vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? on this, t ayes are 40, the

nays are 58. three-fifths of the senate duly choans and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to, the point of order is sustained and the amendment fails. who yields time? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent the shaheen amendment numbered 1678 be considered following the paul amendment number 1556. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1742 offered by the senator from ohio, mr. portman. mr. portman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: this amendment is

about states controlling what happens at the rest area. it's an important amendment supported by a number of groups, the national governors' association, the american association of state highway transportation officials, citizens against government waste, private sector entities and other organizations. it goes to mandate put there place in 1956 that's a typical one-size-fits-all federal mandate, unfunded that does not allow states flexibility to skyed disied what they do at ris areas. this would lift the mandate from 1956. and 26 of us represent states that allow commercial areas, because those were grandfathered in before the 1956 mandate. it will save states hundreds of millions of dollars a year. it takes that money and provides it for the needs of the state and the transportation areas including putting more money into roads and bridges. this amendment does not direct or mandate states to do anything. they don't have a to commercialize a single rest area, don't have to change 2

way they're doing so but would have the opportunity to do so. it gives states muched flexibility they want -- much-needed flexibility they want. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. mrs. boxer: i'm sawyer. i'm working on an amendment. i'm really sawyer. -- sorry. mr. president, i hope that we will oppose this amendment. it's very, very controversial. it's opposed by a very broad and diverse group of business and labor organizations. it would overturn 60-year

prohibition on allowing commercial services at interstate rest areas. the ban was enacted because congress recognized the importance of supporting commercial activity along interstates. that has resulted in 97,000 business who provide services to travelers on our nation's highways. this amendment would allow commercial activities at existing interdpait state rest areas which would lead to losses to businesses located near interstate changes. support the small businesses that exist across our country near highway exits. i urge a no vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. 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 vote or change their vote? if not, on this, the ayes are 12, the nays are 86. the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i've send e sent the managers --

i've sent the managers to the desk. under the provisions of the previous order, i ask that it be agreed to. the presiding officer: is there objection? the managers' package is agreed to, without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i understand senator shaheen no longer intends to offer her amendment, so we can strike that from the list. the presiding officer: would the senator yield? the senate is not in order. the senate will come to order. the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, it's my understanding that senator shaheen no longer intends to offer her amendment. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll quorum call:

quorum call: mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous

consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. senate not in order. please take your conversations out of the senate. the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, the republican leader and i have had a discussion this afternoon several times, but i think it's fair to say that he and i both believe that we should finish this bill tomorrow. there is a very important event tonight that does not mean much to anyone outside of the senate family, but to us being able to recognize susan collins on a very special occasion in her life. we're going to leave here so that people that want to go to that event can do that. we'll come in tomorrow and we have about three or four votes to complete. we have some other discussions about other matters and we'll discuss that later. so there will be no more votes stonts. votes -- no more votes tonight. officer the managers' package

just agreed to is amendment number 1835. -- 1830. offered by senator boxer. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. the senate is not in order. please take your conversations out of the senate. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i just wanted to go on record tonight as saying we have made just incredible progress on this bill. and that i look forward to tomorrow where we will complete work on this bill. i think we're showing bipartisan spirit here, bipartisan cooperation. 2.8 million jobs hang in the balance. so we'll see everybody to. i think -- i feel very good that we're going to pass our bill.

with that, i would note the absence of a quorum. or actually, i withhold -- i'll withhold on that. ms. landrieu: mr. president? may i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i just need unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: will the senator yield? the senate is not in order. please take your conversations out of the senate. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i just want to ask unanimous consent to have the president of entrance join us on the floor for a few minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president with that i will say au revoir and see everybody in the morning. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator will yield. the senate is not in order. the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you very much. i would ask unanimous consent that the senate recess subject to the call of the chair. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection, the senate stands in recess subject to the call of the chair. recess mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks this morning the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour. the majority will control the first half. the republicans the second half. following morning business, we'll resume consideration of the highway bill. there will be two roll caller votes in relation to demint and bingaman amendments at noon. the senate will then recess until 2:15 to allow for our

weekly conference meetings. at 2:15 there could be as many as 20 roll call votes this aftermoon to complete action on this transportation bill. i'm told, mr. president, there are two bills at the desk due for second readings. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3606, an act to increase american job creation, economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies. s. 2186, a bill to amend the americans with disabilities ablght of 1990 and so forth. mr. reid: i would object to further proceedings with regard to these two bills. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be posted on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, today we resume consideration of the most important piece of jobs legislation we've had here in a long time, and that's the highway bill. but it's more than a highway bill. it's a surface transportation

bill. it deals with all aspects of helping our failing bridges -- there are 70,000 of those. we have 20% of our highways in nonsafe condition. we have problems with our mass transportation system, rails, and other such things. so we have to move forward building this nation's infrastructure with this legislation alone. it will save or create 2.8 million jobs. this is an effort to build a world-class transportation system that was started during the presidency of dwight eisenhower. and every president since then has recognized the need to go forward with the vugs that general ice en-- with the vision that general eisenhower had. presidents in recent years have gone out of their way to do that. president reagan gave a number of speeches about how important it was that we begin to renew

our commitment that we should have to infrastructure in this country. president clinton did the same thing. the legislation is very, very important, and a commitment to the renewal of the vision of general eisenhower is the essence of this bipartisan bill. it has the endorsement of the one the most conservative members of the senate and one the most liberal members of the senate. i was disappointed that it took as long as it did to get where we are, but we're here. we invoked cloture quite a long time ago, and it's taken more than a month to come within sight of the finish for this bill. i'm pleased that we're on track to dispense with the remaining amendments and vote on final passage during today's business. mr. president, i am hopeful that the house will act immediately to pass this bipartisan compromise rather than pursuing what we've all read about -- the

extreme ideological bill they were considering last month. it failed every test but it failed the test of the their own caucus. the republican caucus said, no, we can't do this. the highway bill is important to democratic members and republican members of the house, as it is democratic and republican members of the senate. and i would hope that the speaker understands that it is not gad fo good for this countro have a situation where he tries to pass everything with a majority of the majority. what that means is that the republicans have a majority in the house, but that isn't -- i served in the house, and we -- the way things that were done with bob michel and tip o'neill and jim wright thereafter. bob michel worked with both of them to get legislation done.

they worked to get the number of 218, that's the majority in the house. they got those votes from democrats or republicans. so i hope my friend, the speaker, won't just try to get this surface transportation bill done with republicans. let the democrats voice their opinion. that's the way we should do it. passing a bipartisan transportation bill the president can sign would be a victory for both parties and our country. the senate's pressing business doesn't end with completion of this bill, though. we have a small business jobs bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the house and supported by president obama. and we are -- i had a conversation on the floor publicly here last night with the republican whip, senator kyl of arizona, and we talked about the need to get this done. and we're going to move forward with this expeditiously. there are obviously bumps in the road and i hope there will be very few bumps in the road. i haven't had an opportunity to

talk to my friend, the republican leader, but i was told this morning that the ranking member of the banking committee, my friend from alabama, senator shelby, has indicated that he wants to make some improvements in i think bill we got -- in the bill we got from the house. i suggest he work with senator johnson and they can do something on a bipartisan basis and do it quickly. i'll be happy to take a look at it. we need to move forward. i think you kind of get the message when there's about 390 vote for a bill and 20 against it. so i think we have to move forward on this. the one thing i am going to do is have a perfecting amendment prepared that will allow us to move forward on reauthorizing ex-im bank. the business community thinks it's extremely important.

