into this mess, and we'll never get out of it if we don't embrace bold commonsense reforms. mr. president, i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and empower the states by giving them the flexibility they need to maintain their infrastructure. and if i could just take a second to summarize, i know some members have just stepped in, is this is legislation that's been under development for many, many years. it's one that has been talked about by the states with over half of our states as what we consider donor states. if we were able to not only remove the federal bureaucracy but also the regulations that force states to spend money in ways they don't like, the overwhelming majority of states would have a lot more money to spend on roads and bridges than they do now. so we're not talking about cutting spending on

transportation. what we're talking about is actually increasing it by moving this service back to the states where it can be guided with a lot more on-the-ground knowledge of what needs to be done without all the political maneuvering in washington to send money to one state versus another. this is a way to maintain our federal priority with a small part of the gas tax and allow the states to basically keep the rest of the gas tax to serve their own needs. if we can't do this, i don't see any way that we're going to be able to deal with our national debt. if we can't recognize there is an obvious service here that can be done better and less expensively and quicker at the state and local level, and we can move that bureaucracy out of washington, we can make the highway trust fund solvent, if we

can't do something this common sense that saves the taxpayer money and actually delivers a better service, it is difficult for me to not how we're ever going to deal with the huge debt and spending problem we have now in washington. thank you, mr. president. and i reserve the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. demint: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i have a parliamentary inquiry. did senator demint use up his one minute that he had before the vote? the presiding officer: that's correct. mrs. boxer: all right. well, i would ask that i have an additional 15 seconds since he went over that much. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be one minute debate in opposition prior to a vote in relation to amendment 1756, offered by the senator from south carolina. mrs. boxer: so i'm asking for that. fine. i just think this is so critical. the demint amendment is the end of the federal highway and transportation system. it's a system that's been in place since republican president dwight eisenhower told us how critical it was. he said in the 1950's, "the

transportation bill's impact on the american economy, the jobs it would produce in manufacturing, construction, the rural areas. iit would open up are beyond calculation. "ronald reagan said, "it has enabled our commerce to thrive, our country to grow, and our people to roam freely." senator demint is taking on two icons in the republican party, president eisenhower and president reagan. but today, the national association of manufacturers says they oppose this amendment. they oppose it. it would reduce future revenues, they said. the u.s. chamber of commerce said they're against it, and without this transportation bill, there's no guarantee that states would prioritize transportation investments that support national interest. the american road and transportation builders association said they're against this amendment and it would force your state to raisit raiss

own taxes or force cuts elsewhere to offset massive cuts in federal highway and transit investments. i respect my friend but this is a disaster if it were to pass. i urge a "no" vote. the presiding officer: the question's on amendment number 1756. mrs. boxer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? the senate will be in order. are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, on the measure the yeas are 30, the nays are 67. the measure is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment 1759 offered by the senator from new mexico, mr. bingaman. please take your conversations outside. the senate will be in order. the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: when a state -- any of our states privatizes an existing toll road, it of course shifts the responsibility to operate and maintain that

toll road to a private entity and gets a cash payment in return. under existing law, these -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: under existing law these privatized toll roads continue to be included in the calculation for receipt of federal highway funds. i don't think that makes any sense. this is a commonsense amendment to correct that. this amendment would simply ensure that privatized toll roads are removed from consideration when we allocate federal highway funds. as i say, i think it makes a lot of sense and should apply equally to all states. i urge support for the bingaman-durbin amendment. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition?

the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: what this amendment does, it ultimately eliminates a state's right to leverage its assets over an amortization schedule and expand its highway system by --. a senator: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: we're taking money from the states and saying if you have an asset in your state unless you're building a brand-new road you can't use that asset to leverage your capital to build more roads in the state. it's against the tennesseeth amendment, it's morally wrong to take away -- tennesseeth amendment to capitalize its assets. i urge a no vote. the presiding officer: the question is on amendment number 1759.

a senator: i ask the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their votes? seeing none, on the measure the ayes are 50, the nays are 47. the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order, the senate now stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

later this week we expect the senate to take up over a dozen judicial nominations. we'll have more live senate coverage when the gavel comes down at 2:15 eastern here on c-span2. of course today is voting day for republican primary contests in alabama and mississippi. joining us later today for coverage live from the office of "politico" and we'll also bring you candidate speeches. don't forget to make c-span.org your place to go for all campaign coverage, stump speeches, panel discussions and links to other related web pages. we also have a special section where you can compare candidate positions on the issues. that is c-span.org/campaign

2012. >> i hope as we move forward in this world there are a number of problems that we have to resolve. problems of genocide in darfur. problems with a growing people's republic of china. a growing problem with iran. we have a lot of problems to deal with and i think diplomatic solutions are going to have to be the answer in the future as we start to deal with the problems coming. he was a former head of the black congressional caucus. and served on the house committees on education and foreign affairs. watch his speeches from the house floor and other c-span appearances all archived and searchable on-line at the c-span video library. looking at alabama here, it is one of two states voting in republican primary

elections today. mississippi voters are also casting ballots. republican candidates are crisscrossing the state in advance of today's primaries. up next remarks from newt gingrich and rick santorum. they both took part in a candidates's forum late yesterday afternoon. this is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> thank you so much. alabamaanians all over our state are excited about the possibility in participating in the nominating process which will produce for us the next president of the united states. [applause] all four republican presidential candidates were invited to participate tonight. we're honored that speaker gingrich and senator santorum have accepted our invitation. [applause] as i've said before, this is the first time we've ever done anything like this and so we're privileged to be able to host this

presidential forum. also want to thank all of the media, local media, the national media. i know it has been an inconvenience for some of you to get here but we're really thankful for you being here. thank you the coverage you're giving this campaign. thank you for showing our good side of alabama and i think all of our sides are good so, thank you so much. [applause] now all eye will be on alabama tomorrow and they will look at you and the pundits are trying to guess who you will choose for our next president. well, i'm sure we have a diverse opinion here. [cheers and applause] i'm sure we have a diverse opinion here. that is what makes america so great. and i want to encourage everyone of you to please go out tomorrow and vote for the candidates of your choice. that's what this process is all about. [applause] so, if you want to replace barack obama in the white house, and i want to

take alabama, let's hear it. [cheers and applause] i think we have some enthusiasm here tonight. i'll tell you, this will drive our turnout up tomorrow. i predict we'll have a record turnout at the polls tomorrow. so thank you all for driving that turnout up. just to tell you a little bit about the format tonight, we have the two presidential candidates here. they will come out and speak for 15 minutes. after that we'll have a series of questions by a team of panelists who we selected. let me tell you who the panelists are. they will be joining us in a few moments. rosemary elebash national director of national federation of independent businesses, representing

10,000 businesses on their behalf. she is representing the elected officials. rosemary serves on various boards and commissions including department of human resources, welfare reform task force and the troy university, auburn alumni board of directors. our second panelists is daniel moss. he is a 16-year-old sophomore at good hope high school. he is an officer in the coleman county teenage republicans. for the last three years daniel hosted his own television show called, the freedom report with daniel moss. [applause] we're so proud to have young people like daniel. our third panelist is michael smith. banking software analyst which serves on the board of directors of college counts 529, which oversees the direction of the new state-run college savings plan. michael and his wife live in birmingham where he is treasurer of the greater birmingham young republicans and.

