a fight, make it over something worthwhile. there's nothing to fight about here. we're going to move through this as quickly as we can. we know under the raoufls of the senate we have -- rules of the senate we have to vote on 17 judges which have been held up, one goes back to october of last year. i would be happy to get rid of all those judges, to have them approved, move to this bill. we're going to move to this bill just as quickly as possible. but my friend, the republican leader, spoke volumes.

this is a small but important bill. we realize that. those are his words. this is an i.p.o. bill dealing with initial public offerings. we've heard for months and months that small businesses can't find capital to do the things they need to do. this bill is a step in that direction. i support it. my caucus will support it. i tell everyone within the sound of my voice, we're going to move to this bill just as quickly as we can. and i object. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, not to continue the debate -- the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: not to continue the debate interminably, but it is a question of priorities. we do agree that we ought to pass this jobs bill. certainly if it were called up, it would be open for amendment, and the majority leader could offer the ex--im bank. it's a question of priorities. we've had some differences which

i'll address later, not now but later, relating to the confirmation of judges and the responsibility of the senate under the constitution of the united states, or do we want to turn immediately to a jobs bill that we overwhelmingly agree to as the majority leader has just conceded in his remarks. so it's a question of priorities. do you want to have the senate in a big fight in procedure off we finish the highway bill or do you want to turn to an overwhelmingly bipartisan jobs bill supported by the president, passed by the house? it's a question of priorities. what do we want to do next for the american people? mr. reid: mr. president, i am stunned by our controversy over nothing. under the rules of the senate, we filed, because there's been stalling, obstruction on the lives 17 men. i didn't file on the appellate judges. only the trial court judges.

each one of these men and women life has been brought to a standstill. they have the opportunity of a lifetime to be able to become a federal trial court judge. they shouldn't have to wait until october. i say to my friend, let's -- we can approve these judges in one minute. let's do that. it's not fair just to say that the lives these 17 men and women is unimportant, put it over until some later time. we have no problem with the i.p.o. bill we got from the house. how could we? it got 390 votes in the house. the president of the united states supports it. we support it. we want to get this done, and we'll do it just as quickly as we can. it may not be ten minutes from now or 24 hours from now, but we'll move to it just as quickly as we can. but we can move to it very quickly. as soon as we finish this highway bill, we could move to those judges, get those disposed

of. we could be on this -- it might take an hour after the highway bill, but that's about all. mr. leahy: mr. president? would the senator yield to me? mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. reid: be happy to yield. mr. leahy: i wonder when we talk about, mr. president, when we talk about the american people want, i'm sure the majority leader -- and i'd ask, and this is a question -- where there is 160 million americans who are in judicial districts where there are vacancies because we have not, even though they have gone through the senate judiciary committee, the majority leader's been blocked from bringing them up for a vote. 160 million americans who are denied a chance for justice, denied a chance to go to court. so i ask the leader: was that also one of the considerations he had, moving forward on these

judges? mr. reid: mr. president, i say to the chairman of the judiciary committee, i mentioned this yesterday at some length, and i believe the presiding officer was here when i did that. we -- more than half of the people in america today are living in areas where there has been declared a judicial emergency. nevada is one of them. we have people who are these judges who are overwhelmed with work. and i said yesterday i don't want these judges to have to act as if they were night court judges dealing with traffic cases. these are, as i said yesterday, these judges deal with what we used to traoefr when i practiced -- refer to when i practiced law, what are you trying to do? make a federal case out of it? they say that because there is no finer law dispensing anyplace in the world than in our federal court system. you can't do that when these men and women are overwhelmed with work. on the circuit court level that,'s one thing. it's too bad they're overwhelmed

with work. but on the trial court level, you're dealing with everyday problems people have with accidents, with antitrust cases, with businesses having gone bankrupt and all the other things that the federal court has jurisdiction over. and my friend is absolutely right. we should not only be concerned about the 17 people who have been selected by the president of the united states to be a judge after having gotten a signoff from the republican senator in their state. i should have talked not only about them individually, but what they represent. and that is trying to do something about the emergencies that exist for more than half of americans. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i think that colloquy underscores my point. my friends on the other side are concerned that the jobs of 17 individuals may be delayed for a few months. i doubt if any of them are unemployed at the moment. and this is -- and it's highly unlikely that any of these individuals will not be

confirmed in an orderly process as we have been engaged in this year. the issue is a question of priorities. what is more important? getting these 17 individuals into a job a little bit quicker than the majority has experienced so far? or turning to a measure whoefrplgly supported by -- overwhelmingly supported by republicans and democrats in the house, supported by the president of the united states that might create in the very near future hundreds of thousands of jobs? it is a question of priority. that is why i say this is a manufactured dispute. i have much, much more in great detail to say about the judges issue, but for the moment the point is this, quite simply, what are our priorities? do we want to pass an overwhelming bipartisan jobs bill the president supports as soon as possible, certainly open for any amendment the majority leader might seek to offer?