the head of boeing said that it is a trai tremendously importanl for the airline industry. it is important to other segments of our industrial base. it's an important piece of legislation, and i hope that we can add that to the small business jobs bill. if we can't, i understand that. but it would be a shame to miss that opportunity to do that. we are interested in this i.p.o. bill that has been supported by the house and the president of the united states. i'm convinced it'll spur small business growth. it's not going to create the jobs that we have in the highway bill, but it's good for job growth. it will bring more capital into the business world and that's what we've needed for several years now. and it would streamline the way companies sell stock. so i look forward to working with my friend, the republican leader, to finalize a path

forward on this bipartisan legislation. in the coming days the senate must also consider postal reform legislation, reauthorization of violence against women act, cybersecurity, and additional measures to create jobs and provide for our economy. the only thing preventing the senate from moving quickly to tackle these items, including the bipartisan small business jobs bill is what we've had this whole congress -- obstructionism by my friends, the republicans. they have forced the senate to waste weeks on unrelated amendments to this bill, this bipartisan bill, this surface transportation bill. so i hope they're not going to hold up progress on the small business jobs bill. i'm confident they will not. i really hope that's the case. yesterday i filed cloture on 17 consensus judicial nominations. i've worked with the republicans for months to find a way forward to timely conversation for many of these nominations, including

some who have been waiting for up-or-down votes since october. mr. president, i had here today -- i don't have it today; i'll show it to my caucus today -- a visual aid to show what happened in the clinton years, the bush years, and the obama years. it is so clear what's happened. it doesn't fully represent what happened because in the clinton years we had dozens and dozens of nominees that were what we called "pocket vetoed" -- they just wouldn't hold hearings on them. but with the length of time that judges are reported out of committee, clinton a few days, yobush a few days and of course now we're talking about many months with obama's nominations. that's not fair. they should all be entitled to up-or-down votes, especially when they came out of the committee so overwhelmingly with rare exception. there's no reason that we should

eat up one day of precious time that the senate has to pass these commonsense measures. presidenthe senate wants to con8 of president bush -- the senate once confirmed 18 of president bush's nominations in a single day. there's too much to do. the senate doesn't have the luxury to waste anymore time. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: later today the senate is likely to finish the highway bill, and once we do, i listened carefully to the majority leader's remarks -- once we finish the highway bill, we ought to immediately turn to the bipartisan jobs bill that passed the house last thursday. the vote was 390 to 23. let me say that again.

the vote in the house was 390 to 23. the president has also indicated he would sign the house bill, so it strikes me with the jobs emergency that we have in this bill with 8.3% unemployment, many more millions of americans having given up trying to get into the workforce, the thing to do is to pocket this broad, bipartisan bill and rye to create jobs immediate -- and try to create jobs immediately. i a heard my friend, the---- i'e heard my friend, the majority leader, say he wants to recraft it. all that will do is slow down the process and make it more difficult to get this important jobs legislation to the president's desk rapidly. so i hope the majority leader will reconsider whether we need to kind of reinvent the wheel here. i mean, this is already broadly supported, bipartisan bill which the president has said he will

sign as soon as we send it to him. i don't know why we would want to make something that is simple extraordinarily complicated. the majority leader has indicated that instead we're going to turn to something contentious instead of trying to do something that almost all of us agree on, certainly in the house, and the president agrees on, that would focus us on jobs and actually do some good. the american people think we spend a lot of time spinning our wheels around here. i think they'd -- rather than sort of try to manufacture gridlock and create the illusion of conflict where none should exist, why don't we demonstrate we can actually get something done together. in a moment when millions of americans are looking for work and millions more are struggling

with the high price of gas, we have an opportunity to do something together right now. as soon as we finish this highway bill. we could send a small but . president.gnal to job creators i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. grassley: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, i also ask unanimous consent that i would speak in morning business for 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i want to talk about a judicial nomination. i have come to the floor many days to talk about judicial nominations, and most of my remarks at those times as well as this time is to respond to some of the claims made by my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. if you listen to some of our colleagues -- listened to some of our colleagues over the last couple of days, you would think that the sky is falling on the issue of judicial nominees. they act as if the senate is treating president obama's judicial nominees differently than nominees have been treated in the past. this is simply not true. a fair and impartial look at the

numbers tells a far different story. the fact of the matter is that president obama's nominees are being treated just as well and in many cases much more fairly than the democrats treated president bush's nominees. so i want to take just a few minutes to set the record straight. let me start by taking a brief look at the 17 cloture motions that the majority has filed. seven of those nominees were reported out of the judiciary committee within the last month, and three of them were reported just last week. that is without precedent to our knowledge the majority, republican or democrat, has never filed cloture on district court nominees within a month of them being reported out of the judiciary committee.

that accounts for seven of the 17. what about the other ten nominees? well, what our colleagues fail to mention is that they could have gotten a majority of those nominees confirmed at the end of the last session just before recessing at christmas time. our side cleared quite a few nominees, and we offered to confirm them as a package at the end of last session. however, the president refused to offer assurances that he would not bypass the senate and make so-called recess appointments. mr. president, i just made a mistake when i said when the senate adjourned just prior to christmas, or recessed just prior to session. we didn't do either of those. we stayed in session during the period of time from december 18

until january 24. in other words, the president wasn't in a position to make recess appointments because we weren't in recess, and also the president can't assume what the constitution doesn't allow him to assume. only the senate can make a determination on when we adjourn. the president of the united states can't do that, but he presumed that he could and he did and he made some recess appointments, so he shredded the constitution once again. now, in regard to what we're talking about here, it was the president who chose not to confirm those nominees at the end of last session because he wouldn't tell us whether he would make recess appointments or not. if the president believes that we should have confirmed more nominees last fall, he should look to his own administration for that explanation. that is the background of the 17

cloture motions before the senate, but let me comment on something that i read in one of our daily newspapers that come out about business on the congress. a famous reporter said in the second paragraph of a report i read today that the republicans are filibustering nominations. i told the writer of that article that you can't filibuster anything that's not before the united states senate, and these nominees were not before the united states senate until the leader of the majority followed -- filed these cloture motions. so wouldn't you think if you were going to see the necessity of stopping debate, wouldn't you let debate start in the first place? but no, that's the game that's

played around here to build up numbers to say that the minority is filibustering when the minority is not filibustering. so i would like to take a step back and address some of the claims that i've heard from the other side. i cannot believe some of the comments that i'm hearing so i believe it is important to set the record straight. first of all, everyone around here understands that it takes a tremendous amount of time and resources for the senate to consider supreme court nominees. for that reason, when a supreme court nomination is pending before the senate, the judiciary committee considers little else. during president obama's first three years in office, the senate considered not one but two nominations to the supreme court. those nominations occupied the judiciary committee for

approximately six months. the last time the senate handled two supreme court nominations was during president george w. bush's second term. during president bush's entire second term, we confirmed only 120 lower court nominees. under president obama, as you can see from the chart we have here, we have already confirmed 129 lower court nominees. i think that is pretty -- that is a pretty explicit picture of how the other side's arguments don't hold water. so for represent -- representative purposes just -- repetitive but just to drive the point home, we have confirmed 129 of president obama's nominees in just over three years. that is more than were confirmed

in george w. bush's entire four years. again, the comparison between president obama's first three years to president george w. bush's second term of four years is the appropriate comparison. these were the only two time periods in recent memory when the senate handled two supreme court nominations during such a short period of time, obviously consuming a great deal of time of the senate judiciary committee. but even if you compared the number of president obama's nominees confirmed to president bush's first term, it is clear that president obama has fared very well even under those comparisons. more specifically, even though the senate did not consider any supreme court nomination during president bush's first term, we have confirmed approximately the same number of president obama's lower court nominees as we did president bush's relative to the

nominations president bush -- president obama has made. in other words, although fewer lower court nominees have been confirmed under president obama, the president made approximately 20% fewer judicial nominations during his first three years than president bush did during his first term of four years. so i think it's pretty simple, isn't it? if somebody is complaining in the united states senate, we don't confirm enough judges, you can't confirm them if they haven't been sent up here in the first place. as a practical matter, if the president believes that he hasn't gotten enough confirmation then, he should look no further than the pace at which he has been making nominations. maybe he should have spent less time on the 100 or so fundraisers he has been holding

all over the country recently and more time making judicial nominations, or at least have his political party in the united states senate give us a little leniency and quit complaining about nominations not being approved. the fact of the matter is this -- if a backlog exists, then it's clear that it originates with the president because getting back to the commonsense constitutional operation of our government, the senate can't confirm anybody that the president hasn't sent up here in the first place. if you need even more evidence that the president has been slow to send judicial nominees to the senate, all you need to do is examine the current vacancies. my colleagues have been on the floor talking about the so-called vacancy crisis, but what my colleagues fail to mention is that the white house has not even made nominations

for over half of the vacancies. then to be specific, of the 83 current vacancies, the white house has not submitted nominations for 44 of those vacancies. so once again, the senate can't confirm anybody that's not sent up here, and how can my friends on the other side of the aisle complain about a vacancy crisis when half of the vacancies, nobody has been nominated for them yet? as a result, it is clear that if there is a vacancy crisis, once again the problem rests down at the white house. if the president believes there are too many vacancies in federal courts, he should look no further than his own administration for explanation. now, what about the other side's claim that nominees are waiting