that is our lineup. we're getting ready to hear from our presidential candidates. senator richard john santorum, better known as rick is native the west virgina but grew up in pennsylvania. his father was an immigrant who came to the united states in 1907 from italy. he received a law degree with honors from the dickinson school of law. senator santorum and his wife karen have seven children. they lost an 8th child shortly after birth. senator santorum was elected to the united states of house of representatives from pennsylvania's 18th congressional district in 1990. he was elected to the united states senate representing pennsylvania from 1995 to 2007. following his departure from the senate, senator santorum worked as a consultant, private practice lawyer and youth conservator. please, hell me welcome senator santorum. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. it is great to be here in alabama, thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you, bill. i appreciate that wonderful southern hospitality and that great greeting. we've had a great, thank you, we've had a great few days here in the state of alabama. it is an important time. as i've said at every speech i give, this is the most important election of your lifetime and i don't care how old you are. this election -- [applause] this is an election about big things. yeah, it's about the economy and the importance of this economy, getting jobs created again in america where we have a president who has put forth an agenda that robs you of your

freedom and your taxes and tries to regulate every aspect of your life, passing more regulations to regulate than any president in the first four years of his term. this is a, an economy that is struggling. you know here, down here on the gulf coast in alabama and mississippi and louisiana how important it is that we have drilling in our gulf and we explore for energy in this country and we have a president who is absolutely crushing it. he has a two words, excuse me, two letter energy policy. n, o. when it comes to drilling in deepwater he said no. [applause] when it comes to drilling 60 billion barrels of oil equivalence off our coast, he has said no. alaska, no. federal lands, no. in the, in my backyard, i come from western pennsylvania as bill says.

i, we didn't own any oil wells or gas wells but my grandfather was a coal miner and we see there, even with private lands and gas being explored there and oil coming out of the ground in eastern ohio, we have a president who is putting that at risk by threatening regulations over something called hydraulic fracturing. something we've been doing in this country since world war ii. all of sudden now that it is driving down the price of natural gas, the president wants to think about regulating it and causing great uncertainty in oil pass and gas pass. no on that front. only place he said yes is drilling, helping the brazilians drill off their shore. when it came to the keystone pipeline, what did he say? no. we need a president that will say yes to energy development in this country. that will create jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. lower gas prices.

lower natural gas prices. we need a president who understands what gets this economy going. we put forth a plan that is going to get this economy going in another key area. not just energy but manufacturing. i come from a steel town in western pennsylvania. i grew up in public housing. lived the first 18 years of my life on a va post. i have can tell you working in that town of butler, pennsylvania, i know what got the people employed and gave them the opportunity to rise and the tremendous knitting together of a community when everybody, no matter what your skill level, has the opportunity to get a job, provide for themselves and their family. having the pride of going to work every day, coming home and coaching little league or participating in a civic or community organization. that is how america worked. and a big part of that for small town america was manufacturing. that is why i'm the only person in this race who has put forth a bold plan, not

just for energy development but for manufacturing, to create an opportunity for small town and rural america to get the resource-based economy going. to get the manufacturing-based economy going. we see aggregation of people in the big cities because the economic opportunities just aren't there across america as they were. we're going to change that. we're going to bring those jobs that were shipped overseas, we're going to cut the corporate rate for everybody in half but for manufacturers and processors we'll eliminate and and say bring those jobs back to america and employ people in small town america. [applause] we need someone who is serious about shrinking the size and scale of the federal government. right? [applause] we want someone who is actually put forth a plan that will get us there. $5 trillion in cuts over five years. a balanced budget in five

years. i will propose a budget that spends less money that year than the year before for every year that i'm in the, as president of the united states until we get to a balanced budget. [cheers and applause] people ask how will you do it? i will do it the way i did it in the house and led the fight on the floor in the senate. end entitlements, means-tested entitlements at the federal level and get them back to the states where they belong, not at the federal level. [applause] we did it. we did it with welfare reform. i actually authored the bill that was in the house as a member of the ways and means committee. i managed the bill and went up against ted kennedy and daniel patrick moynihan and bill clinton. harry reid ain't nothing to deal with. [applause] we can get it passed. we just need to go out to

the american public and we need to tell them, that poverty isn't the ultimate disability. we don't need 72 means-tested entitlement programs at the federal level get it back to the state and local level. do what we did that works. [applause] and the amazing thing is with welfare we cut the welfare rolls in half across the country. the states did it and poverty rates went down. employment went up. exactly what we want. [applause] we have a track record. we have a track record on the big issues of the day and there is no bigger issue of the day on the domestic front than health care. obamacare is the reason i'm in this race. karen and i -- [cheers and applause] karen and i decided to get in this race. it wasn't a rational decision, folks. we have seven children, ages 20 to three.

not the next necessarily the best time in our lives to be out running for president but we decided to do it. because we couldn't look our children in their eyes and realize what kind of country we would be handing them if obamacare is implemented in every single american, not 40% or 45 but every single american will be dependent upon the federal government for a benefit and not just any benefit. the benefit of your health and your life. and once that happens, once every american is now has to look to washington and pay tribute to those in power, you see what happens. you've already seen with some of the regulations put in place. the government telling you, we're going to give you a right. be careful. when the government says they give you rights, they can take that right away. [applause]

they can threaten to take it away and they can tell you how to exercise that right, whether you want to purchase insurance, whether you want to purchase the insurance that they want to sell you, or they make you buy. they tax you a certain amount. they tax your employers a certain amount. they pay doctors a certain amount. and if you don't like it, if you don't like some of the benefits, even if the benefits are against your religious convictions, too bad. you will do what you are told with this new right that you have. you see the problem is government is not the source of rights in this country. [applause] ultimately that's,

ultimately that's the most important issue in this race. where do our rights come from? who, who is it, who is it that should be contl of this country? you see i decided to run, i decided to run for president alongwith my wife karen because we believe that obamacare is a game-changer for america. it is a game-changer on the very foundational level of one word, liberty. liberty is at stake in this election. yes, economic development, yes. jobs, yes. energy, all of those issues, vitally important but at the core of it, we have a president who believes in ruling you from the top down. that he knows best how to run your life. [applause] that that is not what made america great. it is in the eyes of president obama. nine months ago reacting to

paul ryan's budget, he was, withing he will don'tly, reading from his teleprompter saying, my teleprompter is way in the back. you just can't see it. waxing eloquently, he said america is, he is listing all these entitlement programs paul ryan was proproposing to cut back. he said america is a better country because of all these entitlements. he said i will go one step further. america was not a great country until these entitlement programs. [booing] that is how the president sees america. he sees america has a program, as a country that is great when government takes money from some, gives it to those who no better how to spend it, and know what's fair in allocating it and give it to other people. that's what the president believes makes america the

greatest country in the history of the world. the ladies and gentlemen, that is not the reason my grandfather came to this country back until 1925. there was no social security. there was no medicare. there was no food stamps. there was no housing programs. there weren't any government benefits except one. freedom. and it was enough. [cheers and applause] ronald reagan, ronald reagan in his farewell address said a caution to everyone of us. the final words he said as president of the united states to the american people. the last two paragraphs of his speech. he talked about the concern he had for the future of our country because institutions, institutions like schools, higher education, the media, the popular culture, were

teaching a very different story about who we are. and he was concerned that america would forget, would forget what made us great. the greatness of ronald reagan was not just his policies. the greatness of ronald reagan is he knew where we came from. he understood what made america the greatest country in the history of the world. i want to thank the tea party because what they have done -- [applause] what they have been able to do over the past couple of years is resurrect a document that many considered to be a dead letter in washington, d.c. something called the constitution of the united states. [applause] the constitution is a great and important document. it is the how of america. it is the operator's manual. something that we haven't paid much attention to. we need to get back with our

constitutional bounds, but, it is only half of the story. the constitution alone is insufficient. the constitution alone is potentially dangerous as we saw when countries like france adopted a similar constitution at the very same time. but their constitution unlike ours was not anchored to another document. a document that anchored it and tethered it. and that of course is the declaration of independence. [applause] people, people ask, what makes america exceptional? why are we different? we can go to the constitution but that's not it. it is the declaration. it is these words that you all, depending how old you are, probably old enough, probably were taught in grade school an memorized. but we don't really remember or even recognize as

americans how transformational they were. we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their -- >> creator. >> with certain unalienable rights. [cheers and applause] when people read the constitution and say, oh, we get our rights from the constitution, that is wrong. the constitution does not give us rights. it recognizes rights that are written on our heart because we are a creature of god. that's where we get our rights from. [cheers and applause] and we had a country, we had a country that was based on a constitution that was constructed to protect those rights. we were going to believe in limited government, and free people. never before in the history of the world had that