or do we want to create a controversy over judges that are almost never denied confirmation when we have been confirming judges all along? i don't know there's much point to continuing this discussion any longer this morning. i'll have a lot more to say about how we ended up in a situation where the majority leader is seeking to manufacture a crisis that shouldn't -- a conflict or crisis that really doesn't exist. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: my friend, the republican leader, said these judges are going to be approved anyway. so i've got an idea. let's go to the i.p.o. bill immediately after finishing the highway bill with the agreement we'll dispose of these judges immediately after that. sounds good to me. i'm happy to do that. mr. leahy: mr. president, i -- mr. reid: my friend, how about

that? before my friend leaves, how about a deal on that? we'll go to that as soon as we finish this highway bill. we will move to the i.p.o. bill, and as soon as we finish that, get it out of the senate, we will then have up-or-down votes on those 17 judges. this does not include an agreement on the appellate judges. we'll deal with those at a subsequent time. how about that deal? i say again to my friend, i would hope that what we could do is when we finish the highway bill, go to the i.p.o. bill. and then as soon as we finish that, have an up-or-down vote on these judges. i'd be happy to work in any reasonable fashion. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: look, we have been discussing -- this is not the best time for the debate on the judges. but the point is this: we have been processing judges.

it is highly unlikely any of these district judges are not going to be confirmed. we've done a number of them this year. we've done seven this year. district judges are almost never defeated. this is just a very transparent attempt to try to slam dunk the minority and make them look like they're obstructing things they aren't obstructing. we object to that. we don't think that meets the standard of civility that should be expected in the senate. so any effort to make the minority look bad or slam dunk them that is manufactured as this is, is going to of course be greeted with resistance. it could be that is precisely what my friend the majority leader has in mind, to try to make the senate look like it's embroiled in controversy where no controversy exists. so my suggestion is, why don't we do first things first. first things first. and it strikes me that an

overwhelming bipartisan jobs bill cleared in the house would be something the american people would applaud, supported by the president. why don't we take that up. the majority leader can offer -- any of us can offer amendments we think are appropriate and move it toward passage because that is the kind of thing that people expect of us. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: it is obvious that the jobs bill has nothing to do with the holding up of these judges, as has been articulated by my friend. it is just a case of stalling things, as has happened all this congress. we have, as indicated, more than half the american people are in areas where there's judicial emergencies. it's important we get this disptiodispensization of justic. the controversy on the i.p.o.

bill does not exist. i would suggest to my friend, though, i don't think we should have a -- if this bill is so important -- and i believe it is -- though we have very many things to do -- the post, don't want it to go broke; we have the violence americans women to get done; we have all these judges, of course; we have cybersecurity. so if we move quickly and i'm going to move quickly to this i.p.o. bill, i can't imagine why we would need any amendments. i can offer a perfecting amendment and that would be to find out if the body, who feels strongly about what they've said publicly, that the ex-im bank should be part of the deal. that takes about 15 minutes. but in addition to that, we're not going to have a knock down,

drag out on the i.t. p.o. if everybody loves it so much, we should get to the desk just as fast as we can. hay lay i listened witmr. leahyh interest to the colloquy between the majority leader and the minority leader. i think the american people almost see a kabuki dance because the fact is the majority leader is right to seek the -- to seek votes on these district courts. he seeks to secure senate votes for 17 highly qualified federal district court nominations, favorably reported by the judiciary committee. they're being blocked by senate republicans. and i wish that we should find a way to stop these damaging filibusters. they're total lit unprecedented

-- they're totally unprecedented. it is damaging greatly the most respected court system in the world, our federal court system. that means that americans are not getting the justice without delay that they are entitled to. i have been here 37 years. republican presidents, democratic presidents, republican majorities, democratic majorities -- never in that 37 years have we seen district court nominees blocked for months, as we've seen since president obama was elected. these kind of consensus nominees are normally taken up within a few days or a week after being voted out -- after being nominated and voted out of our judiciary committee. it was certainly the approach taken by senate democrats when president bush sent his

consensus nominees. as a result, we were able to reduce vacancies in the presidential election years of 2004 and 2008 to the lowest levels. we confirmed 205 of president bush's judicial nominees in his first term. and for those that want to understand where the partisanship it, those first 48 months of president bush's first term, a little by the o bit of . 31 months of those 48, republicans controlled the senate. 17 months, democrats controlled the senate. to show that we wanted to set aside partisanship, in our 17 months that we were in control, we confirmed 100 of president