longer to get confirmed than they have in the past? once again, this is just not true. the average time for nominations , for confirmation of judges during the obama administration is nearly identical to what it was under president bush. during president bush's presidency, it took on average approximately 211 days for judicial nominees to be confirmed, and you can see from the chart that during the first three years of president obama's presidency, it has taken 218 days for his judicial nominees to be confirmed. i'm sure that this will be news to many of my colleagues. if you had listened to the other side, you would think that we have somehow broken new ground. we haven't, obviously. we are treating president obama's nominees virtually the same as president bush's

nominees, and it's not our goal to worry about whether one is being treated different than the other. we just proceed to do our work. but this is a result of our work. not much different than other presidents. maybe it's not good enough, but to say that it's a whole lot different is being intellectually dishonest. i'm sure that this would be news to many of my colleagues, if you listen to the other side, you would think then we have somehow broken new ground. i know it's repetitive, but we haven't. we're treating president obama's nominees virtually the same as president bush. the fact of the matter is that the senate has been working its

will and regularly processing the president's judicial nominees in much the same way it has in the past. given that the president's nominees have received such fair treatment, why would the majority leader then choose to take the unprecedented step of filing 17 cloture petitions on district court nominees? why would the majority leader choose to manufacture controversy if none exists? because there's no doubt in my caucus even if -- even if there's a few votes against some of these nominees, there's no doubt that all 17 of them are going to be approved by the united states senate. they are designed to accomplish two goals. first, as even democrats concede, the president cannot run for reelection on his own record so these votes are designed to help the president's reelection strategy by somehow

portraying the republicans as obstructionists. but how can you obstruct when there's 83 vacancies and only 44 have been sent up here? how can you be considered as obstructionist when these judges will be approved just as we've already approved seven? second, the other side simply does not want to talk about the extremely important things and very real problems facing this nation. and let's look at any poll. go to any town meeting. what people in this country and my state of iowa are concerned about is the economy and jobs. with 8.3% unemployment. why wouldn't they be expecting us to work on jobs? there's a small business tax bill passed the other body. how come we aren't taking that up? it's ready to take up. probably pass here without much

dissent. why aren't we taking up a budget this year? it's been four years without taking up a budget. this is budget week for most years in the united states senate. we're spending more time on deciding judicial nominees that aren't going to be filibustered, to stop a filibuster that doesn't even exist, when we ought to be taking up and spending about the same amount of time on a budget. but no budget. for 1,040-some days. the american people are listening to the debate. they want to know how we're going to get the unemployment rate down. they're concerned about whether the senate will confirm one of the president's district court nominees this week rather than next. they're not concerned about this debate we're going to have over the next couple days. they want to know what we're doing to help their father,

mother, brother, sister get back to the work force. given the millions of americans remaining out of work, why aren't we considering and debating the jobs bill that the house just passed? why aren't we tackling the energy crisis? with $4 gas in this country, we ought to be talking about drilling here, drilling now, ought to be talking about building a pipeline. ought to be talking about how can we stop sending $8,930,000,000 every day overseas to buy oil. we ought to be talking about extending the tax extenders, energy tax extenders that sunset as of december 23. unlike the so-called vacancy crisis, the energy crisis is not manufactured. it's real. the rising cost of gasoline matters to millions and millions of americans. if they're fortunate enough to have a job in this economy, millions of americans are trying

to figure out how they can afford to get to work with the rising cost of gasoline. rather than spend time working on energy crisis which is all too real for millions of americans, we're spending time on this manufactured controversy of somehow a vacancy crisis, somehow a filibuster against judges and not one of these judges has had one speech given to them on the floor of the senate against them. and probably won't have. and what's even worse, this is the week that we're supposed to be debating a budget. but you need a high-powered microscope to find any budget that the majority has put together. the majority has failed to produce a budget so they manufactured a so-called crisis on nominations to throw up a smoke screen to hide their failure. i will have more to say on this subject when we move forward on this debate, but for now i conclude that a fair and

impartial examination of how the senate has treated president obama's nominees reveals that croar to what you'll hear -- contrary to what ural hear from the other side, the president's nominees are being treated more fair, rather than waste time on a so-called crisis that everyone realizes is entirely manufactured we should be focusing on those issues that matter deeply to the american people, and according to what i hear at my town meetings, what i hear and read in the papers about what polls show, what candidates for president are talking about, even the president of the united states is about jobs, about the economy, and tackling our energy crisis. so i urge my colleagues to reject these cloture petitions that have no legitimacy for existing in the first place so we can get back to the business of the american people, the economy and jobs. i yield.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: are we in morning business, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate is not in morning business. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my colleagues earlier today for supporting an amendment by voice vote showing overwhelming support to the transportation bill that improves buy america provisions by making the waiver process more transparent giving u.s. manufacturers fair and clear notice when a waiver is sought. it tells the department of transportation to report annually on waivers, analyzing what taxpayer dollars are spent on foreign materials, and infrastructure projects. while some members of the senate may oppose it, it passed on a voice vote so in some sense unanimous almost, but when some members may oppose it, i hardly have ever met anybody in the

american public that thinks that taxpayer dollars should not go for any infrastructure projects, that's the way you want to do it and this legislation will move us closer. the san francisco oakland bay bridge was the most outrageous example where much of that steel was made in china when u.s. steel workers aren't all back to work like they should be. i thank senator boxer and senator durbin, senator graham from south carolina and senator merkley for their help on this legislation. american -- today president obama signed into but a trade enforcement measure that last week passed this chamber by unanimous consent. a bipartisan legislation which i cosponsored with senators baucus and thune primarily, gives the commerce department authority to impose what are called counterveiling duties on imports from countries that are nonmarket economies. that means countries more sort of command and control economies like the people's republic of china.

federal appeals court last year viewed shiewd a ruling that hamstrings our nation's ability to fight back against illegal trade practices. here's why congress passed this bill. we know china doesn't play by the rules from direct export subsidies to currency manipulation, china does things that our country doesn't and many other countries don't. it gives its exporters an unfair advantage. american industries fight back by physicianing the commerce department to investigate these subsidies. 16 ohio companies have petitioned for this relief including steel pipe companies in youngstown, paper companies, this part of the state, paper companies in miamis burring, this part of ohio, this part of the state, tire manufacturers in bryant, near the indiana and michigan borders. these are good companies. they're not looking for handouts, not looking for an unfair edge, want a level pleed playing field.

this -- plail when china doesn't play by the rules they suffer. this helps to fix this. and president obama announced his administration would pursue a case against china's hoarding of rare earth materials. rare earth hording is one of the illegal practices that china employs to tilt the playing field in its favor. u.s. manufacturers rely on earth materials, air earth materials for the production of a number of products including wind turbines and electronics. china accounts for 97% of the world's supply of these materials. they impose quotas and deaf tariffs on their export putting american manufacturers at a severe disadvantage almost forcing countries to go to china to do the manufacturing because the materials -- because of subsidies the chinese give to themselves, their own companies and because of the tariffs they charge on -- that they can extract from these companies for

export, these raw materialmakers for exports our companies are at a severe disadvantage. today the administration said enough is enough. one ohio c.e.o. told me when i visited his company, and ar company with 80% of our sales outside the u.s., graphtech has a teen interest in protecting our ability to compete aggressively in the marketplace, obtaining key raw materials at a reasonable price is crilg to our mission. they're not asking for a handout or subsidy. they're just asking others to quit cheating. senator portman and i have repeatedly urged the obama administration to take this case. senator portman, former bush trade representative who almost always is on other side of trade issues from where i am, we came together as we have on other trade issues that can matter for our country. the u.s. in 2001 in had an