happened. that we were going to allow people to have radical freedom with god-given rights and of course our founders believe with god-given rights, as all rights, come responsibilities. and that if we -- [applause] if we exercise those rights, consistent with his will, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. the happiness, dictionary definition at the time of the revolution was to do the morally right thing consistent with god's will, because that is what leads you to true happiness. that's what our founders believed. [applause] and so we had this great experiment. we had this great experiment of building a great society with limited government from the bottom up. and we changed the world. winston churchill said the

debate is not about the future. it's about the past. we have a president of the united states who is trying to redefine america's past, giving speeches that capitalism doesn't work. that individualism, and individual liberty leads to greed and unfairness and misallocation of resources. the reason i'm running and reason i think we can unite america behind us, those of is who understand know and belief in this great coury, is because written in all our hearts, peop who came to this country and the ancestors who followed them, is in fact an understandi of wh we are. of what made us great. for 2000 years prioro america, life expectancyn the world was 35. and in 200 years it more than doubled because we losed

the spirit -- osed, the spirit of the indidual, of the family of the church, of thcommunity organization and themall businessman. we built a great and jst society. one family, one church, one school, one business at a time. we believed in you. in 2008, the american public was sold a bill of goods. so we had candidate that went around and tried to convince you that you needed to vote for someone you could believein. someonwho would solve the problems for you. person even suggested. . . republicans need to step forward and minate someone differt, someone who c tell the american public that no longero you need to look washington d.c. and its president you can believe in,

that believes in you. [applause] thanyou very much. i preciate it. ank you. [cheers and applause] >> repte much. appreciate it, thank you.se] >> things are wrapping up here. [inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause] >> tha you. please welcome our panelists

michael smith, rosemary and david alebech. you were not here when i introduced -- [talking over each other] >> got his own television show. please ask your question. >> it is an honor and a privilege. present lincoln's proclamation for a day of fasting and prayer in 1863 is much of the condition the country is in today. i agree with him and his words. we have grown in numbers. personal wealth and power. there is no other nation has ever grown before but we have forgotten god. blessed are the nations whose god is the board. [cheers and applause] we as americans believe -- believe in life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and they're given only by god yet we live in a country that has seen fifty million abortions since roe v wade. how will you, like lincoln, lead

our nn back to god? >> it is important as you know there has been a lot of criticism of me in the press because i amery public abt christian faith and very public about my beliefs. [cheers and applause] one of my favorite sayings is preached the gospel and if you have to, speak. i think a part of what your responsibility is as a public figure is to go out and behave in a way that is consistent wh what you profess to believe in. that is to me very important. one reason i got so upset about the way the obamadministration has done with this issue and you may remember before that was a supreme court case in whichhe

obama ministration tried to force a religious organizatn to hire a minister that did not believe in the faith they were being hired to serve. a remarkable thing that it was discrimination to hire someone according to the obama administration, not to hire someone who as a minister if they didn't believe in the tenets and teachings of the church. that is t kind of extreme that we are going to. i believe we a president whgoes out and articulate a vision that is not as this president does freedom of worship. they're starting to say that in the state department for international religious freedom. don't use the word religious use the word freom of worship. for those of us who are people of faith we all know that worship is a critical aspect of our religion but not everything of our religion what we do outside our worship

rvice is as important as what we do inside. [applause] and so would you will see is someone who as i did throughout the course of this campaign talk about the importance of faith in public life. talk about the importance of people of faith being involved in public life and speaking out from their religious convictions or from their nonreligious convictions. that is what james madison referred to as the pfect remedy of the fit amendment. freedom of conscience. freedom of religion. freedom of speech. all people of faith and no faith of different faiths can come into the public square and make their argumes and to little rest and that looks le a piece of barbed wire. it is for religious liberty. because that is the trunk upon

which all other freedoms stem. and if we do not protect that -- if we do not protect that and fight for that in this country, in the publisquare as well as the ability for those at the puit to speak the truth then we are not a free country because if you cannot speak what you believe then why speak [applause] >> thank yousenator. may i ask a question please? >> from alabama -- ma major job creaon decisions are made on this. in recent years labor unis have been able to sway the ouome of these decisions. critics have poied o the flaws and special interests on those decision what actions would yourn that -- administration take to ensure special interests will nobe able to interfere wh those

administrative or legislative decisions. >> i feel very blessed to be running the kind of campaign i am running. i felt is way every re i have ever run. when first ran for congress i was elected ainst a 14 year democratic incbent in a 60% democrat distress in a horrible midterm election year. i know what that feels like. yet i was able to win. everybody in washington d.c.. and they never thought i could win again. given n chance of winear mocrat incumben for the united state in all of those races every race i ever n, and not everybody go behind and all the folks is

going to win. and a piece of me. and the united states congress as well as the senate to do what was right. it was a great blessing. it was a very liberating thing. to go and not worry what your leadership believed because they thought you would get elected or what this group or that group and this race one of the candidates that is running, 400 lobbyists. i look at it as the beauty of our race is we can go there with clean hands not having looked at or relied upon anybody except thousands, hundreds of thousands. have helped us, a blessing to go there and not feel any kind of

tether. one miles of found is if you just focus on doing the right thing and building relationships with people outside of government who may or may not be helpful but stay focused on trying to do what is right. that is what i have done in this campaign. to help fund raisers, and try to do this. we lived off the land. people in this country have been marvelous. and giving us what we need. so when i am blessed to occupy the oval office the nterest be help us across this country, average citizens who have no voice except the voice of wanting tbe free again. [applause]

>> last question from michael smh. >> tha you for coming. as the son oa marine veteran, some day father of our children the national security is an issue that is dear to me. the world in which we live in, and further chaos. with the verge of a nuclear power this administration's for suort of israel and the going struggle to stabilize iraq and afanistan, what actions will you take to ensure our tomorrow is greater and more secure than today? >> i put forward a definiv plan how tdeal witeatest threat the world which is iran. i put forward a defitive plan what we should be doing t overthrow that vernment, put sanctions on that govnment so we can't have nuclear programs and they won't developoghem.

when i spoke last week at apack i s clear. iai sit is time given the prime minister's speech for in washington last week. the israelis are at their wit an end. they have been waiting and waiting. iran has an rich iranian for six or six nuclear-weapons, four times what is necessary for nuclear power and they continue to enrh. the most sensitive are buried in bunkers in mountainsides and protected by batteriesf anti-aircraft batteries. we know what they are doing and this president goes out and misrepresents at they do and who they are to the american people. one thing i will never do. i will never lie to the american public about what the threats that face this country for my own political gain. i will tell you the truth. [applause]

the wholtruth is there is a dical islamists if not mo so than al qaeda and osama bin laden who run one of the richest countries of the world which is iran. unless we are able to stop that government from developing these weapons those weapons will be used one way or the other. they will be used directly against targets which they have already identified, israel being one of them, in directly by getting those nuclear materials in the hands of terrorist organizations, useall over the world or they will be used in directly in the sense that they will be protected because they have nuclear weapons and the ability to retaliate. they will be able to purveyed terror of the non-nuclear type all over the world including in the united states without fear of being defeated. eight years ago i put forth a bill that said we need to work with the persian people.