bush's nominees. now, in the 31 months that republicans were in charge, they did more. they did 105. so the fact is, we actually moved a lot faster on president bush's nominees than the republicans did. i was chairman, and i tried to do that just to get us away from what we'd seen where republicans had pocket-filibustered 60 of president clinton's nominees. i wanted to get back to where we took the federal courts out of politics. but we see now a complete reversal of this. senate republicans ensure that nominees from the past would be confirmed promptly by the senate are now blocked for months. an unprecedented number of president obama's highly qualified men and women to district courthedistrict court n

targeted for obstruction while extreme outside groups tarnish their reputations with invented controversies. it is unprecedented. it hurts our system of justice in this country. now, two weeks ago at a meeting of the senate judiciary committee, the senator from utah conceded a new standard is being applied to president obama's nominations. he is saying what has been apparent from the start of president obama's term: the republican senators have applied a different and unfair standard to president obama's judicial nominees. mr. president, i was here with preyepresident ford, president carter, president reagan, president george h.w. bush, president w. bush.

the republicans have set a different standard to president obama than has been applied to any other presidents since i have been here. what is so different about this president that he is treated to a different, tougher standard than any of the presidents before him? i just -- i just ask. and when i hear republican senators claim there's no obstruction and there is no reason for the majority leader to push for votes on these nominations, i wonder if they've looked at our recent history. i spoke of president bush's first term. 57 of his district court nominations were confirmed within one week of being favorably reported by the judiciary committee -- one week. in stark contrast to those 57, only five of president obama's district court nominations have been confirmed within one week

of being reported. less than 1/10 the number of president bush's. and three had been pending the previous year when republicans refused to consent to votes for them. they had to be renominated and reported a second time. more than half of the nominations on which the leader has now filed cloture have been pending since last year, many months, not days. i believe it is -- at least i'll praise the senator from utah for his honesty. this president is set to a different standard than all the presidents before him. somehow we've said that president obama must meet a different standard than the presidents before him. mr. president, i find that reprehensible. it means that his nominees are being treated differently than any president, democrat or republican be, before him. therit is no accident that one t

of every 10 judgeships remains vacant in president obama's first term. a few years after republican senators insisted that filibusters of presiden presides nominees were unconstitutional, they reversed course and filibustered president obama's very first judicial nomination; again, a different standard for president obama than was applied to any president before him. that is wrong, mr. president. that is wrong. that is turning your back on the majority of americans who voted for president obama in the last election, americans from all across the country of all backgrounds, of all races, of all religions. you're turning your back on them by saying, you may have elected him, but we're going to hold him to a different standard. it is wrong. i have more here, and i will ask

consent that my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i hope the republicans and democrats can join together to put an end to this damaging pattern of obstruction and filibusters. it hurts our federal courts. it is a disrr disrespect to the president of the united states. it goes way beyond partisanship. but it's wrong. and it demeans this great body that we're all privileged to serve in. it's the sort of thing i never thought i would see in the senate of the united states. i say that based on 37 years of experience, with senators that i've admired and publicly stated that i admire in both parties. this is wrong. let's go back to letting the senate be the consciou consciene

nation, not a body that threects -- that reflects some of the worst instincts of our nation. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator suspend? under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. there will now be a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to peek -- to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the time divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. leahy: unless the senator from california wishes -- mr. president, i would yield to the senator from california. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you very much. i just thought i could give the senators and those who may be following this very elongated debate on the highway bill an update as to where we are. we have a managers' package that we're hoping to approve

momentarily. it is a bipartisan package. we continue to work across the aisle. and under the consent, we want to move forward with that. we had a by th bit of a holdup yesterday. we're working to find out why, but we're very hopeful that that will move forward. then we have a series of votes on amendments, beginning at about noon. so at 11:30 or so we'll be back on the bill. and i just wanted to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and my friends on this side of the aisle that we are making great progress. this is a jobs bill. this is a major jobs bill. this is the biggest jocks bill. now, they passed an i.p.o. bill over there in the house. eric cantor is saying it is a jobs bill. i don't know how many jobs it will create. it's an investor bill. it's good. i'm for t bu it.