$83 billion trade deficit with china. ten years later it was $295 billion. president bush once said that $1 billion in trade deficit translates into 13,000 jobs. so if our trade deficit grew from $83 billion to $295 billion just with that one country think what it does to manufacturing in springfield and akron and what it means to a state like colorado, any state that makes things in this country. jobs are at stake, addressing our trade imbalance with china is essential. to do that we must make china play fair with the united states. not too long ago the united states senate passed the largest bipartisan jobs bill. we passed in 2011, my legislation on currency. it would carr curtail them flooding our markets with cheap

goods and making it much more difficult for us to sell, our companies to sell there. after years of china gaming the benefits of w.t.o. membership, it's time for the house of representatives to again pass as they did when spoker pelosi was speaker, passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan, time for speaker banor bring it up. it will mean more companies around my state and around the country will be able to manufacture, will be able to be competitive, be able to export, play in the global economy in a fair and balanced way. mr. president, i thank the president and yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. reid reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes on its business today, the senate adjourn until wednesday, march 14, at 9:30 a.m. that follow the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be expired, time for the leaders be reserved. following any leader remarks, the senate proceed to a period of morning business for an hour, senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. following morning business, the senate resume consideration of s. 1813, the highway bill, with the time until 11:30 equally divided between the two leaders their designees. that upon the disposition of the transportation bill, the senate proceed to air period of morning business until -- to a period of morning business until 2:00 p. p.m., senators permitted on speak for up to ten minutes

each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. finally, at 2:00 p.m., senate proceed to executive session, there there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in the motion to invoke cloture on the groh nomination. there will be three roll call votes tomorrow beginning at 11:30. pardon my interrupting you, mr. president. so, mr. president, there there be three roll call votes beginning at 111:30, including passage of the transportation bill. at 2:30, there will be up to 17 cloture votes on judicial nominations. we're working with various parties to see if we can work something out on those nominations. we hope we can. but if not, we'll have those votes. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until wednesday, march 14, at 9. wednesday, march 14, at 9.

for cato institute internal affairs senior vice president for the center for american progress. thank you for being here. if i can with you, we want to talk about whether or not hate crime laws are working. are they? >> hate crime laws are working and i think they're working for a couple of reasons. when they send a powerful signal not only to the big gun who is harmed by a criminal act, but to

the community against which the crime is perpetrated. the other thing we see is local law enforcement >> guest: it does. we've seen a reduction but what you have to understand is against the gay and lesbian community, it's a disproportionate number compared to the population of people. so it is a problem that exists. hate crime laws are part of the solution, but we certainly can't solve all of the problem. post code chambless, your opinion. just go hate crimes are a concept were initially sounds like a good idea. reducing hatred is a desirable

objective, but a closer look at it, the more you think about it and you come to chew conclusions. first the hate crimes are totally unnecessary. all the violent acts that you can think of against another person i can assure you it's already against the law. so the hate crime laws are unnecessary. the second thing is they are not prevented any crime. similar called hate crime prevention act, but they don't prevent anything. when you think about it, anyone who is inclined to stab a person, should a person will not put down the guns or knives just because a state legislator has passed a hate crimes law. third, these laws are also problematic because it takes is too close to the idea of thought crimes. investigators and prosecutors have to prove what was going on in the person's mind when he was committing the crime and that is very difficult often. so they have to delve into a person's background and that takes us into what magazines they subscribe to, what are

their surfing habits on the internet at all that is unnecessary because these acts are against the law. >> host: but about the data because this is from the detroit free press. statistics show hate crimes have been declining over the last decade and in 2010 we showed this to our viewers, more than 6000 -- 620 hate crimes were down a third from the roughly 9700 reported in 2001. >> guest: there are problems the statistics because not everyone can agree in what is considered to be a hate crime. there are problems with these reporting statistics. and when you think about it, the more you talk about hate crimes, the more fosters the idea that our laws are somehow inadequate to meet violent acts. then again, all the phone and ask them whether ask them whether it's murder, attempted murder, beating, assault arkansas and police vigorously enforce these laws. so there's really no problem.

once hate crime laws around the books, they will be in for us, but they were reporting problems. >> host: you've written a post so-called protected class. what did she mean by that and why is that a negative? >> host: >> guest: what i think we should be shooting for as we want evenhanded enforcement of our laws. we have hate crimes laws, we talk about establishing certain protected classes, where these laws will be enforced against particular individuals. if you're not part of the protected class, they doesn't apply to you. this creates more devices in their sobriety rather than less. >> host: if i could use a specific example. in 1998, tragically they were too high profile hate crimes or if they were murders. one of james byrd in jasper texas and the cyclist matthew shepard in laramie, wyoming. and at that time there was a hate crimes law that covered race, religion, national origin and ethnicity but not

orientation. so when the local law enforcement to investigate and prosecute the crime in jasper, texas against a black man, the local law enforcement was able to apply to the federal government and help with forensics, the fbi, to hope prosecute and close the case. it cost a lot of money for jasper, texas come a very small community. however, in laramie, wyoming with a hate crime against matthew shepard which is perpetrated because of sexual orientation, the local law enforcement in laramie didn't have the ability to apply for a subtle byrne grant to help assist in investigation and prostitution prosecution of the crime. sexual was not in because that's the case of an ashy shepard act. hate crime laws not only are a preventative effort to ensure that there is a simple sense

that hatred against anyone is not okay. violence against anyone is not okay, but it also enables there to be a fair playing field and for local law enforcement to get the tools, friends accompanied from the fbi and the department of justice to investigate and prosecute crimes. >> host: tim lynch, should they use federal laws? >> guest: notation. these are the two most highly publicized offered for justification against it last. when you look at the james byrd case of matthew shepard in wyoming, perpetrators are quickly apprehended, prosecuted and james byrd received the death penalty in texas. so again, what is the problem? based in the local people vast experience investigating murders. they quickly investigated and apprehended to perpetrators of this awful crimes and held them to account. that is where we should want. we don't need more federal laws on the books to take care of these situations. >> host: julius for democrat in port arthur, texas. go ahead, julia. >> caller: good morning.

i have been in support of the gentleman that says that we do not need for a hate crime law anymore because the law enforcement officers are pretty much up to date on what to do as crime. but my question is, we speak of the enemy is in prison or jail of hate crimes, but we look at the administrators and the mortenson et cetera that makes it the people that make the decision over these people? what about them when they commit a hate crime laws on inmates? let us understand what they are all in it together and everybody is coming up on one another and there's nothing done to them, but the inmates get double penalty for whatever they do is first hate crimes. a >> host: two different points there. but let me let you weigh in on which you heard.

>> guest: federal hate crime laws are meant to apply to everyone equally. so whether you are in the administration of a prison or an inmate, they applied equally. the caller raises an interesting point, which is hate crime violence does not pick takedowns so you see perpetrators of hate crime violence at every level of ours society. i have to disagree with my colleague and my friend tim on this point that it is not about federal law serving state or local law. it's about the partnership of local law-enforcement working with the federal government to ensure there is a proper investigation and prosecution of crimes. >> host: the colors that if you are charged with a hate crime it is double the charge. >> guest: there is a second enhancement they can often go along with hate crimes laws, yes. >> host: one of the problems that that is one hate crime on new jersey was declared unconstitutional by the supreme

court because the person was prosecuted for firing the gun into somebody's home. it happened to be the home of an african-american. so they were initially prosecuted for the crime. he was guilty of the unlawful discharge until firing. he was convicted of that offense. when it came time for sentencing, the judge that i think this was not just a regular crime. it is a hate crime. he added five more years to prison sentence. this amount which the supreme court made supreme court declared this unconstitutional because it interfered with the right to a jury trial. the court said they have to decide whether as a hate crime or not. some of the sentencing enhanced its because of hate crimes have been declared unconstitutional by the court. >> host: this is from a national gay and lesbian task force. the state including massachusetts allowed include crimes based on sexual orientation. pink and white stripes have crimes based on sexual

orientation. as a teen. purple have hate crime laws that you not include based on sexual orientation. there's about 15. and then the darker purple states are states that do not have hate crime laws that include crimes based on many characteristics. arkansas, georgia, michigan, south carolina. rick is next. go ahead, rick. >> caller: it seems to me the only group that commit hate crimes are hate crimes can be committed against the snow charge of a heterosexual white males. every other group has a special designation except for heterosexual white males. if a crime is committed against them, doesn't matter who commits it, there can be no hate crime component. if a heterosexual white male commits a crime, they will automatically be a hate crime component put into that. that is discrimination.

>> host: we will have the way infers. >> guest: the caller raises an interesting point. it depends on how they are written. you pointed out they are passing all these different states and sometimes written different ways. he says it is limited to heterosexual white males. that may be true in a few states. i don't know. it is controversial when they are drawn up as to what will be included in what is not. for example, are all going to be considered a hate crime because presumably the person is targeting women because it is his crime, the one he wants to commit? if so it is included as a hate crime, it overwhelms the other statistics because of those types of crimes. one time a controversy erupted because some criminals in the ark city were targeting the elderly. so is age against the elderly,

is that going to be considered a hate crime or not? depends on how they're written. >> host: 10 uses a red herring argument was brought to my years that i worked very hard at the campaign to try to pass an assignment to what was then called the local law-enforcement enhancement act which became the matthew shepard act. teeple wanted to say that you cannot add gender to current hate crime laws because all would then be considered a hate crime. that is not true. that is not what happens. that would have is in practice and states in tim knows that. what you see with federal hate crimes is very few hate crimes are prosecuted at the federal level. there are very few over the last several years. and so this is not an overbroad statute. this is not that leads to additional litigation as many will claim.

but it does is provides a back and ensures the local law-enforcement will work together when and if local law enforcement chooses not to prosecute or investigate to the fullest extent. post to let me have you respond to each b-2 is echoing a point that tim lynch friday. he says isn't any violent crime a hate crime? cosco not all violent crimes are motivated by a particular group of people. they are motivated by the need for a robbery, a break-in. those are violent crimes they are not motivated. the brutal killing of james byrd because of animus towards african-americans in based on race and was proven. same thing with matthew shepard. these are crimes committed in a violent way by the big time, but they are meant to send a signal to an entire community.

.. sometimes signals they are open to being victims of crimes. >> this is another area we disagree. the person that sent in the tweet that he'd crimes are more violent. there is all types of violent crimes, and the bottom line of

heat crimes is that they are saying that crimes that are rooted in hate and written jealousy were agreed should be treated less severely than hate arises out of bigotry towards nationality or sexual orientation and we'd need to setup this hierarchy of hatred in our law. all violent crimes are awful and motivated by a wide range of reasons and we should and for small evenly and vigorously against the people committing these. >> let me have you weigh in on the headlines we are seeing in the paper recently about hate crime law is that has to do with the case of this tax rutgers student accused of web cam spying on his roommates and the roommate later took his own life. he will not be testifying. that is the headline this morning at the trial. how does this fall under heat crime law? >> it's not a hate crime it is a tragedy. >> i don't think it is a crime

is a tragic example of the internet and seibu bullying and what has become a sort of more pervasive issue if needs to be looked out differently. was tyler clement chosen because of his sexual orientation? was the perpetrator of the crime on the signal trying to send a message of hate for the entire community? in this case the assailant is being accused with invasion of privacy and it's not a hate crime under the state law of new jersey. >> you want to weigh in on this? >> i'm glad we agree this should not be considered a hate crime and i think once the police have determined that they've got the culprit who is responsible for the criminal act, let's shut them down and move them off to the prosecutors of a case can be prosecuted and move the case along but when you have hate crimes if the prejudice element

of the hate crime law is not obvious, then we have to have investigators spending their time trying to prove that element and why do we want to divert our police to look into those things when they've already got enough evidence to know who was responsible for the act repealed of violent crimes and i would rather suggest investigators follow on the leads on other murders and rapes. >> guest: i think this is where you see that hate crimes laws are in place and following they are not over broad, so i think tim and i -- i am not sure whether we agree or disagree -- but that's why the federal hate crime statute is right and in place and should be used when necessary. >> host: teresa is next republican indian ridge tennessee. good morning, teresa. >> caller: yes, i am here. >> host: go ahead with your comment, please. >> caller: im from tennessee georgia and the perpetrators are

on the white community in georgia is from african-americans, flash mog as they are not considered crimes even though they are specifically targeting white owned stores, white people. you are doing nothing but dividing us and trying to keep separate. why is there no hate crimes when a black perpetrates a crime on a white? it's just racially divided. >> host: take that point. >> guest: it is based on race, religion, national or, sexual orientation, disability status. so race, whatever your race, white, black and covered under the federal pay crime statute so if it is proven that these crimes were perpetrated based on race, they would be subject to the federal hate crimes law.

>> host: gregory democrat and when some south carolina. >> caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i think that we've got 45 or 50 years a bit too late than back in the 60's by hate crimes, that i think he'd crimes should be in place. the gentleman talking about we don't need a hate crime law is just another firm them to get away from what they've been getting away with for years and they've made a statement and i obama. if president obama wins the election for four more years, thank god they are in place some things for taking my call >> guest: both of the calls are mistaken and the woman that called just before this

gentleman said it's only enforced against white skin that is one of the cases that reached the supreme court was a guy named todd mitchell each and that is where a lot of these hate crimes, this with high school students and the juveniles who get into a scuffle on a basketball court where they sometimes don't use a racial epithet when they are involved in a fight cities hate crime law is boomerang and are sometimes african-american and get extra time in prison because they uttered some dumb remark during a fight. so both calls seeking are right in that respect hate crimes law resort applied against minorities as well and i don't think it's necessary. faugh >> guest: they are applied across-the-board no and we see the statistics from the fbi and hate crime violence i think they are working. it is not a panacea, it isn't

going to ensure we don't dislike people and that crime is somehow vanished in this country but it is an additional tool of the local law enforcement calls for and it's an additional signal that sends to especially victimized communities, the gay and lesbian community, transgender community in particular that hatred and violence is not okay. >> host: is racial profiling a crime? >> guest: racial profiling is not. racial profiling is not a hate crime. is it based on animus towards a race? yes, but it's not a hate crime. when uc police departments conducting racial profiling they are not brought up on hate crimes laws. they have others to prosecute those perpetrators. >> host: from the supreme court tell the viewers how the court has weighed in on this issue and vote on this issue in the past. >> guest: the heat crimes laws have kept the supreme court is the because i think it is

wreaking havoc with our constitution. first there's the constitutional principal of the federalism which basically divides responsibility between the federal government and the state government under our constitution crimefighting an incredible responsibility but it's mostly handled by state and local law enforcement. so we had violence against women designed to fight by yes crimes against women declared unconstitutional by the supreme court in a case called morrison in the year 2000. i mentioned the case where the supreme court declared a new jersey heat crème law unconstitutional because it finally did the right to trial by jury coming and there was another supreme court case declaring a minnesota hate crime law unconstitutional because it violated free-speech and targeted certain expressive forms of conduct that was painful but under the free-speech principles, we allowed people to even express hateful types of speech, so the hate crimes laws have kept the courts busy and they are declaring these things unconstitutional in a variety of

respects. the federal heat crème law that winnie was talking about was signed into law by president obama in 2009 and the federal laws and challenge has not yet reached the supreme court for that one. >> host: speed, can i have to weigh in on this one. heat crème laws entered as a ton of subjectivity into the criminal law. >> guest: they don't induce subject devotee. they have the judges and law enforcement to use all the tools available. you have to understand with all of our laws, by subjectivity i believe the caller means you have to think about the motives for crime and whether that is objective or subjective we could have that argument, but we introduce different levels of murder. first degree, second degree and feared a degree which goes to the motivation behind that crime so motivations are considered in all levels of our criminal system and different from hate

crimes so they would like us to think that you shouldn't be able to go into what is motivating a criminal to act and that's where we disagree. like the caller suggested i did you do have to go into what is motivating the criminal to act and we respect the hate crime to figure out whether the person is motivated not just to perpetrate a crime against the individual but that crime is meant to send a signal to the entire group of people and again matthew shepard going back to james burden texas those crimes were meant to send a signal not just to the victim of the crime but entire communities of people abhor hawken. >> guest: it is the prejudice to the culprit. you might have a blatant where somebody has a baseball bat and the beating somebody and says aida asians and there's lots of witnesses so i know what was going on in that person's mind. they are not normal pieces are

not so obvious, so i think what the tweeter is getting at is when you don't have the person visibly expressing his hatred while committing the crime forces investigators we think this might be a hate crime let's see what's in his house and what magazines, with posters are on a wall. maybe we can discern a prejudice by what we find in a person's house and i think that is the subject of the that the tweeter is getting out or we going to draw conclusions on that evidence to say that this person not only committed a regular crime that committed a hate crime. >> guest: that's not where the criminal justice system works. you go into a house and look for what is the motivation behind the crime, was the person, was it a crime of passion, was it something the was premeditated, the criminal justice system does that all the time and so i don't understand why tim things for heat crème violence the violence against a particular individual to a group for we have in motivational the time to be

opposed to talking about hate crime laws in the united states years a state-by-state breakdown. there are 12 states in the district of columbia. let me at massachusetts to the list that would make 13 but he crime always based on sexual orientation and gender identity there are also federal laws. let me go back to the caller valerie ann dependent in new jersey. >> caller: good morning. being authority plus-year-old transgender woman i have a perspective i have a few quick comments and a general question for both of your guests and i will be brief. i'm a little disappointed with mr. lynch comments on the whole subject. he seems to be portraying the information broadly and inaccurately. my understanding is a hate crime is a hate crime because the motivation of the crime is itself the hateful nature of it in other words you target someone that some gay or lesbian or someone that's black or

whatever because of the particular characteristics that puts them in a group usually a minority so that is the impetus for the crime. it's not that you are robbing a black person said because he is likelier line to make it a hate crime also commits that you are going after that person because of their minority status. that's what i understand it to be. >> host: let me take that point and have him respond to it. >> guest: the caller has put her finger on why people want the law is and why it was to have them enacted but there's lots of controversy over what should be included in the law and what should not be. for example last year there was an awful violent crime at los angeles baseball stadium. i don't know if you remember this there was a giant man walking through the parking lot and had his shining and jersey on and apparently this rivalry is so intense that some of the

los angeles fans were so offended by his swagger, his willingness to come into their stadium wearing a giants jersey that they targeted and beat him up. he was a paramedic, father of two beaten into a coma and we know he was targeted for no other reason than his sports affiliation and others to the violent crime. why should this crime be treated any differently because of the hatred was motivated by some stupid sports motivation than he was targeted because his ethnicity. >> host: republican in new orleans. go ahead. >> caller: yes, all of it is psychological few points, simply because it's motivated in the mind. all of it is hate. i am 78-years-old and when i go to work i almost have to cite

some of the young folks that are there and something that's in their mind wife had right before a carnival somebody my tires, so it's psychological and the gentleman is liberal in his definition. thank you. >> guest: let me respond by saying cutting his tires i'm certainly sorry for that and i think there's vandalism, and you know, spray-painted, going back to the point, giants versus dodgers is one thing but spray painting a swastika on a temple on a synagogue is something else. so they really are very, very different issues at play.

we worked a lot with the anti-defamation league for example in passing the federal hate crime statute not just when tim said it was signed into law but 14 years before that, and it is an amazing organization that tracks the kind of hatred and hit crème violence and helps with the fbi to train the law enforcement to ss what's at play, what the motivations are at play when it comes to the crime violence and i've got to say as we see the statute are not over your stand heat crimes are going down have to put my face in the law to send signals to people that animosity towards anyone is not okay. >> host: north carolina. democratic scholar. >> caller: good morning, how are you doing? there are so many laws that have

been made come here is one that i suggest. one should make a law it shouldn't be something to obey by it should be something to live by end of years but i suggest that we take rush limbaugh, bob macdonald and roy blunt and agree on different laws in such but what we should do is ultrasound them because they are allowed to do that, all republicans -- >> host: all right, we got the point. here is a tweet. hate crime laws or recourse for those that have been disadvantaged by law that caters to those with cumulative advantage. >> guest: again, i know that one of the reasons bill laws are put forward but again, i go back to the basic point of all violent acts, in the violent act you can think of is already against a law. when it comes to violent acts this is the one that should

unite us all across the political spectrum, should unite all people of all different religions and races but is unacceptable and they should be enforced evenly. we do not need to set up some kind of hierarchy of hatred and to the law. that just creates divisiveness like the earlier calls for making the point of why is this treated as a hate crime and this is and and i think will be to more divisiveness. people on the fpi involved in their case and the federal law was enacted because they want to be able to bring into federal court somebody that may have been equal to 58 crème at the state level and that undermines the double jeopardy principal. we shouldn't think of the people of the victims of the crime we have to take into consideration and also take a look at our entire system and the people that are going to be accused of these crimes having this double

jeopardy principal undermines is another basic constitutional principle that is undermined. >> host: zero rye in says hate crime laws is on the rise because it is maturing and the fbi statistics however there is a headline from "the new york times" recently that the number of u.s. troops are rising. >> guest: that is a fact that he'd hate crime are not going to rid this country or the world of hatred but if they can provide an additional tool to help prosecute and investigate come if they can help ensure that all communities feel safe i have to disagree with him if the hate crimes if you take a look at the federal hate crime statutes signed into law by president obama in 2009, it was modernized

, there were holes in it to a gender identity and sexual orientation were not included in the was clear from fbi statistics those for population is being targeted. so rather than this as putting one group against another it is actually modernizing our approach to law enforcement. >> independent niagara falls new york. >> caller: i'm thankful, god bless c-span. when you have a group of people like the gentleman who was targeted and to literally went out and looked for a black man, chained him to the back of the truck and the drug him on till his skinfuls i don't see how this gentleman could be seeing that not being a hate crime

instead let's find a black person to kill. if you are going to -- and it goes both ways. if a black man goes out and says i don't like white people, the first person i see after dark and going to shoot him he ought to do as many years, the call to make him hold until they build a jail around him. >> host: >> guest: the caller is confused about my position because i certainly wouldn't the nine what was going on in the case. people sometimes clearly targeted ethnicities, race and racial crime people are targeted cities mixed up about that. people responsible for that act were quickly apprehended and

prosecuted for murder. that is what should have happened but we didn't need a crime to address the problem. >> host: are the actual dollar cost still have in the crimes you are opposed to? >> guest: i don't think that cost is the main issue. some of the federal hate crime laws involve a special grant to the law enforcement agencies, i think it will involve some additional investigative resources that was set earlier detectives need to be dispatched to of and gather evidence to prove this is a stevenson there are costs there but that isn't a major issue. >> guest: the murder of james byrnes south lee is a tragedy example of why hate crime laws are needed because yes, tim is right that the perpetrators were brought to justice but what is important in the case like that is not only that the criminals

are put behind bars for life its signal is sent to all african-americans to the entire community that that is not okay not only is it not killing a black man okay but targeting african-american, targeting people so that their race, religion, sexual orientation, identity that is not okay in this. >> guest: anybody this twisted to think that they can stuff the other person, should another person, drag other person behind a truck and anybody that thinks they are going to stop, put down the line for the gun because the hate crime laws on the books is mistaken. >> host: we will get a couple more phone calls next on the hate crime law what is happening? >> guest: training speaking to a number of the callers who have treated those on the front lines of our criminal justice system

our trade with a hate crime is and isn't and how to help prevent them how to talk to the leaders to ensure that we have the proper training the defamation league is one that works with the fbi to do that. >> host: what are you watching for next? >> guest: to see how the laws are in force and the constitutional challenges i spoke about earlier in the federal hate crime law violates the constitutional principal of federalism. host could you expect that to go to the court? >> guest: it was enacted into those in the line and a lot of the cases involve plea bargains. they haven't worked their way up to the appellate court but eventually one will reach the supreme court and declare the violence against women and constitutional law the federal browns and the same would happen if this law. >> host: one or two if we can. west virginia, go ahead. >> caller: i have a little different one for you. i'm just the opposite. i'm white. i'm not albino but close.

in mid-1993 i can't get help there is no law in west virginia. i've been brutalized repeatedly because of my color. they gave women of reproductive rights and the title abortion then i have the discrimination, i don't have pigmentation or a lack of it. i want someone to help me. >> host: speed stachelberg? >> guest: i feel for the caller in west virginia and it would seem to me that the state will banning discrimination based on your engender based on criminal acts your health care system hasn't provided would be a backstop. >> host: middlebury massachusetts, you are the last. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. my question is about jury

nullification said he will not go beyond a jury he would rather be judged by injuries of judges as the o.j. simpson case and he definitely was guilty but could they have brought him to trial for the crime? >> host: anything there to respond to? >> guest: i think that his last comment about the o.j. simpson case shows how divisive they can be because winnie was talking about if we have a federal law then we can have another prosecution coming and we normally think of these cases like with the rodney king remember the l.a.p.d. police officers were initially acquitted in california court than they were brought in to the federal court where they were convicted. you have to think of the flip side of that. i'm talking about he mentioned the o.j. simpson case can you imagine if john ashcroft was a

divisive figure during the bush administration the attorney general continue imagine after o.j. simpson had been acquitted and said we are going to prosecute him for a hate crime in federal court, we have michael jackson and kobe bryant accused of crime but they were acquitted. can you imagine if john ashcroft said we are going to prosecute them in federal court after they've been equated it is when to create more divisiveness and racial strife in the united states rather than less. >> host: winnie stachelberg i want to get your thoughts and then we need to wrap of. >> guest: those are all examples that haven't happened, but i think with what we see your mother is pete crème law or many of the callers is that people are looking for ways not to divide the country based on race or religion or any other factor, and again, hate crime laws are not the way to solve all the problems, but they certainly help. they send a message and they are working and actually reducing hate crime violence in the

country. >> host: winnie, tim, thank you for talking to the viewers about this. appreciate your time. >> guest: thank you pure >> guest: thank you. when they arrived there was nothing here. they built their tiny little cabins and they did it with neighbors helping one another, not federal grants. [applause] as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. good to our website, c-span.org/the contenders to see

videos who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> this is also the time to turn away from the occupation overseas to the rebuilding of our own nation. america must be restored to her proper role in the world. we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves. today the senate continued war on 109 billion-dollar bills for the road bridge and transit projects over the next two years the senate is expected to vote on final passage of the legislation tomorrow. senate majority leader harry reid took to the senate floor to say republicans are blocking the president's judicial nominees. the minority leader mitch mcconnell said the senate should

instead. wre's that debate. majority a period of morning business for one hour r and the first half to republicans the second half.th morning business will resume consideration of the highway bill. there will be roll call votes is relation to the demint anduntil bingaman and the senate will recess until 2:15 and there will as 20 be as r many as 20 roll call vos on the bill. the d i'm told there are two bills at the desk for readings. act summit h.r. 3606 to increase american job creation andimprovs economic growth by increasingor pacess to the public capital com markets to the emerging growth d

the americas with disabilities witin 1990 and so forth.gs >> i would object to the bills.n >> the objection is heard. the bills posted on theonside calendar. >> mr. president, today we important piece of jobs b legislation we've had a cure in a long time and that is the highway bill but it's more than a a highway bill licht is a surface transportation bill that helping our bridges and 70,000 of those who believe 20% of our highways and non-safe condition, and we've problems with a mass transportation system and such things, so we have to move forward building the infrastructure with this o legislation alone. we will save or create

build a world-class transportation system that wasgt started in the presence of. dwight eisenhower and every recd president since then has recognized the need to goision forward division general eisenhower had. eisen we must renew that commitment.uf presidents in recent years have gone out of their way to do nume that.eches a president ronald reagan gave aeb number oegf speeches about how important it was that we begin to renew our commitment that we should have infrastructure in te this country. president clinton did the same thing. the legislation is veryhe important and a commitment to the renewal of the vision ofesse general eisenhower is theartisa essence of this bipartisan billt has the c endorsement of one ofh the most conservative members ob the senate and one of the most e liberal members of the senate. d i was disappointed it took as we long as they did to get where we

are, but we are here. we invoke cloture quite a longth time ago andan it's taking moreh than a month to come inside of the finish for this bill. rem i am paileased we are on track o dispense with the amendment and vote on the final passage in today's business. a mr. president, i am hopeful the house will act immediately to pass this bipartisan compromised that we have all read about in esat we were considering last t month. it failed every test but it failed the test of the unknownc, republican caucus that said no clue we can't do this. how to build as important as it. is democratic and republican members of the senate, and i t gad would hope we'd understand tha it's not good for this countryie to have a situation where someem interest to pass everything ofht

the majority. what republicans have a majority inut the house, that that -- oe served in the house, with bob michael who is a republican leader and was the leader of tho time and thereafter while michael worked with bill to getg legislation done what they try to do is get to to enter the 18 and to my kids and republicans y so i did hope a speaker won't sr justfa try to get the surface transportation bill done with r. republicans but the democrats at to what should have been. passing the bipartisan bill thei president can sign a victory for both parties in the country.hats

bill passed overwhelmingly by the house and supported by president obama and i had a conversation on the floor publicly here last night with tt senator kyl of arizona, and we talked about the need to get this done and in order to movehs forward on this expeditiously.ne there are bumps in the road and i hope they will be very few bumps inhe the road.der, but i i had an opportunity to talk toe my friend, the republican leader but i was told that the ranking member of the banking committee, my friend from alabama indicated he wants to make improvements from the house. i suggest we work with senator b johnson to do something on all y bipartisan basis and do it quickly i'd be happy to look at. it. we need to move forward. i think we can get the message

so think on the bill and we have to move forward on this.o d one thing we cano do is have anl amendment prepared that will allow us to move forward and i hope that we can do this bradley supported and i mentioned last d night the head of boeing said that it is a tremendously important bill for the industryy which is so important to thefor economy of the country but it'si notnd only important to the of industry is important to other segments of our industrial base and legislation and if we can't i understand but it would be a shame to miss the opportunity to duvet we are introducing this

bill supported by the house and my contention grows ie t isn't going to create the highway bill but it's good for job growth is more capital in the world and w streamline the way to the company's stock so i looked forward to working with my tadeo friend the republican leader ton finalize the path forward onati. this bipartisan legislation. pl the senate must also come the authorization of the violence against women act, cret cybersecurity and additional measures to create jobs andpr ey have the amendments to thisrtisn

well, this bipartisan bill, thei surface transportation bill, if they are not going to hold up progress on the small-business jobs bill and i'm confident the. will not and hopefully that isyi the case. mr. president, yesterday i final closure on the judicial wd wit nominations. a i worked with of the republicans for months to plot a way for time confirmation for these nominees including some thateen have been waiting for up and down votes since october. mr. president i have here yesterday, i don't have it today will show it today visual aid ts show what happened in the t clinton years and bush and obama years it is clear what hasappen. happened and it really doesn't a fully represent what happened because in the clinton years wee had dozens and dozens of nominees that we called old

hearings on them, but with a length of time reporting on thef committee, clinton a few days, bush and of course now we are talking about many months that is not fair and overwhelminglysn with a rare exception there's no precious time theen senate has o pass these and we can do it so quickly awaiting five or six times longer in the confirmati n and that is increasingly going 8 down to confirm 18 nominations in a single day so there is no justification or obstruction on matters little to the routines. there's too much to do the senate doesn't have the luxury to waste any more time. the

estimate of the senate is likely to finish the highway bill and - once we do listen to the majority leader's remarks oncetn we fin jish the bill we house immediately turn to the bipartisan jobs bill that passed the houseot last thursday. the vote was 390 to 23. let me say that again, the votet in the house was 390 to 23.n the the president also indicated he would sign of the house bill. so, it strikes me with the job as an emergency we have in the country with 8.3 unemployment gv many haven't given up trying to get in the workforce the thing ed do is to pocket this broadcrm bipartisan bill and try toobs

create jobs immediately. i for my friend the majority leader indicate he wants to have a different version of it to kind of free crafted.all the process and make it more difficult to get this important legislation to the president'std desk rapidly slide of the wheel majority leader will reconsider whether we need to reinvent the wheel. this is all pretty broadlyhich supported bipartisan bill which the president said he will sign as soon as we send it to him.oon i don't a know why in the senatt we would want to make something that ought to be pretty simple extraordinarily complicated. the democratic control turns tor something as the majority leadee indicated we aread going to turn to something contentious insteat of trying to do something almose all of us agree on certainly in the house and the presidentctuay

agrees on the focus is on jobs and actually does some good andf spent a lot of time spending our think wheels around here rather than o trying to manufacture gridlock and try to create the illusion of contact none should exist why don't we demonstrate we can get actually get something done l together ooand millions americas are working for work and strg millions more struggling with ae high price of gas we have an opportunity to do something together right now has and as we finish the highway bill. we can to get this bill and senn andmall but in part to signal to job creators and innovators that we want to help make it easiernd for them to hire. later today we will have another chance to move forward on the keystone pipeline despite the president's continued subpar tpposition we will have anothera vote related to the subject by senator pat roberts.d jobs

the house passed jobs bill is ah important for what it does but for was also represents. it is a rare and welcome signaln that lawmakers in washington and still value, the risk takers and the entrepreneurs have always been a vital to the nation's greatness.h the they undermine free enterprise to the picking of winners and de losers this regulation sends an entirelyal different signal. it is a welcomed steps back in the right direction.ld enc by clearing the ticket shouldrer encourage and entrepreneurship that not only leads to the new pockets of industry and the joba that come with them but alsoheir help people fulfill their dreams and without adding to the deficit, this bill doesn't add anything for the federal pcisel, deficit. this is precisely, mr. president, precisely the kind of thing we should be doin. right here in washington. mesgeu it's a message we should send.

we don't need fewer apples orcro microsoft or facebook, we need more of that. we need the value to add to your life's the edge they give us in the world economy, the jobs thef provide hundreds of thousands oe american workers and to help i with the idea into.e let's send this important signal and we still believe in innovation and that is on a common good is in sight right wk before us to achieve it this isw so crucial that i want to renews what my colleague john culticmal plus life is just offered

consent. i told the majority leader in going to do this return to this important bipartisan piece of legislation that passed overwhelmingly to the president of the united states and we h finished the highway bill and let me say again there is noconh purpose served erby manufacturig and controversy minute said john inur exist we have the legislation passed in the house reported by. the president the highway billsn will clear late this afternoon or tomorrow.rather i think most senators would t rather be working on things thae the american people believe will help create jobs than to see a another controversy which i feas my good friend in the majority

leader seeking to precipitate as soon as the highway bill is mr.i concluded so as to president i ask unanimous consent of notwithstanding durrell the senate following the disposition of the transportation bill, the senate to proceed to 36, received the would increase the job creation and economic growth by improving access to public eg markets for emerging companies their business expos stuff.e obi islamicon? mr. president? >> reserving the right to object to is the man i know that when people talk they are alwaysafrao afraid people are not listening. maybe my friend go republican leader from my presentationer t morning there's nothing to fighy about. we are going to move as quickly as we can and i've heard that

the ranking member, the ranking committee wants to take a look t ato this i encourage them in tak doing so and talked to senator johnson. opportunity on the amendment to vote on something i thoughtted. republicans want it, democratsis want at and the business wants an it.s it is the bank to reauthorize to that business at the end of may. that will take this bill up maybe half an hour. so mr. president, i've said if we are going to have a fight me get over something worthwhile. t there is nothing to fight about here. we are going to move as a quicke as we can believe we know underf the rules of the senate we havee to vote on 17 judges one goes ob back to october last year so i

would be happy to get rid of ale these judges to have them goi approved on the bill. we are going to move the bill ay quickly as possible but to my friend spoke volumes. this is a small but important bill. we realize that. those are his words. this is dealing with the initial public offerings. we've heard for months andwee ha months thrdat the small business can't find capital to do the things they need to do and i caucu rypport.iell eve so i tell everyone within the sound of my voice we are goingno to move in this bill as quickly as we can and i object. we >> it is a question ofl. priorities. we agree we ought to pass the bill and certainly if it were a, called ability open for the maj amendment and the majority

leader could offer the amendment if he chose and other senators could as well, but it's a question of priority. we want a fight in the senate over procedure and we've had some differences which i willfes address leader, not right now but later relating to theconfiri fonfirmation judges and o responsibility of the senate under the constitution on theun, tuage or do we want o to turn immediately to a jobs bill that we overwhelmingly agree to as the majority leader has just conceded and has remarked. so you want to have the senate and a big fight over the fight procedure after we finish the te highway bill, or do you want ton turn to an overwhelminglyn jobs bipartisan jobs bill supported by the president, passed by the. house it's a question of priorities.e american what we want to do next for the american people? >> mr. president, i am stunned

by the controversy over nothinge under the rules of the senate we found that because there has been the stalling of the men. obstruction and 17 men identify trial court. each one of these men and women have been brought to a standstill. they have the opportunity of a a lifetime to be a will to become a federal trial court judge. they shouldn't have to wait my until october. i say to my friend, let's -- wen it'sapprove these judges in one minute.rust let's do that. though it's not fair just to sar these 17 men and women isn't tim important over to some time we have no problem with the bill te that we got from the house.se. how could we.st 390 votes in the house, thewe'lo president supports it. we want to get this done and wee will do it as quickly as we can.

it may not be ten minutes from u now or 24 hours from now but weo will get it as quickly as we can. we can move to it very quickly as soon as we finish the highway bill we can move to the judgesof and get those disposed of and bt on this after the highway billl: but that's about all. islamic would the senate yield? >> we talked about the americand people and i am sure theand is s majority leader and i would ask ere is him where there is 160 billion americans who were in the judicial districts for their the vacancies because even though they've gone to the senatesenatc judiciaryia committee majority d leader has been blocked on

hundred 60 million americans were denied the chance for to justice denied a chance to go tk court and so i ask the leaderhe, who said the one of the on these forward on the judges. at some >> mr. president and mentioned this yesterday at some length, r and i believe the presiding officer was there when i did that. more than half of the people ins america today are living in areas where there's been theneso core judicial emergency and that is one of them. judges who are overwhelmed witha work and i said yesterday ict don't want these judges to have to act as if i they were might court judges dealing withd traffic cases as i said w yesterday these judges deal with what we refer to what are you to trying to do make a federal case out of it because there's nopeng

finer law dispensing anyplace il the world and in our federal court system and you can't dohen that when these men and women are overwhelmed with work.ad on the circuit court level that's one thing. that's too bad they areel, overwhelmed with work but on thy trial court you are dealing with problems people have with trusth cases erand businesses having ge bankrupt in all the otheran f finance the federal court has ay jurisdiction of, and my friend is absolutely right. conce we should not only be concernedn pout the 17 people who have the been selected by the president havingf gotten a sign off from the republican senator in their state i should talk not onlyres. about them as they represent and that is f trying to do something about the emergency is for more than half of americans.esiding ficer: the >> mr. president? >> i think that underscores myro

point.th a my friends on the other side arf concerned the jobs of 17 individuals may be delayed for a few months i would add a penny . and it's highly unlikely any of these individuals will not be confirmed in an orderly process as we have been engaged in, and. the what is more important? getting these 17 individuals and to age of a little bit quicker than the majority has experienced so far, or turning to a measure overwhelmingly supported by democrats in the house, supported by the president in the united states that might create in the very m future hundreds of thousands off jobs, so it is a question of priority and that's why i say of this is a manufactured dispute. i would have much to much more in great detail about the judgee issue but for the moment the que

court is this, quite simply what are their priorities that the law to pass to have a jobs bills the president supports as soon as possible certainly open forls any amendment the majority might seek to offer the might of to create controversy over judges that are almost never denied confirmation when we've been confronting all along. i don't know that there is muche point to continue this mor discussion any longer this say morning. i would have a lot more to say d about how we ended up in theeekg situation where the majorityriss leader is seeking to manufacture the crisis that shouldn't rea conflict or that really doesn't mr. president, on the yield.se >> my friend of the republican leaders said they are not going to be improved anyway. so i've got an idea. let's go to the jobs bill immediately after finishing the

hi highway bill, reachedgh the agreement, dispose of these judges immediately after thei'mp triet sounds goodpy to me. i'm happy to do that. >> ibe will speak when my friens leaves.hway >> let's go about as soon as we ninish the highway bill we willo move to the bill and as soon as we finish that of the senate we will have an up or down votesag this does not include the deal agreement on the appellate judges how about that deal?end,i sali bruseghin to my friend what we can do is when we finish the highway bill as soon as weave av finish that have an up or down vote on these judges i would be happy to work in any reasonable,

fashion.cussing this i >> mr. president? >> the republican leader. >> we of been discussing this is not the best time for the debate on the judges, but the point isg this, we have been processing judges. it is highly unlikely any of tht district judges are not willing toe be confirmed. we've done a number of them thie year, we've done seven this year. the judges are almostat never defeated this is a transparent rity a attempt to slam-dunk theike minority and make them look liky they are obstructing things.we d we don't thinkon that meets theo standard of civility that shoul. be expected in the senate to make the slam dunk that is sort of manufactured as this is is tf now it i should be that emphasid what my friend the majority

leader has in mind to try to its make the senate looks like it is embroiled in controversy where no controversy excess. my suggestion is why don't we do first things first? first things first, and it jrikes me that an overwhelming bipartisan jobs bill americaeope clearinghouse would be something the american people woulde applaud and supported by the president. why don't we take that up if thf majority leader or any of us offer amendments we think iser appropriate in a move towards ac passage because that is the kind of thing people would expect of. us.ty leade >> mr. president? >> the majority leader. n >> it's obvious the jobs bill has nothing to do with holding up these judges as has been articulated by my friend. jus c it's a question of stalling things as it happens.

we have as indicated more than n half the american people are in areas where there is additional emergencies. it's important we get thi information of the justice dhaka and do it quickly. i.p.o. the controversy doesn't exist, there isn't any and i would f suggest to my friend this billt- was so important and i think it is we have very little thingso - left to do. the post office, we have thevioe violence against women, we havee all these judges of course,of cklya to become so if we move qi quickly to this ipo delroy can'a imagine why we would need them. i indicated my right as a offera majority leader i can offer an amendment that would be to find out