are are the people in iran are not arabs. they are rsians. proud and great civilization. read your bottle. it is not a civilization -- we have been ken over by a bunch of radical islamic suggs. what we need to do is what i have been doing for eight years to encourage the persian people to take their country back from these radicals. i passed a bill blocked by barack obama and joe biden in 2006 that would have funded these groups. it would have helped them to cay on a revolution. joe biden and barack obama thought that. eventually it was passed before the end of the session at the end of 2006 but neither george bush nor barack obama gave money to those who wanted to overthrow the current government because they were afraid it might upset the iranian government. when the time came for a

revolution which dated 2009, holding signs saying pleaseelp us, these people that are killing americans, overthrow the folks that have been holding american captives almost continuously since 1979. overthrow the people who threaten the state of israel with annihilation. overthrow the founders of hamas and hezbollah and assad in syria and back obama said we will join them and legitimize this election. ladies and gentlemen, in this race we have one person serve eight years of the arms to versus committee with a track record on iran and got it right and what to do to avoid a war in iran. over the last eight years. we have a president who has gotten it wrong on every call. [applause]

i don't know what the most important issue will be this fall but it is national security, the best candidate by far against barack obama and show the american public how pathetic his foreign policy and how dangerous his foreign policy is not just for israel or the middle east but for every american is rick santorum and that is why i would like your help. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, senator. i know that you have -- you are supposed to be in montgomery shortly but i will take a point that i want to ask you a question. the founder of our republican primary, conservative movement, william f. buckley jr. made a statement many years ago and said when you go to the polls vote for the republican as most conservative and can win the

ection. would you explain to alabama why you are the most conservative who can win in november? >> back to the issues we know are at the heart of this election and that is the ro of government in your lives. the role of government in business and government usurping your freedom. your taxes. your money. and look at the key issues that motivated republicans and conservaves across the country and was able to getwing voters to join us in the 2010 election. there were issues based around that no bigger than obamacare. the last three bailout, wall street walk away with bonuses and americans sit in homes that are still under water.oue rack rest assured to take over the energy and manufacturing sector with cats d trade or cat and tax.

look at those key issues that were the motivators for the conservative movement. that draw the clearest contrast between president obama and our vision of free people and limited government. there is one candidate that draws that clear contrast. we won't win this election because we wi outspend barack obama 10:1. we are not. or even 2:1. we would be lucky to be 1:1. the person who has the most money doesn't matter in a general election because he will have the most money. better have the person with the best contract. the best ideas. the best vision for our country to remind us who we are. if you look at all of those issues on health care. how many people agree with health savings accounts? when bill clinton was trying to impose hillarycare, the governor of ohio, we were in the house budget committee and came up

with medical savings accounts and health savings account. for 20 years i've been arguing for private-sector health-care bottom up. individual control. not government mandates. [applause] of fuel in this race are just wrong on this issue. both have supported government mandate that the federal level. the other put forward on a state level for obamacare and advocated fort and told republican audiences through 20 debate that he didn't do that when in fact he did. so one thing to have bad policy in the state and the third thing to not tell the truth about what you did. we need meone willing to tell the truth to the american public. we have a clear contrast on the biggest issue of the day between me and president obama. why would the republican party give that issue away? the most important issue.

75% of voters in swing states oppose the individual mandate. oppose obamace wide put up anybody who supported both? why put up someone who supported the wall street bailout? i didn't. the other two in this race have. why support someone who supported cap and trade when the climate was right for everybody bein something about co2 emissions? i didn't go along like a well oiled weather vane. i stood tall and said this was bad science. this was political science, not climate science. [cheers and applause] the most conservative -- first elected conservative because that is the one that is going to the most electable. vote not with what the pundits

say. don't vote with what the pundits say. trust your own heart and your own head. if you vote with what the pundits said we would have had george w. bush in 1980, not ronald reagan and where would we be as a country? someone would have forgotten to raise their lips ten years sooner. we need someone who can stand up and unapologetically talk about what made this country great. encourage people to believe in themselves. believe in the greatness of the institutions. not the government. one candidate can do that and i ask for your support. [cheers and applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome senator santorum's wife. and john.

[cheers and applause] >> thank you, thank you. [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> ladies and gentlemen. how are you tonight? [applause] >> certainly exciting to see the enthusiasm tonight and i am confident this enthusiasm will go all the way to november. one thing we have in common is we have to defeat barack obama as president of the united states. [applause] it has been grea to hear from one candidate and we are about to hear from another candidate. i know that you have been anxiously anticipating hitting all the candidates and we are fortunate we have two of them. at this time i would like to tell you about our next speaker. newton leroy gingrich. [cheers and applause]

better known as newt is of german, english, scottish and irish descent. that should reach everybody. received a b.a. degree in history from emory university in 1965. he proceeded to learn and an a in 1968 and ph.d. in 1971 in modern european history. both from tulane university. he has two daughters, kathy gingrich a jackie gingrich. speaker gingrich represented georgia's sixth congressional district for 20 years and elected speaker of the house from 1995 to 1999. he has remained active in public policy debate and worked as a political consultant and now as you know is running for president of the united states. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome speaker newt gingrich. [cheers and applause]

>> he is on his way! he is on his way! >> thank you for your enthusiasm. please be seated. you can work again when the time comes. when speaker gingrich is behind this curtain he can open it up and come on through. hope you enjoy the beautiful music on the organ tonight. [applause] [cheers and applause]

[cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause] >> thank you for that very warm welcome. as somebody who went to high school in columbus, georgia, and taught at west georgia college i kind of feel relatively at home here. this morning when i had grits i thought it was a very normal thing to do. [cheers and applause] i will have to confess i was along the coast so i had rich and shrimp which is not the atlanta version. i am delighted to be here. we're thrilled by the very warm reception we have gotten

everywhere. i want to take a couple of minutes of your time if you don't mind. most of the know i never use ribbon stuff and don't own a teleprompter. to do a lot of stuff. but the president's press secretary today basically attacked me because as many of the know i have been talking about the need for an american energy policy and the idea that we should develop our capacity for oil to a point where no american president would ever again bowed to a saudi king. [cheers and applause] and i have suggested that if we develop our energy capacity to the degree that we could, that would bring down the price of gasoline on the theory that supply and demand works.

this is not something obama is very used to. this is not a bureaucratic trickle-down shovel ready solyndra investment let's go bankrupt together policy. [cheers and applause] the president has made three speeches in a press conference which i will come back to but in particular, jay carney said the following -- talking about the president. what he is quote not willing to do is look the american people in the eye and claim there's a strategy by which he can guarantee the price of gas will be $2.50 at the pump. any politician who does that is lying. because that strategy does not exist. it is a simple fact that there is no such plan that can guarantee the price of oil or the price at the palm. i'm the only person talking about $2.50. that is an attack on me.

i want to take this moment to respond to the president at his press secretary and say first of all, mr. president, i would be happy to debate you anywhere in the country anytime on energy. [cheers and applause] i believe your energy speeches have been so patently incoherent that they are indefensible. i would be glad to meet you at an oil rig somewhere. i would be glad to meet u.s. refinery. i would be glad to meet you at a gas station. i would be willing to go to university campus where you will feel comfortable. [cheers and applause] and i would be happy to agree that you can use a teleprompter. by pure luck there was a column over the weekend in the wall street journal entitled newt is right on gasoline and that outlined the case pretty well.

this morning, stephen more had something in the wall street journal that is so astounding that i beg your indulgence. is not a political speech but i have never been a standard politician anyway. this is what's even more wrote. in 1995 u.s. geological survey estimated 1 fifty million technically recoverable barrels of oil from the rock and shale in north dakota. in april of 2008 the number was up to four billion barrels and in 2010 geologists' and continental resources, major drilling operation put it at eight billion. this week given the discovery of a lower shelf of oil they announced twenty-four billion barrels of oil in north dakota. [applause] current technology allows the extraction of only 6% of the oil trapped one or two miles beneath the earth's surface so as the

technology advances recoverable oil could exceed five hundred billion barrels. this is not dakota. there are bigger plays under development now for shale in south texas and west texas. examples, the monterey formation may contain eighty billion barrels. so let me start with something washington doesn't want to deal with and liberals don't want to deal with. the idea of peak energy is a stupid idea. it does not exist. is a technologically limited model. it has been the basis of american energy policy for 40 years and it is wrong. the president will never learn this. for a variety of reasons. one is ideological and the othe

breakthrough in battery research, which i suspect in 15 to 20 years' time will be useful. but most of us don't have 15 to 20 years to fill up our cars. now -- i believe -- so first of all, i believe the lesson of where we are is that we should ab the price of gasoline. ha lesson of where we are as we should abolish the department of energy as a grotesque failure. [cheers and applause]