but it doesn't come anywhere close to the bill we're working on today. because on march 31, if we do not act on this transportation bill, everything will come to a screeching halt, if i might use that analogy. because there won't be a gas tax anymore going into the federal trust fund, highway trust fund; there won't be any funds going from the federal government to the various planning organizations in all of our states and communities. and all of us know that since the days of president eisenhower, we've had a national system for roads, for bridges and so on, and highways. so we have a lot of work to do here. and i wapt want to say, we are y close to the day when everything will stop. so i think we're making great progress. i know the majority leader and the minority leader talked about finishing this bill today. that means a lot of cooperation

because we've got to get through about 20 amendments, plus the managers' packages. i think we can do it. i know we can do it. and then, frankly, we can actually go home and tel tell or people that we voted on a huge jobs bill. how huge? we're going to to protect 1.8 million americans and a lot of construction jobs. and i've often told that th peot the u unemployment rate is high. god bless this president. he's worked so hard on making sure that we have set the table for job growth, and we've had terrific job growth. but even with that 200,000-plus jobs created last month, construction jobs actually went down. so we're looking at an industry

here that's in a great deal of trouble. it is because of the housing market. it still is not stabilized. and until we solve our housing crisis -- and, again, the administration and the congress, we're trying to do everything we can to allow people to stay in their homes so we don't keep having these defaults and houses on the markets and short sales and all the rest. once that's behind us, we'll see a whole new day for construction. but that day isn't here. so the last thing we should do -- and i might say it would be a dereliction of our duty if we fail to pass this bill, because we will save 1.8 million jobs. that's how many people are working today as a result of our ongoing transportation action here. we have to save that. and then because of some very good work done in my home state, particularly los angeles, we've

come up with a new way to create an additional million jobs, by leveraging a program called the tifia program, stands for transportation infrastructure financing. and what it means is that as our states and as our local areas pass, say, a sales tax to build transit systems or roads or highways, we can come in as a federal government and front that money, do it at virtually zero risk and leverage these funds 30-fold. so what we would have is in this bill we would be protecting 1.8 million jobs and creating up to a million new jobs because of the tifia program. and i want to say this bill is a bipartisan effort, hugely bipartisan. i just talked to senator inhofe late last evening. we talked about the fact that we

don't want to see it held up anymore. we talked about the fact that we want to move it through, we're going to move it through, and we are very pleased. and anyone who follows politics knows that senator inhofe is one of the most conservative members of the senate, and i am one of the most liberal members of the senate. and we are both very proud of who we are. we're very comfortable with who we are. and we know when it comes to environmental issues, we do not see eye to eye. and i'm not going to get into that because we'll have many more opportunities for everyone to see how we disagree on clean air and clean water and safe drinking water and super fund and climate change and all of this. but we set it aside to do a highway bill, and we are hopeful that this will become a template for all of us in the senate and the house to find the sweet spot where we can work together.

we're on the, just right here. a little bit more work, and we know we've done our job. and it could come today. i hope it will come today. it will come late today, because there's many, many amendments to get through. i want to just make my last comment about what's happening in the house. the house passed an i.p.o. bill, initial public offering, and i support that approach. i think it would be a great way to get more capital into the hands of businesses who will then use it to hire people. it's a good bill. we want to work on it. we're going to work on it. but the house has done nothing about a transportation bill. speaker boehner has tried. he's had many efforts to bring people to the table, but the trouble is he's only brought to the table one political party. we've got to work together on this. i could never have gotten this bill where it is, and neither could senator inhofe, if we

stood in our corners and concentrated on the areas where we have disagreement. there were plenty of those, but we set those aside. i want to say to the members of the house over there, there is a secret to success, and that is taking your hand and reaching it across the aisle and finding common ground with your colleagues. and you'd be surprised. so if you lose a bunch of republicans and a bunch of democrats, you still have enough to get a bill through. and our bill, though not perfect, really does what we have to do. we protect 1.8 million jobs mostly in construction. we create up to 1 million jobs. we take a bill that had 90 different programs and brought them down to 30 different programs. we have in the managers' package a very bipartisan list of issues that we've resolved. so i will be back on the floor

probably within an hour to debate the two amendments that will be pending -- the bingaman amendment and the demint amendment. and i will speak out on those amendments. and, mr. president, i want to thank you for all your support. you have been a real good friend and you have helped us move this bill forward. and i know this bill is important to your home state of delaware. it's important to tennessee. it's important to california. i have the list of jobs by state that we would lose if we fail to act. that's the bad news. the good news is we're going to act. and i will be back in short order to speak about the amendments. thank you very much. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: would it be problem to speak in morning

business? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. alexander: thank you. i listened with great interest to the senator from california. i thank her for her hard work on the transportation bill and her work with senator inhofe. i listened especially to her on her comments that it would be good for us to work together. it reminds me of the new speaker in the house of representatives in tennessee, a woman named beth harwell. she does a pretty good job, and she often reminds her colleagues in the tennessee legislature that the first lesson they all learned in kindergarten is work well together. and that's a good lesson for us as well. i'm here this morning to take four or five minutes simply to talk about a development that i think interferes with that. i came to the senate floor with a group of republicans and democrats not long ago, and we praised the majority leader,. mr. reid:, and the -- the majority leader senator reid and the republican leader senator mcconnell for working together to bring the appropriations