i simply want to start with the premise no more solyndras, no more boondoggles, now let's talk about energy. the president said there are no silver bullets. he is right. but there is a presidential pend. he could sign three document and change oil trajectory of the united states. she could approve the keystone exo pipeline. [cheers and applause] that is 700,000 barrels a day of canadian oil coming to houston and opens up an improved delivery of north dakota oil, delivery of kansas, arkansas and east texas oil so it lowers the price of all of them. [cheers and applause] oklahoma they told me is worth $16 a barrel by lowering the cost. second plea for and he could approve the reopening of areas

of of texas and louisiana and the gulf, that is 400,000 barrels a day. [applause] third , he could approve designated areas in alaska for 1,200,000 barrels. those three steps, we have added 2,300,000 barrels a day over eight hundred million barrels a year of u.s. oil supply and we kept that amount of money at home to create jobs here rather than sending it to saudi arabia. [applause] the president has emphasized that drilling is not the answer. the president offered an answer. does anyone here know what the answer was? how many of you knew that the president's answer was algae? raise your hand. i believe in science and

technology. i believe in biofuels and the research is terrific and some place down the road eventually algae will be helpful. i do not think this summer we will be putting algae in your cars. [applause] i think i am the one candidate who can win this race because i'm the one candidate who understands a very big choice campaign. i worked with reagan in '80-84 and george w. bush in '88 when he was down 19 points. he won by 6. one of every five -- every four americans switched their position in november. 1994 campaign was a big choice. the 1996 campaign even when a moderate was losing the presidency we were getting reelected to the house for the first time since 1928. [cheers and applause] let's take an obvious big choice. i want to run this fall on the fall in energy policy. you can elect president out the

and have $10 a barrel or elect president drilling and have $2.50 a barrel. you decide which is better for your family. [cheers and applause] this is why i want to debate obama. if i become your nominee i will challenge him to seven lincoln/douglas style debates to timekeeper but no moderator. [applause] i think the difference is so why he believes in the riding of salt with you. i believe in the declaration of independence and constitution of the united states. [cheers and applause] he believes in a -- apologizing to those who are killing our young men and women. i will never apologize to those. [cheers and applause]

we need a candidate who is capable, first of all leader of running a campaign that eliminates obama's billion dollar ad campaign by proving to people for example on gasoline the legal you can't buy enough ads to convince the american people they are not paying too much. that is the kind of campaign you have to run. i worked on a reagan campaign and i understand how you pick the right fights at the right level and how you make the choice vivid but you need somebody who can work with congress to get something done. [cheers and applause] we are not in the business just of defeating obama but replacing the bureaucracies and replacing the laws and correcting the judges and getting back to a country that is on the right track.

[cheers and applause] that requires far more than just having good consultants, negative advertising and ability to read somebody's notes. requires understanding the constitution, understanding how to pick 430 house members and one hundred senators and how to work with the american people because in order to change washington, you need to be active as citizens. we could impose change in washington but washington will never voluntarily change itself. [cheers and applause] if i become the nominee with your help tomorrow, if i end up as the nominee i will ask every candidate running on a ticket with me to pledge that they will stay in office on jan. third and before i am sworn in on january 20th they will repeal

obamacare. [cheers and applause] they will repeal the dodd-frank bill. [cheers and applause] they will repeal sarbanes oxley. on the first day of the new administration i will sign all three of those repeals to clear the slate and focus on getting positive things done to create jobs in america. [cheers and applause] on the first day two hours after the inaugural address i will sign a series of executive orders. the first will abolish all of the white house tsar's at that moment. [cheers and applause] we will on that first day move

the embassy from tel levied to jerusalem. [cheers and applause] we will on that first they reinstate ronald reagan's mexico city policy at the transparent money will be spent on abortion outside the united states period. [cheers and applause] the obama administration apologizes to radical islamists and religious fanatics for attacking the catholic church and right-to-life institutions in the united states. on the very first they are will issue an executive order repealing every anti religious act of this administration. [cheers and applause] to go back to energy on the

very first day i will sign the pipeline for canada and i am telling the canadians don't cut the deal with china help is on the way. we want the pipeline in the united states. [cheers and applause] i can only do all of these things with your help. the primary tomorrow really matters. and your vote really matters. and i hope you will decide having an experienced leader who is held to these things before and is capable of taking obama head on. what we need is the party and more importantly what we need is a country and i look forward to questions. [cheers and applause]

[cheers and applause] >> i had to see if he was done. kept getting so much applause i couldn't tell when the end was coming but we are going into another part of our program, mr. speaker and have some questions from our panelists for. i will introduce you to them. we have mr. moss here, daniel las vegas and 16-year-old tenth grader in alabama. rosemary is head of the n f i d in alabama. michael smith is the banking software analyst from birmingham. with that being said, you have the first question. >> it is an honor. president lincoln's proclamation for a day of national affiliation in 1863 echoes much of what our country is going through today and i agree with him and his words. we have grown in number is, wealth and power as no other nation has ever done before but

we have forgotten god. bless our nations whose god is the lord. most americans believe in the right to life the personal liberty and pursuit of happiness given only by god. yet we live in a country that has seen fifty million abortions since roe v wade became law. how will you, like lincoln, lead our nation back to god. >> powerful and important question. first of all you have to have a president who believes that that is part of their responsibility. something which obama clearly doesn't. you have to have a president who like clinton is prepared to pray. i have a project at one point to have franklin delano roosevelt's d-day prayer because when we landed in normandy president roosevelt went on national radio and for 6 minutes he prayed. he didn't just say god bless america. he said would you join me in

prayer, the country participated with the commander-in-chief praying. it is a very powerful and very poignant per. part of it is too recent to the country around this ceiling. part of it is to bring the federal judges back into enforcing the constitution, not rewriting it. [cheers and applause] part of what makes my campaign different is we have a 54 page document on the founding fathers in the judiciary that outlines step-by-step how to bring the judiciary back into line and eliminate this kind of wallace in position of elite values by anti religious bigots. part of it is frankly to take on the elite media. there's a brand new show that has the word christian in its title and is deliberately viciously anti christian. i would simply suggest to all of you if you imagine the exact

same show with the title muslim in the title you would know it is impossible. nobody would even think of it. it tells you how bad the anti christian bigotry has become among our elites and we need a president who is a national leader prepared to say head on this kind of behavior is reprehensible, destructive, bigoted and should not be tolerated in polite society. [cheers and applause] >> welcome. any major job creation decisions made through the process in recent years labor unions have been able to sway the outcome of the decisions. critics have pointed out the flaws enabling those special interests to determine these investments funded by taxpayers. what actions will your administration take to ensure special interests will not be able to interfere with

administrative or legislative decisions? >> first of all, we need a new generation of appointees. one of the major proposals we have is to eliminate the 130-year-old civil service laws and replace it with modern management system. [cheers and applause ] let me also say we have to take a public employee unions head on because they have become very disruptive force. there's a reason president roosevelt for example was always opposed to public employees having unions. he said their ultimate employer was the taxpayer and you could not have unions negotiating against the people. there's a great deal to be said about the notion that government unions are dangerous. [applause] if we're serious about saving money we have to revisit provisions like davis bacon which has a union wage set aside at artificially raises the cost for every city, every county,

every state that they build something with federal funding and spend extra in order to meet a union wage which may not exist where they're building it. there are number of steps we need to take. [cheers and applause] >> thank you for coming to the great state of alabama. as the son of a marine, father of children, the national security of our country is an issue that is dear to me. the world in which we currently live in that our children will inherit appears to be falling into further chaos with iran on the verge of becoming a nuclear power this administration's for support of israel plus the ongoing struggles to stabilize iraq and afghanistan. what actions will you take to ensure our tomorrow is greater and more secure than today? >> that is a powerful and important question. spent 27 years in the infantry. i came out of a background of being very aware of and