bills to the floor. we said we're going to work together to help them do that. we tphreuplt them also for -- we compliment them also for the work on the transportation bill. mr. alexander: we're here to offer our ideas and to make votes. but it was disappointing to me to see yesterday that senator reid, the majority leader, announce that he had filed 17 cloture petitions on district judges. i'm here today simply as one senator to say respectfully to the majority leader i hope he will reconsider and not do that. that's an unprecedented action. it's never happened like that before. only in the history of the senate before 2011 has the majority leader filed cloture petitions on district judges only three times. what happens with district judges in the history of the senate is, number one, they come up, they get a vote. there's never been a successful filibuster of a district judge

in the history of the united states senate. let me emphasize that. there has never been a successful attempt to deny an up-or-down vote to a district judge in the history of the united states senate. and there were enough republicans -- and i was one of them -- last year with a judge from rhode island, judge mcconnell, who many felt shouldn't abjudge. we did not take the opportunity to deny a up-or-down vote and he was confirmed even though many on this side didn't think he ought to be a judge. so we don't have a problem with filibustering district judges, and we've never had a problem with filibustering district judges at least given the present composition of the senate. so what's the issue here? senator reid, the majority leader, has said quite properly yesterday in his remarks, we've got important work to do. we've got a jobs bill coming over from the house. we've got a postal service that's in debt. we've got cybersecurity and we're having long briefings on that because of the threat. and the majority and minority

leaders, as i said, are working to bring the appropriations bills to the floor. we've only done that twice since the year 2000, all 12 of them. so this is a little disagreement that we have here between the majority leader and the republican leader on the scheduling of votes on district judges. it's not a high constitutional matter. it's not even a high principle. it's not even a big disagreement. it's a little disagreement, because what's always happened is the back and forth of scheduling, they work it out. and they have been working it out. i took a look at the last three years. in the first two years of president obama's administration, he nominated 78 district judges and 76 of those judges were confirmed. they were confirmed. 76 of 78 in the first two years. he withdrew two. then last year 61 more district judges were confirmed. what about this year?

what about about 2012? the president's made a few nominations, but they haven't been considered yet by the judiciary committee. so where are we in 2012? we have 17 district court judgeships that have been recommended by the judiciary committee. they could be brought up by the majority leader. he has the right to do that. but of those 17, six of them -- six of them -- have been here for less than 30 days. they just got here, mr. president. that leaves 11. how long have they been there? they came in october, november and december of last year and normally they would have been included in a year-end clearing. but everybody knows what happens. the president decideed to violate the reid rule, which says that you don't make recess appointments during three-day pro forma sessions. that was invented by the majority leader of the united states senate, senator reid.

president bush didn't like it but he respected it. but president obama violated it, and it blue up the year-end clearing of a number of nominees, including district judges. so we have some district judges who are waiting to be confirmed, but we don't have many. and we have a history during the first two years of this president of confirming 76 out of 78, and last year 61, and this year of the 17, the majority leader filed a petition on, six just got here. that leaves 11. what do we do about that? i think the right thing to do is for the majority leader and the republican leader to listen to what the senator from california just said, to listen to the speaker from tennessee, beth harwell who suggests work well together, that rather than escalating this into a high principle, a big disagreement, that this retire to one of their offices and they sit down

quietly and they take a time-out and they work this out. that's the way it's always been done in the united states senate. we're only talking about 11 judges, and they haven't been around that long, less than five months. and we all know why they were delayed a little bit. and the president can take just as much responsibility as anybody. in testimony this week the attorney general acknowledged that the issue of the recess appointments on january 4 is a serious constitutional issue that needs to be decided by the courts. we're taking it to the courts. we haven't tried to stop the action of the senate even though we regard it as a great offense to checks and balances and separations of powers. and i would respectfully suggest that it's not a good time for the majority leader to take a small disagreement and escalate it into a big one, jeopardizing our ability to deal with the big issues on jobs, cybersecurity, postal service and others.

it wouldn't reflect well on the 23 reed running for the -- 23 reed running for democratic senate seats this year. it wouldn't reflect well on 11 republicans running this year. it wouldn't reflect well on the president. the american people want to see us get results. why should we give them one more reason to suspect that just because we can't agree on little issues, that we're unable to agree on the big issues? i know majority leader is a tough job, and i know there's a good deal of back and forth every day. but the majority leader has been on both sides of this. i suspect that if he and the republican leader were to sit down and look over the actual numbers and realize it's just 11 judges -- we did two last week or end of the week before. but they could schedule the others and we could spend our time starting tomorrow not on picking a fight with one another on a small disagreement, but on

jobs, debt, postal service, cybersecurity and the big issues the american people would like for us to deal with. i ask consent to include following my remarks, some documentation about the progress of district judge nominations in the 111th and 112th congress, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. officer without objection. mr. menendez: i have four unanimous consent request for committees to meet during

today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask that i be able to speak up to ten minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. tees dos i come tmr. menendez: k about an amendment that i will offer later. what if i were to tell you that there was a transportation fuel that is over $1.50 cheaper than gasoline and roughly $2 cheaper than diesel? what if i were to tell you this fuel is also cleaner and has fewer pollutants than diesel and if widely used could reduce cases of asthma? what if i could tell you this was abundant here in america, so much so that we may soon become one of the world's largest exporters of this fuel?

mr. president, i think i might hear you say sign me up, which is the name -- what is the name of this wonderful fuel? the name of this fuel is natural gas. you can see in this chart that as gasoline prices are already skyrocketing towards $4 per gallon, the price of compressed natural gas is barely above $2 per gallon equivalent. natural gas prices used to follow oil prices, but now they're on their own stable inexpensive price levels. and the same holds true for liquefied natural gas. as you can see here, gas prices here; liquefied natural gas down here. diesel prices now exceed $4 and l.n.g. is still hovering around $2 a gallon equivalent. so why aren't we all driving around in natural gas vehicles paying a little over $2 per gallon equivalent? the reason this inexpensive fuel

is not widely used is because there are not many natural gas vehicles in the united states, and there are also very few places to refuel. currently there are nearly 14 million natural-gas vehicles in the world, but only about 117,000 in the united states. the car and truck manufacturers want to see that natural-gas utilities will invest in refueling infrastructure, and the natural-gas utilities want to see more natural-gas vehicles on the road. so it's a classic chicken or the egg problem. what both the manufacturers and the utilities need to see is a strong stance by the federal government to jump-start this market. the nat gas act will do just that by jump starting the industry and in ten years add over 700,000 natural-gas vehicles to our roads and help incentivize the installation of

refueling stations around the nation. in addition, it is estimated that the bill will displace over 20 billion gallons of petroleum fuel and create over one million direct and indirect jobs i. know that some of my colleagues are thinking isn't this just another handout to energy companies. and the answer to that question is a resounding "no." this legislation is fully paid for with a small fee on natural gas used as a vehicle fuel. as i mentioned earlier, natural gas is over $1.50 cheaper than gasoline or diesel. this amendment would use some of those savings to help overcome the market barriers for natural gas vehicles and supporting infrastructure. the fee starts at 2.5 cents per gallon, equivalent in 2014, and grows to be 12.5 cents in 2020

and 2011. and in 2022 the fee is eliminated. in this way, we can still keep natural gas less expensive than other fuel options while investing in infrastructure to help grow the market, make natural gas vehicles cheaper. while the legislation itself is designed to provide a temporary boost, it's important to note that natural-gas supplies we are sitting on are enormous. north america's natural-gas resource discoveries have more than doubled over the past four years, meaning that at the current rate of consumption, this resource could supply current consumption for over 100 years. and if we do not use our natural gas here in america, it will be exported abroad, benefitting consumers in other countries while american families will continue to pay higher prices at

the pump. already one u.s. facility has received a permit to export natural gas and four more are following suit. we can use that natural gas here in the united states to displace oil that we are sending trillions of dollars abroad to countries that are despotic, wish us ill. or we can export it so that other countries can gain the benefits. i say we use it here. the nat gas act will also increase our nation's energy independence and make us less dependent on regimes that do not have america's interest at heart. this is especially important at a time when iran is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon and threatening to block oil supplies. natural gas is not the only solution, but it can an important part of a solution where that will allow us to ignore future opec threats because we have alternative to oil. but until we get to the point -- to that point, we need to do all we can to supplant oil.

it's also important to note that natural-gas vehicles are an important way to improve air quality. according to the e.p.a., natural gas as a vehicle fuel has very low emissions of ozone-forming hydrocarbons, toxics and carbon monoxide. by producing less of these harmful emissions natural gas vehicles can reduce smog in cities and lower incidents of asthma and lung cancer. these health benefits are one reason why los angeles county has made almost its entire fleet of 2,200 buses run on compressed natural gas. now, let me talk about one thing some are concerned about. while natural gas vehicles can have important environmental and health benefits, we must also keep in mind that natural gas is still a fossil fuel and there are serious risks that need to be weighed when it is extracted. for that reason, i think we can do, and need to do better to regulate a practice called fracking. i also believe these risks mean

certain environmentally sensitive areas should be off limits for fracking and i'll continue to work with colleagues such as senator casey to better form hrat rules to protect our drinking water from possible contamination. at the same time we should not kid ourselves, this amendment will not cause natural-gas vehicles to be the main driver of natural-gas demand, and fracking is used to extract oil as well. so voting against this amendment will not reduce the amount of fracking. we cannot let this opportunity slip by to use this cheaper fuel to increase our energy security, improve our air quality and relieve the pain at the pump. it is time to put in place the temporary fully-paid-for incentives of the nat-gas act to follow the natural gas industry to flourish. just remember, if you vote against this amendment, you cannot go home and tell your constituents that you have done everything you can to reduce gas prices. i hope our colleagues will join

us when the time comes to offer the amendment on the floor and to support it. and with that, mr. president, i see the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i want to speak for a moment about an important issue that is going to be addressed on the highway bill, and i have an amendment that would basically say you cannot toll a federal highway unless it is for the production of another free lane. so it is an effort to curb a state from tolling every lane of a highway that has been built with federal dollars by federal

taxpayers. when president eisenhower established the policy that we would have a national highway system, it was really for national security that he made this monumental policy decision which has taken us years, tens of years to complete. it has had the added advantage of commerce, of course, having a national highway system where all of our states are connected with good quality federal highways has been a huge boon for our country. that has been funded through highway user fees. the gasoline tax that everyone pays at the pump in our country has funded our federal highway system. however, mr. president, the highway system has now been completed.

the federal highway system. for a state to come in and toll every lane of a federal highway is not only disingenuous but it really breaks the faith with the federal taxpayers who for over 50 years have paid into the highway trust fund so that we would have a federal highway system for all americans and for the commerce among our states to use. now we have -- frankly, we have got three states that have been approved by the highway division, the department of transportation to do exactly what i would like to prohibit, and that is toll lanes of a federal highway that would prohibit the free use of that lane -- that whole highway that has been built with federal dollars. so my amendment would keep us

from going beyond the three. the amendment is two, i would extend it to three because there are three that the department of transportation has approved but i want to stop this practice. it is wrong. it is wrong for the federal government to allow it. it is wrong for the states to ask for it. we need to allow actually the opposite, and that is the opt out ability for a state to say we want to spend our highway dollars the way we believe the priority should be spent, and that's what we ought to be doing. and i want to say that i don't disagree with tolls that are going to create a new free lane. that would keep the faith of the people. it would expand the system and the people would be paying to expand the system. that can be done in an effective and frankly a responsible way.

senator portman has put in an amendment that i would support except that he goes a little bit too far. senator portman and senator coburn have amendments that would allow an opt-out from the whole federal highway fund which includes transit. i think that goes too far. i have a bill that would allow the opt-out of states that would be able to spend their highway funds the way they believe the priorities are. but the 20% of the highway trust fund that goes for transit i think should be able to be kept for the urban areas that need that kind of bus transportation and also of course we have the funding for transit that is rail, and i think we ought to be able to keep that at the federal

level to determine what are the worthy grants. that's what the highway trust fund now does. the portman amendment would take that away and put it into the state highway departments, and that would sound good on the surface, but knowing that the highway departments have in general -- certainly i can speak from my state's experience, they have not focused on or prioritized mass transit, which is one of the reasons why our cities in texas are clogged and in houston and dallas and san antonio it's getting worse and worse and austin, and i would like to see those cities be assured that transit funding would go forward as it is envisioned, or i would be happy to amend my bill to say that the 20% of transit funding could be opted out but it would have to

go for transit funding in the states and the states could then set the priorities, but it would not be shortchanged by the highway departments that have not prioritized mass transit. so i think we need to work a little bit more. i couldn't support the portman amendment the way it's written, but i would like to gather the people who believe that we should have an opt-out of our highway funds and get a stronger mass which i think senator coburn and senator portman would do if they would just take the transit out so that the states that have transit funding needs would get their funding back for those transit needs and it would be designated for those purposes. so i think we have some work to do. i'd like to support the portman amendment but not in the present form that it's in, but i'm hoping that down the road other states will want to be able to opt out as well. but for now, i hope that we will

be able to stop the tolling of our federal highways as a first step to keep the faith with the american taxpayers who for 50 years have built the federal highway system and deserve to be able to drive to any state on a federal highway without being shut out by a state that decides to put a toll on it for their own purposes. these are federal highways built with federal tax dollars, and they should be open to every taxpayer in america to drive or use those freeways for commerce, and i hope that my amendment will be considered. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from california. a senator: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1813 which the clerk will report. the clerk: 1-6789s 1813 what bill to reauthorize federal i'd highway and federal construction programs and for other purposes. mrs. boxer: i know senator bingaman is here so i'll make a quick unanimous consent request that the time until noon be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, there be two minutes equally divided prior to each vote, and that all votes after the first

vote following the recess be ten-minute votes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: i yield the floor. mr. bingaman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: i believe the second amendment we'll be voting on here right after lump or right after noon is -- lunch or right after the noon is the amendment senator durbin and i are proposing relating to a privatized toll road. when a state privatizes an existing toll road it shifts to the company all responsibilities for operations and maintenance in exchange for a cash payment essentially. under existing law, privatized toll roads are still included in the calculation of how much state receives in federal highway funds. in my view, it does not make

good sense for a state to be credited with federal highway funding needed to maintain that road once it has been shifted out of the public sphere to a private entity. and the private entity has taken on the legal responsibility to operate and maintain the road. the amendment would simply remove these privatized toll roads from consideration when we allocate highway funds. the amendment is very narrow, it applies only when a state sells off an existing tell road. it does not apply at all to any new construction. now, when i say it sells off an existing toll road, i mean that it enters into a lease in most cases a lease of 75 years or more to a private entity to operate a toll road and collect the tolls and maintain the road. the amendment has the support of

the american automobile association, the american trucking association k associations -- associations, i think it is good legislation and it also has the support of the owner-operators independent drivers association and the american highway users alliance. this is a modest change in the law governing the allocation of federal funds for highways, but i think it is a commonsense proposal that should be supported by the members of the senate. i hope very much that we can adopt this amendment when it comes to a vote. as i say, it is not the first vote that we are going to consider, the first amendment we are going to consider to this bill. rather, it is the second of the two votes. prior to the recess for -- for the weekly caucuses. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of

a quorum. oh, excuse me. i withhold that request for absence of a quorum. i ask unanimous consent to call up the amendment i've just been speaking about, amendment numbered 1759, ask that the clerk report the amendment by number. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from new mexico, mr. bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 1759. mr. bingaman: i ask that any further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bingaman: i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. demint: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to say a few words

about the first amendment that will be voted on. the presiding officer: the senator is reminded we're in a quorum call. the presiding officer: thank you. i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. demint: you'd think after six or seven years i'd remember that, but slow learner. thanks again for the opportunity to talk about the amendment we call the transportation empowerment act. this is actually legislation that's been worked on for over ten years. our ranking member, senator inhofe, helped to develop this legislation, and it's essentially the same as when he introduced it ten years ago. and he pointed out that he had long believed that the best decisions are those made at the local level. unfortunately, many of the transportation choices made by cities and states are governed by federal rules and regulations. this bill returns to the states the responsibility and resources to make their own transportation

decisions. those are senator inhofe's words. and i think we all know as a nation that we're not going to solve our spending and debt problem unless we're willing to begin to move some public services from washington back to the states where they can be done more effectively and less expensively. one of those public services is transportation. i would just point out today the transportation department here at the federal level was formed almost 60 years ago to build our inta state -- interstate highway system. the problem now is 18 cents out of every gallon of gasoline that's sold comes to washington and the majority of states get back less than they send. we have i think what could be

called an infrastructure crisis in america, he roads and bridges are decaying everywhere and we're behind on our maintenance and the building of new roads. so it's obvious that what we're doing is not working. the underlying bill instead of solving the problems with real reforms is just adding to what we're spending above the trust fund, above the 18 cents, without any real reforms to make the system work better. so i think i can conclude that the current transportation finance system is broken. since 2007, rather than evaluate 2r50u infrastructure -- true infrastructure priorities and attempt to live within our means by eliminating special interest programs, congress has bailed out the highway trust fund to the tune of $35 billion. with the pending reauthorization, the trust fund will require a bailout of another $13 billion. at the end of this big spending

two-year reauthorization, congress will be back at the drawing board scrambling for additional budgetary gimmicks and offsets to keep this charade from imploding. if this was a traditional six-year highway bib, at this -- bill, at this rate of spending it would require a bailout of $39 billion from the general fund. there is a better way. it's time to get the washington bureaucracy and costly regulations out of the way and empower states to be the primary decisionmakers for their own local and state infrastructure. my amendment allows for states to keep their gas taxes and set their own priorities while avoiding an additional layer of washington bureaucracy. we should devolve the federal highway program from washington to the states. we can dramatically cut the federal gas tax to a few pennies which would be enough to fund the limited number of highway

programs that serve a clear national purpose. in return, states could adjust their own gas taxes to make their own construction and repair decisions without costly rules such as davis-bacon regulations and without having to funnel the money through washington's wasteful bureaucracy and some self-serving politicians. my amendment would free states from the wasteful and corrupt davis-bacon act which needlessly focuses or forces the government to pay labor union wages for construction projects. davis-bacon harms workers who choose not to join unions and it raises the cost to taxpayers, last year by nearly $11 billion. our nation's fiscal situation is perilous with a $15 trillion debt set to double to $30 trillion in the next decade.