concerned about national security. this is a place where the differences are pretty wide. obama clearly believes in the appeasement, apologies and weakness as a national strategy. i believe in strength, honesty and firmness as a national strategy. couldn't be further apart. [applause] three examples of this administration. the first is intellectual incoherent. when we picked up the fbi arrested a moroccan man who was trying to bomb the u.s. capitol. under the obama administration's rules the fbi could not write down what motivated him. because it would be politically incorrect. so they deal with terrorism as though it was a psychotic behavior when in fact it is a fanatic behavior. fundamental difference. the deal with it as though it is isolated when it is part of a network of behaviors. this is an enormous problem in trying to deal with these things we we have them army major yell

shoot and kill 13 americans and. thirty-three and had in his wallet a card that said soldier of allah and he was in regular contact with a cleric in yemen who was urging the killing of americans. the army to its institutional change -- shea murphy is in its report on the incident to deal with the religious motivations which were clearly at the heart of what he is doing so to start with that notion that we developed intellectual honesty about what threatens us. the president's proposal to dramatically cut the defense budget is suicidal. it is absolutely suicidal. [applause] let me say in passing when leon panetta testified in the senate that he believed a nato agreement or united nations agreement superseded congress he

should resign as secretary of defense. [applause] he has forgotten, he is not the united nations secretary of defense. he is the united states secretary of defense. [applause] we have yielded none of our constitutional authority to the united nations or nato to authorize use of force without the congress approving. exactly 100% fundamentally wrong and all of us should be alarmed at the idea that for congress would no matter matter and a group of foreigners over which we have no impact are the people who decide when to put young americans at risk for their lives. fundamental mistake by leon panetta. [applause] lastly in terms of iran we

should have a short-term and long-term strategy. our long-term strategy should be based on president ronald reagan, prime minister margaret thatcher and pope john paul ii and it should be to undermine and replace the government using every non-military means possible. we defeated the soviet empire without a general war because we brought to their economic, psychological and diplomatic strategies and broke their capacity to resist. we can defeat the dictatorship in iran decisively if we have a real strategy to do so. [applause] in the short run we should say to the iranians we are serving notice that no israeli prime minister will run the risk of a second holocaust. no israeli prime minister would allow an overt enemy to have nuclear weapons and therefore if you persist on what you are doing and the israelis decide they can't take the risk they will bomb you. when they bomb you we will

understand why they would do that and we are telling in advance you should quit doing this if you don't want to get bombed but if you do get bonded is your fault because you are being provocative. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. that complete the questions from the panel but i would like to ask you a question. that great conservative i, william f. buckley jr. once said we should go to the polls and vote for the most conservative republican who can win in the election. can you tell alabama why you are that person? >> sure. >> next question. >> i don't want to be -- i didn't come here to speak ill of anybody but there are fundamental differences. if you look at mitt romney's rating when he left massachusetts and the size of brick santorum's defeat in

pennsylvania and look at what i have done. i helped create the georgia republican party. i worked in the georgia gop when there was no georgia gop. i ran for congress in the middle of watergate. i ran for five years during a congressional seat. i turned around and took 16 years to create a national majority. i helped design the first capitol steps event in history. we won six senate seats by a combined margin of 75,000 votes that year and won the senate when nobody thought we could. in 1984 i helped design a campaign that set a record carrying 49 states and picked up 33 house seats. in 1988 we were behind michael dukakis 19 points in may and decide a reagan style campaign. we didn't try to go to the middle. if george w. bush had run to a moderate he would have gotten beaten. he ran as a reagan conservative promising no new taxes and spending for national defense and attacking the kind of

massachusetts liberalism that michael dukakis represented. we switched 25% of the country. one of every four americans with their view. in 1994 when no one thought was possible we designed a contract campaign in which we went to the american people on a positive basis just as i would this fall. i would offer of pay checks rather than food jams and vote for the constitution, i would offer $2.50 a gallon gasoline rather than $10 with out the. people want real choices. [cheers and applause] this has been a hard race. we jumped in in june and july and the elite media said we were dead. it was pretty difficult to raise money when you are dead. we came back and by december we were the front runner. that we got $5 million of negative advertising in iowa.

we came back from that and won south carolina. we have $20 million in negative advertising in florida and came back from that. we carried 156 of 159 counties in georgia. they knew me well enough to repudiate negative advertising. with your help -- [cheers and applause] we stayed in the race for two reasons. i don't believe the other candidates can be obama and this race is the most important in our lifetime and i will not leave the field. second -- when we win, we can't just be obama. we have to win in a principled way on a big enough agenda with enough momentum that we can actually change washington decisively illegal or we are not going to get this country back on the right track. i am the only candidate who can do that. thank you all very much. [cheers and applause]

>> speaker newt gingrich. thank you, mr. speaker. thank the panelists. thank you, ladies and gentlemen for being here. i want to announce speaker newt gingrich and she is going to be with her husband behind the rope to greet visitors here. if you would like to greet them welcome the opportunity. let me give you a couple things i would like to say in conclusion. tomorrow please go to the polls, get your friends and relatives to the polls and work hard for the candidate of your choice but even more important than ever, when we get our nominee at the convention this august, please get behind the nominee whoever that might be and work like your life depended on it because it does. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. [cheers and applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> today is voting dave republican primaries in alabama and mississippi. join us for coverage of results live from the office of politico. we will bring candidates eaches at 7:00 eastern on our companion network c-span. make c-span.org your place to go for all campaign coverage including panel discussion that links to other web pages. we have special section to compare candidates positions on the issues. that is on c-span.org/campaign2012. the obama administration and they blocked a new texas law requiring voters to show government issued photo id at the polls. advocates say it helps to prevent fraud and election tampering the justice department is arguing it disproportionately

harms elderly citizens and hispanic voters who are less likely to have a driver's license for personal identification card. online at c-span's facebook page are you for or against the voter id law? nearly 5175 people voting for, 188 against. now is your chance to weigh in. go to facebook.com/c-span and cast your vote. >> c-span's local content vehicle cities for takes booktv and american history tv programming on the road the first weekend of each month. march featured shreveport, louisiana at memorial library. >> a local man who was born here and he started accumulating votes when he was a teenager and he was in his 80s. over his lifetime he simulated over 200,000 volumes. if we have a jam in the collection is probably going to

be this one. one of the books we are most proud of. it is in the original binding from 1699 and it was once owned by a very famous scientist. you can see he has written his name, i newton. we are not pulling it out anymore because it is starting to flake away on the title page. >> american history tv look at civil war era medical practices at the pioneer heritage museum. >> it is a long stretch from what it is today. consider the things we take for granted like instruments being as germfree as possible or the doctor watched his hands before working on us. we use the term loosely for doctors when talking early medicine. a lot of these doctors in our region were self-taught or worked under somebody else who was self-taught and getting ready to retire.

so they would learn as they went. >> ltv cities for continues the weekend of march 31st and april 1st from little rock, arkansas on c-span2 and 3. >> in a moment we will return to live coverage of the u.s. senate before their lunch break. senators this those of two amendments to the transportation bill. earlier majority leader harry reid told members to expect more amendments votes. later we expect the senate to take up over a dozen judicial nominations. now to live senate coverage on c-span2. c-span2. .ahead

the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. the senator has one minute. mr. roberts: mr. president, i'd like to ask support for my amendment that would approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. it would expand oil and gas exploration on federal lands and

would extend certain tax provisions that are utilized by a number of individuals and businesses all throughout the country. i would hope that my colleagues take their very important discussion to the cloakroom. the base of my amendment includes most but not all of the expired energy tax incentives addressed in the amendment that will be offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but there is a clear difference in that my amendment addresses the supply-side of the equation and avoids extending some of the costly energy provisions that were created under the failed american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009, i.e. the stimulus. now, while i support many of the tax provisions included in the

democrats' counterproposal, the majority, their amendment fails to address the number-one issue facing americans of every walk of life, from farmers to manufacturers to teachers, which is the rising cost of gasoline. my amendment does just that and it implements the important first steps toward increasing domestic supplies of conventional energy that our country will rely on for decades to come. my amendment would cut red tape, open up more federal land for oil and gas exploration and drilling. it would approve the keystone x.l. pipeline while also extending renewable tax provisions that benefit domestic energy production businesses and individuals alike. it also restores expired individual and business tax relief provisions. the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. mr. roberts: could i ask unanimous consent for one additional minute? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. roberts: i appreciate that,

mr. president. it also restores expired individual and business tax relief provisions and most of all it promotes economic growth. and lastly, mr. president, my amendment does all these things without adding to the deficit which is considering more than our $15 trillion debt is something that our future generations certainly can appreciate. i now yield the floor, thank you for supporting and thank all my colleagues if they would support this very commonsense pro-growth amendment. i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i rise today to oppose the roberts amendment 1826. my friend from kansas and i worked together on the agriculture committee. i appreciate the great bipartisan work that we have been able to do, but i stand today to strongly oppose this amendment. i believe that when it comes to energy, we should do it all. we need more domestic production, wind, solar, electric vehicles, advanced batteries. we absolutely need to stop our

addiction to foreign oil and create jobs here in america at the same time. and fortunately that is not what this amendment does. it includes the hoeven language that we defeated earlier last week. we be building a pipeline from canada to china. if we build a pipeline, we should use the oil to lower gas prices for american families. it also includes dangerous requirements for drilling in the arctic and in offshore locations without any safeguards. worst of all, it ends tax cuts for wind and clean energy manufacturing at a time when families are paying so much at the pump. it just doesn't make sense to raise taxes on the businesses that are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and it pays for it for all of these changes by adding red tape to working families when they file their taxes, adding more burdens to middle-class families. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. ms. stabenow: i urge my colleagues to vote no.

mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i would ask consent for an additional minute. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. let me concur in everything that senator stabenow said in opposition to this amendment. there is many reasons to oppose it, but let me just add one additional reason in that it violates the agreement that we reached on the debt ceiling on the budget caps for this year and does it on the backs of our federal workers once again. the republicans are coming forward with another attack on the federal work force. enough's enough. every amendment they are picking on the federal work force, and i would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are will any senators in the chamber

wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on the vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 57. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 1812, as modified, and ask that the clerk report the amendment by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from michigan, ms. stabenow, proposes an a.m. numbered 1812, as modified. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment to stop a tax increase on american businesses that are creating clean energy jobs, especially now, when gas prices are going up, when families are struggling more than ever to fill up the tank, we shouldn't be raising

taxes on innovators and job creators who are helping to lower america's energy bills. my amendment extends 19 different tax cuts for innovative businesses that account for 2.7 million jobs. let me also say, the oil industry has benefited from special tax benefits for almost a hundred years. the cost of this is not offset. it's part of the tax code. yet the tax cuts that will create american jobs to get us off of foreign oil, are extended only a year at a time and have been subject to different budget rules. this makes no sense. if we want to see "made in america" again, i would urge that my colleagues support this amendment. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? all time is yielded back. the question is on the amendment.

a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote: votevote: votevotevote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? there being none, on this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are

49. under the previous order, the amendment is not agreed to. there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1589 offered by the senator from south carolina, mr. demint. i'm sothe senator from south ca. mr. demint: we've all complained about these major corporations who do not pay any taxes. the presiding officer: please let there bee be order. the senator may begin. mr. demint: we've all complained about the corporations who don't pay any taxes only to find that many times that's because we offer some tax subsidy that allows them to get out of paying for taxes. we've complained about big oil, we're trying to pick winners and losers. temporary tax policy for whatever we're trying to do does not work.

this amendment eliminates the tax subsidies, the loopholes we talk about, not just for big oil but for all of the energy tax credits. folks, if we let the market work, we're going to have wind, we're going to have solar, but we're going to have it in a way that doesn't waste the money of hardworking taxpayers. coyed anne courage your -- so i'd encourage your support this. i know a lot of you know new subsidies you're proposing. let's get rid of subsidy, lower the corporate tax rate and let our country work. mr. president, i reserve the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, this amendment does two things. first, it increases taxes on businessmen and women trying to provide some alternative energy for this country.

it increases taxes on those men and women. second, it uses that revenue by increasing taxes on individuals and uses it to lower the corporate tax rate. that's one of the main things this does. it repeals credits and reductions on one section of our energy industry, the renewables, the alternatives. it doesn't for conventional for oil and gas. so, number one, this raises taxes on individuals and uses it to lower the corporate rate. and, number two, it's unbalanced because it reduces credits and deductions in the alternative area but not on the convention energy area. it's unbalanced, wrong. i urge us to vote against this amendment. the presiding officer: all -- i'm sorry. all time had expired. the question is on the amendment.

the yeas and nays? is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to change their -- to vote or change their votes? hearing none, on this vote the yeas are 26. the nays are 72. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask to set aside the pending amendment and offer the menendez-burr amendment which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new jersey mr. menendez -- mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent further reading be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, gas prices are skyrocketing but

meanwhile natural gas is $1.50 cheaper than gasoline and we have a 100-plus year supply -- and we have a 100-plus year supply that we can draw from. the only thing that's in our way is that we have so few natural-gas vehicles and refueling stations on the road. the nat gas act gives manufacturers and utilities the assurance that the federal government will help jump-start the market, add over 700,000 natural-gas vehicles, displace over 20 billion gallons of petroleum fuel, mostly from our bus and truck fleet. and it does all of this while being paid for by a surcharge on the users who benefit from the amendment. we know some industries have concern. instead of exporting gas, which we are about to do in this country, let's use it here in america so that we can give our drivers an option. i urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan amendment. the presiding officer: who

yields time? the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, if i could be recognized, let me say to my colleagues, what it does is take something that happens naturally, a transition from diesel over to natural gas and it accelerates it. it gives it a five-hour energy drink. we should take this opportunity to accelerate it and pass it. it's paid for, as senator menendez said. let me say this, this is essential if you want natural-gas prices to stay down. increased demand. if not, we're going to shut in wells, we're going to find ways to sell it offshore. you want to keep historically low natural gas price stph-s let's increase demand so production increases and we can take advantage of all these we've found all over the united states of america. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. is there debate in opposition?

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

le. the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to change their votes? hearing none, the ayes are -- on this vote the yeas are 51, the nays are 47. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1782 offered by the senator from indiana,

mr. coats. mr. coats: mr. president, i ask for regular order here. the presiding officer: yes. order, please. if the senators wish to converse, they can take it outside. mr. coats: mr. president, this amendment is simple. the presiding officer: excuse me, i'm sawyer. there is a correction. the number of the amendment is 1517. my apologies. mr. coats: mr. president, this amendment is very simple. it's a matter of equity and fairness. the reality is a majority of states, like indiana, my state, and many, many others do not receive their fair share of the distribution of highway funds. this bill unfairly rewards a minority of states that have collected earmarks in the past that go to establishing this historical bench 345rbg -- benchmark from which the distributions are made. this amendment creates a new system by which everyone is

treated equally and treated fairly. a system of winners and losers is not the way we ought to be forward with distributing funds that are paid by our taxpayers for building of roads and bridges. so let's address the current inequity in this bill and give each state its rightful share. i ask my colleagues for their support. mrs. boxer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. could we please have order. mrs. boxer: mr. president, this is a killer amendment. our committee voted 18-0 on a bipartisan bill that set out the formulas in a very fair way. what did we do? we didn't want the jolt the states in the middle of a tough economic time so we kept that funding in place and, again, the distribution is very, very fair. in contrast, we've got a lot of drafting problems with my friend's amendment. the department of transportation

says it doesn't even specify that the gas taxes are going -- that are to be factored in will not be factored in as federal gas taxes. it's just got a flaw in it. it's also very biased because traditionally we have always distributed these funds to states based on numerous factors. need-based factors, the cost to repair or replace deficient bridges, the vehicle miles traveled. so i would say to my friend i appreciate the spirit with which he offers, i understand his spirit is one that he can be proud of, but the fact -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator's time has expired. mrs. boxer: this ruins the bill and i urge a no vote. mr. coats: mr. president. the presiding officer: you have eight seconds. mr. coats: i urge my colleagues to take a look at getting fairness. a majority of states are not treated fairly.

the presiding officer: the question is on the wamed. -- the amendment. is there a sufficient second? appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there anyone in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their

vote? hearing none, the yeas are 28, the nays are 70. the amendment is defeated. mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up 1819. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from ohio, mr. brown, for himself and mr. merkley, proposes an amendment numbered 1819. on page 490, between lines -- mr. brown: without objection, i ask to dispense with the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1819, offered by the senator from ohio, senator brown. will the senators please take your conversations out of the

well. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. our amendment requires d.o.t. to report annually on waivers, including analysis of taxpayer dollars that are spent on foreign materials and infrastructure. it closes a loophole that currently exists that allows a project to be split into several pieces, thus evading "buy america" requirements. the san francisco-oakland bay bridge is the most outrageous example of that. the $6 billion project was divided into 20 separate construction contracts resulting in a chinese-owned company building a 520-foot steel tower and 28 steel bridge decks. that's not what they was meant to do. it's modeled on language house republicans passed. it's consistent with our international trade obligations.

i yield the remainder of my time to senator merkley, a cosponsor. mr. merkley: thank you. madam president, transportation projects financed by american taxpayers should, to the maximum extent possible, be built using american materials and american workers. but all too often, loopholes have crept in that have resulted in american transportation projects, paid with american taxpayer money being built by chinese firms with chinese workers and chinese deals. it's wrong. please support this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator's time as that expired. mr. yields time in opposition? -- who yields time in opposition? the time is yielded back. the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided on amendment number 1540, offered by the senator from missouri, senator blunt.

mr. blunt: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: madam president, this amendment would just continue -- a senator: order. mr. blunt: madam president, this amendment would continue the current practice where 15% of the bridge money that goes to states goes to local governments. local governments, if you've talked to a county commissioner anywhere in the country about the highway bill, my guess is they mentioned continuing the current policy on sharing some of this bridge money with -- with local governments. it doesn't increase the amount of money. what it does is continue current policy. and i think every county commissioner in america would be relieved if they were going to

continue to maintain their bridges, and i urge a "yes" vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the presiding officer: there are now two minutes of debate debate. mr the clerk: mr. merkley and others proposes an amendment. mr. merkley: i first defer to my colleague across the aisle. a senator: i am pleased to join in this amendment. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment 1814 offered by the senator from oregon. mr. blunt: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this would allow people -- farmers, family farmers, to use their vehicles within 150 miles of their farm without having to have a commercial driver's

license. this is a requirement that wouldn't make sense for those businesses, and i urge its passage and would yield to mr. toomey. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you very much. i wrants to thank the senator from missouri and oregon for work on this legislation. the states are essentially required to adopt rules that would force a family farm that's driving a tractor across the street to follow the same kinds of rules and allegations that a cross-country long-haul truck driver has to comply with in terms of hours of service and logbooks. it is a solution in search of a problem. it is costly and unnecessary. i would urge adoption of the amendment. mr. merkley: could i ask for an additional 30 seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. colleagues, this is simple common sense, that you can drive across your state.

you have to take your food out of your farm truck and put it into an interstate truck to go one mile down the road. that makes no sense for farmers, it makes no sense for safety. this is athe sort of common sense solution to get the food from the farm to the depot. be that an air plane depot, put it on a barge, that be to put it on a ship, to put it in an interstate truck. it makes common sense. let's do it. thank you. the presiding officer: is there any time in opposition i? if not the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is gray h agreed .

the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment 1736 offered by the senator from ohio, senator portman.

mrs. boxer: oh, we're going to move it to a different amendment. i'd ask that right after the klobuchar amendment, we get back to the port man amendment, the regular order. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to call up amendment number 1617, the klobuchar-roberts agriculture hours of service amendment and ask that the clerk report the amendment by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from minnesota, ms. klobuchar, proposes an amendment numbered 1617. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided. ms. klobuchar: this amendment would clarify the way the federal motor carrier safety administration currently implements and enforces an exemption to hours of service rules as they apply to the agriculture industry during spring planting and fall harvesting. our amendment reinforces existing law and brings the

exemption back to the way it was complemented from 1995 to 2009. this is a commonsense change with broad support. it has the backing of the american trucking association as well as 50 agriculture organizations that includes the american farm bureau and the national farmers union. i want to thank senator roberts for his leadership on this important issue as well as senators nelson, mccaskill, yojoe hance andjoe hance and lu. the presiding officer: is there any debate in opposition? if nowrkts the question is on the amendment of those in favor say aye. opposed? the ayes appear to have t the dwries havayesdo have it. the amendment is agreed to.

there are tbhow minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment 1736 offered by the snoe the senator from oh, senator portman. mr. portman: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment of it is similar to an amendment we voted on earlier today. this is simply a state opt-out, giving states the discretion to be able to opt out should they choose to. the highway trust fund has been bailed out three times from the general fund to the tune of about $35 billion. this would enable us to put more money directly into roads and bridges. the highway trust fund has spent about $78 billion on projects not related to that. so i would encourage my colleagues to support this opportunity to get back on a fiscally sustainable path, to allow the flexibility they need to maintain our roads and bridges and highways back

hoavment i urge my colleagues to support it and yield back my time. mrs. boxer: madam president, could we've we have order, please? first, thank you to all colleagues for your amazing cooperation. i just hope you'll vote this down because we already did vote down a similar amendment. this is another amendment that would devolve the federal aid highway program back to the states. in closing, leat me just quote from the american road and transportation buildersers. "allowing states to opt out of the federal highway program ignores the role that the u.s. highway network in supporting the national economy and the reliance of each state's economy on the ability to ship products efficient a cross borders." this is not good for our economy. i would urge a "no" vote. mr. harkin: would the senator yield for a minute? i also am told that this would

exempt states from having to meat their obligations under the americans with disabilities dist to provide equal access to people with disabilities. mrs. boxer: yes, this would essentially devolve this whole program back, go against what dwight eisenhower had this mind when he started the national highway system. thank you very much. i urge a "no" vote. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio has 14 seconds. do you wish to use them? mr. portman: i would like to say that this is simply an opt-owvment it is not a mandate. it gives the states the option to do it. states would be required to support the highway system. i urge my colleagues to support it as a commonsense approach to making sure we get more money into our roads and bridges p. -- the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears tofnl to appears .

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

a 12k-9s. the presiding officer: hearing none, the yeas are 30rbgs the nays are 68. the amendment is defeated. there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1785 as modified, offered by the senator from tennessee, mr. corker. mr. corker: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: madam president, the whole nation watched last august as our country almost shut down over a debt ceiling vote. and a very good law was put in place. senator reid has called it stronger than any budget resolution that we've ever had. a senator: madam president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: thank you, madam president. last august the country watched as we almost shut the country down during a debt ceiling debacle. we agreed during that vote that what we would do is raise the debt ceiling but lower discretionary caps over the next ten years in order to lower deficits. weaned language regarding -- and we had language regarding deeming a budget resolution. last week, unfortunately, we

overrode that. but the fact is that this bill violates the budget control act that we put in place just last august, seven months ago. nor bill to be truly budget-neutral, as was outlined in the spirit of this bill as it was put -- the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. mr. corker: we have to offset discretionary spending by $11 billion, which is what this does. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: this amendment would lower the non-defense discretionary cap established by the budget control act by $11 billion in order to offset transfers from the general fund necessary to replenish the highway trust fund. this amendment is a clear violation of the budget control act we just agreed to six months ago. in simplest terms, the amendment would impose a 2% cut to non-defense discretionary spending in order to pay for a

shortfall in mandatory. i would suggest if you want to offset for mandatory spending, find a mandatory offset. however, madam president, the pending amendment deals with matters within the budget committee's jurisdiction. therefore, madam president, i raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 306 of the congressional budget act of 1974. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: this is the amendment as modified; is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. corker: madam president, pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974 and section 4-g-3 of the statutory pay-as-you-go act of 2010, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act

and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. thank you. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the question is on the motion to waive. the clerk will call the roll. vote: