assume it is the latter. can you explain again in place is for it is already being used and saving money? that technology? >> the l.e.t., because they last 10 or 20,000 hours, if you leave these on for a long time. emergency exit sign, office buildings, of very high ceilings you have to hire someone with a crane to change the late bald bald -- light bulb. traffic lights. we already know switching out incandescent makes commercial sense today. the idea of the light bulb

contest was to provide a gold going further down fatty eventually americans can afford. . .

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks this morning the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour. the majority will control the first half. the republicans the second half. following morning business, we'll resume consideration of the highway bill. there will be two roll caller votes in relation to demint and bingaman amendments at noon. the senate will then recess until 2:15 to allow for our weekly conference meetings. at 2:15 there could be as many as 20 roll call votes this aftermoon to complete action on this transportation bill. i'm told, mr. president, there are two bills at the desk due for second readings. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3606, an act to increase american job creation, economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies. s. 2186, a bill to amend the americans with disabilities

ablght of 1990 and so forth. mr. reid: i would object to further proceedings with regard to these two bills. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be posted on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, today we resume consideration of the most important piece of jobs legislation we've had here in a long time, and that's the highway bill. but it's more than a highway bill. it's a surface transportation bill. it deals with all aspects of helping our failing bridges -- there are 70,000 of those. we have 20% of our highways in nonsafe condition. we have problems with our mass transportation system, rails, and other such things. so we have to move forward building this nation's infrastructure with this legislation alone. it will save or create 2.8 million jobs. this is an effort to build a

world-class transportation system that was started during the presidency of dwight eisenhower. and every president since then has recognized the need to go forward with the vugs that general ice en-- with the vision that general eisenhower had. presidents in recent years have gone out of their way to do that. president reagan gave a number of speeches about how important it was that we begin to renew our commitment that we should have to infrastructure in this country. president clinton did the same thing. the legislation is very, very important, and a commitment to the renewal of the vision of general eisenhower is the essence of this bipartisan bill. it has the endorsement of the one the most conservative members of the senate and one the most liberal members of the senate. i was disappointed that it took as long as it did to get where we are, but we're here. we invoked cloture quite a long

time ago, and it's taken more than a month to come within sight of the finish for this bill. i'm pleased that we're on track to dispense with the remaining amendments and vote on final passage during today's business. mr. president, i am hopeful that the house will act immediately to pass this bipartisan compromise rather than pursuing what we've all read about -- the extreme ideological bill they were considering last month. it failed every test but it failed the test of the their own caucus. the republican caucus said, no, we can't do this. the highway bill is important to democratic members and republican members of the house, as it is democratic and republican members of the senate. and i would hope that the speaker understands that it is not gad fo good for this countro have a situation where he tries to pass everything with a majority of the majority. what that means is that the

republicans have a majority in the house, but that isn't -- i served in the house, and we -- the way things that were done with bob michel and tip o'neill and jim wright thereafter. bob michel worked with both of them to get legislation done. they worked to get the number of 218, that's the majority in the house. they got those votes from democrats or republicans. so i hope my friend, the speaker, won't just try to get this surface transportation bill done with republicans. let the democrats voice their opinion. that's the way we should do it. passing a bipartisan transportation bill the president can sign would be a victory for both parties and our country. the senate's pressing business doesn't end with completion of this bill, though. we have a small business jobs bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the house and

supported by president obama. and we are -- i had a conversation on the floor publicly here last night with the republican whip, senator kyl of arizona, and we talked about the need to get this done. and we're going to move forward with this expeditiously. there are obviously bumps in the road and i hope there will be very few bumps in the road. i haven't had an opportunity to talk to my friend, the republican leader, but i was told this morning that the ranking member of the banking committee, my friend from alabama, senator shelby, has indicated that he wants to make some improvements in i think bill we got -- in the bill we got from the house. i suggest he work with senator johnson and they can do something on a bipartisan basis and do it quickly. i'll be happy to take a look at it. we need to move forward. i think you kind of get the message when there's about 390 vote for a bill and 20 against

it. so i think we have to move forward on this. the one thing i am going to do is have a perfecting amendment prepared that will allow us to move forward on reauthorizing ex-im bank. the business community thinks it's extremely important. the head of boeing said that it is a trai tremendously importanl for the airline industry. it is important to other segments of our industrial base. it's an important piece of legislation, and i hope that we can add that to the small business jobs bill. if we can't, i understand that. but it would be a shame to miss that opportunity to do that. we are interested in this i.p.o. bill that has been supported by

the house and the president of the united states. i'm convinced it'll spur small business growth. it's not going to create the jobs that we have in the highway bill, but it's good for job growth. it will bring more capital into the business world and that's what we've needed for several years now. and it would streamline the way companies sell stock. so i look forward to working with my friend, the republican leader, to finalize a path forward on this bipartisan legislation. in the coming days the senate must also consider postal reform legislation, reauthorization of violence against women act, cybersecurity, and additional measures to create jobs and provide for our economy. the only thing preventing the senate from moving quickly to tackle these items, including the bipartisan small business jobs bill is what we've had this whole congress -- obstructionism by my friends, the republicans. they have forced the senate to waste weeks on unrelated amendments to this bill, this bipartisan bill, this surface

transportation bill. so i hope they're not going to hold up progress on the small business jobs bill. i'm confident they will not. i really hope that's the case. yesterday i filed cloture on 17 consensus judicial nominations. i've worked with the republicans for months to find a way forward to timely conversation for many of these nominations, including some who have been waiting for up-or-down votes since october. mr. president, i had here today -- i don't have it today; i'll show it to my caucus today -- a visual aid to show what happened in the clinton years, the bush years, and the obama years. it is so clear what's happened. it doesn't fully represent what happened because in the clinton years we had dozens and dozens of nominees that were what we called "pocket vetoed" -- they just wouldn't hold hearings on

them. but with the length of time that judges are reported out of committee, clinton a few days, yobush a few days and of course now we're talking about many months with obama's nominations. that's not fair. they should all be entitled to up-or-down votes, especially when they came out of the committee so overwhelmingly with rare exception. there's no reason that we should eat up one day of precious time that the senate has to pass these commonsense measures. presidenthe senate wants to con8 of president bush -- the senate once confirmed 18 of president bush's nominations in a single day. there's too much to do. the senate doesn't have the luxury to waste anymore time.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: later today the senate is likely to finish the highway bill, and once we do, i listened carefully to the majority leader's remarks -- once we finish the highway bill, we ought to immediately turn to the bipartisan jobs bill that passed the house last thursday. the vote was 390 to 23. let me say that again. the vote in the house was 390 to 23. the president has also indicated he would sign the house bill, so it strikes me with the jobs emergency that we have in this bill with 8.3% unemployment, many more millions of americans having given up trying to get into the workforce, the thing to do is to pocket this broad, bipartisan bill and rye to create jobs immediate -- and try to create jobs immediately. i a heard my friend, the---- i'e

heard my friend, the majority leader, say he wants to recraft it. all that will do is slow down the process and make it more difficult to get this important jobs legislation to the president's desk rapidly. so i hope the majority leader will reconsider whether we need to kind of reinvent the wheel here. i mean, this is already broadly supported, bipartisan bill which the president has said he will sign as soon as we send it to him. i don't know why we would want to make something that is simple extraordinarily complicated. the majority leader has indicated that instead we're going to turn to something contentious instead of trying to do something that almost all of us agree on, certainly in the house, and the president agrees on, that would focus us on jobs and actually do some good.

the american people think we spend a lot of time spinning our wheels around here. i think they'd -- rather than sort of try to manufacture gridlock and create the illusion of conflict where none should exist, why don't we demonstrate we can actually get something done together. in a moment when millions of americans are looking for work and millions more are struggling with the high price of gas, we have an opportunity to do something together right now. as soon as we finish this highway bill. we could send a small but important signal to job creators and innovators that we want to help make it easier for them to hire and later today we'll have another chance to move forward on the keystone x.l. pipeline. despite the president'ses continued stubborn opposition to it, we'll have another vote related to that subject offered by senator pat roberts. the hous

bill isn't just important for what it does but for what it also represents. it's a rare and welcome signal that lawmakers in washington still value, the risk takers and the entrepreneurs have always been so vital to our nation's greatness. after three years of policies that undermine free enterprise through the picking of winners and losers, this legislation sends an entirely different signal. it's a welcome step back in the right direction. by clearing away red tape, it should encourage the kind of entrepreneurship that not only leads to new pockets of industry and the jobs that come with them, but which also helps people fulfill their dreams and without adding to the deficit. this bill doesn't add anything to the federal deficit. this is precisely, mr. president, precisely the kind of thing we should be doing right here in washington. it's the message we should send. we tkphaoepbtd fewer apples --

we don't need fewer apples or microsofts or facebooks. we need more of that. we need them for the value they add to our lives, the edge they give us in the world economy, the jobs they provide hundreds of thousands of american workers, and for the satisfaction they bring to those who help turn them from an idea into a reality. so let's send this important signal that we still believe in opportunity. we still believe in innovation. and that's -- and that when a common good is in sight, when we can see a common good right before us, we can still work together to actually achieve it. this is so crucial that i want to renew what my colleague, jon kyl, did last night, which is to offer a consent -- i told the majority leader i'm going to do this -- that we turn to this

important bipartisan piece of legislation that passed overwhelmingly in the house, supported by the president of the united states, immediately after we finish the highway bill. let me say again there is no purpose served by manufacturing controversy here in the senate. manufacturing controversy when none should exist. we have an important piece of jobs legislation passed overwhelmingly in the house, supported by the president. the highway bill will clear here late this afternoon or tomorrow. i think most senators would rather be working on things that the american people believe would actually help create jobs than to see the senate embroiled in another controversy which i fear my good friend, the majority leader, is seeking to precipitate as soon as the

highway bill is concluded. so, hr-pt, i ask unanimous consent -- so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent not withstanding any other rule of the senate that immediately following the disposition of the pending transportation bill the senate proceed to consideration of h.r. 3606, a bill received from the house which would increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to public capital markets or emerging growth companies. i further ask consent that the bill remain the pending business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: reserving the right to object. mr. president, i know when people talk, they're always afraid that people aren't listening. maybe my friend, the republican leader, didn't hear my presentation this morning. there's nothing to fight about. i just said we're going to move this bill as quickly as we can. i said that i've heard that the ranking member of the banking

committee wants to take a look at this. i encourage him to do so, talk to senator johnson. i said that we're going to have an opportunity on a perfecting amendment to vote on something i thought everyone wanted. republicans want it. democrats want it. the business community wants it. the workers of this country need it. and it's an ex-im bank, to reauthorize that which goes out of business at the end of may. that will take, it will slow this bill up maybe a half an hour, one half-hour. so, mr. president, there is no -- i've said many times, let's -- if we're going to have a fight, make it over something worthwhile. there's nothing to fight about here. we're going to move through this as quickly as we can. we know under the raoufls of the senate we have -- rules of the senate we have to vote on 17 judges which have been held up, one goes back to october of last year. i would be happy to get rid of

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

it's a question of priorities. we've had some differences which i'll address later, not now but later, relating to the confirmation of judges and the responsibility of the senate under the constitution of the united states, or do we want to turn immediately to a jobs bill that we overwhelmingly agree to as the majority leader has just conceded in his remarks. so it's a question of priorities. do you want to have the senate in a big fight in procedure off we finish the highway bill or do you want to turn to an overwhelmingly bipartisan jobs bill supported by the president, passed by the house? it's a question of priorities. what do we want to do next for the american people? mr. reid: mr. president, i am stunned by our controversy over

nothing. under the rules of the senate, we filed, because there's been stalling, obstruction on the lives 17 men. i didn't file on the appellate judges. only the trial court judges. each one of these men and women life has been brought to a standstill. they have the opportunity of a lifetime to be able to become a federal trial court judge. they shouldn't have to wait until october. i say to my friend, let's -- we can approve these judges in one minute. let's do that. it's not fair just to say that the lives these 17 men and women is unimportant, put it over until some later time. we have no problem with the i.p.o. bill we got from the house. how could we? it got 390 votes in the house. the president of the united states supports it. we support it. we want to get this done, and we'll do it just as quickly as we can. it may not be ten minutes from

now or 24 hours from now, but we'll move to it just as quickly as we can. but we can move to it very quickly. as soon as we finish this highway bill, we could move to those judges, get those disposed of. we could be on this -- it might take an hour after the highway bill, but that's about all. mr. leahy: mr. president? would the senator yield to me? mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. reid: be happy to yield. mr. leahy: i wonder when we talk about, mr. president, when we talk about the american people want, i'm sure the majority leader -- and i'd ask, and this is a question -- where there is 160 million americans who are in judicial districts where there are vacancies because we have not, even though they have gone through the senate judiciary committee, the majority leader's been blocked from bringing them up for a vote. 160 million americans who are denied a chance for justice,

denied a chance to go to court. so i ask the leader: was that also one of the considerations he had, moving forward on these judges? mr. reid: mr. president, i say to the chairman of the judiciary committee, i mentioned this yesterday at some length, and i believe the presiding officer was here when i did that. we -- more than half of the people in america today are living in areas where there has been declared a judicial emergency. nevada is one of them. we have people who are these judges who are overwhelmed with work. and i said yesterday i don't want these judges to have to act as if they were night court judges dealing with traffic cases. these are, as i said yesterday, these judges deal with what we used to traoefr when i practiced -- refer to when i practiced law, what are you trying to do? make a federal case out of it? they say that because there is no finer law dispensing anyplace

in the world than in our federal court system. you can't do that when these men and women are overwhelmed with work. on the circuit court level that,'s one thing. it's too bad they're overwhelmed with work. but on the trial court level, you're dealing with everyday problems people have with accidents, with antitrust cases, with businesses having gone bankrupt and all the other things that the federal court has jurisdiction over. and my friend is absolutely right. we should not only be concerned about the 17 people who have been selected by the president of the united states to be a judge after having gotten a signoff from the republican senator in their state. i should have talked not only about them individually, but what they represent. and that is trying to do something about the emergencies that exist for more than half of americans. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i think that colloquy underscores my point. my friends on the other side are concerned that the jobs of 17

individuals may be delayed for a few months. i doubt if any of them are unemployed at the moment. and this is -- and it's highly unlikely that any of these individuals will not be confirmed in an orderly process as we have been engaged in this year. the issue is a question of priorities. what is more important? getting these 17 individuals into a job a little bit quicker than the majority has experienced so far? or turning to a measure whoefrplgly supported by -- overwhelmingly supported by republicans and democrats in the house, supported by the president of the united states that might create in the very near future hundreds of thousands of jobs? it is a question of priority. that is why i say this is a manufactured dispute. i have much, much more in great detail to say about the judges issue, but for the moment the point is this, quite simply,

what are our priorities? do we want to pass an overwhelming bipartisan jobs bill the president supports as soon as possible, certainly open for any amendment the majority leader might seek to offer? or do we want to create a controversy over judges that are almost never denied confirmation when we have been confirming judges all along? i don't know there's much point to continuing this discussion any longer this morning. i'll have a lot more to say about how we ended up in a situation where the majority leader is seeking to manufacture a crisis that shouldn't -- a conflict or crisis that really doesn't exist. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: my friend, the republican leader, said these judges are going to be approved anyway. so i've got an idea. let's go to the i.p.o. bill immediately after finishing the highway bill with the agreement

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

republican leader. mr. mcconnell: look, we have been discussing -- this is not the best time for the debate on the judges. but the point is this: we have been processing judges. it is highly unlikely any of these district judges are not going to be confirmed. we've done a number of them this year. we've done seven this year. district judges are almost never defeated. this is just a very transparent attempt to try to slam dunk the minority and make them look like they're obstructing things they aren't obstructing. we object to that. we don't think that meets the standard of civility that should be expected in the senate. so any effort to make the minority look bad or slam dunk them that is manufactured as this is, is going to of course be greeted with resistance. it could be that is precisely what my friend the majority leader has in mind, to try to make the senate look like it's

embroiled in controversy where no controversy exists. so my suggestion is, why don't we do first things first. first things first. and it strikes me that an overwhelming bipartisan jobs bill cleared in the house would be something the american people would applaud, supported by the president. why don't we take that up. the majority leader can offer -- any of us can offer amendments we think are appropriate and move it toward passage because that is the kind of thing that people expect of us. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: it is obvious that the jobs bill has nothing to do with the holding up of these judges, as has been articulated by my friend. it is just a case of stalling things, as has happened all this congress. we have, as indicated, more than half the american people are in

areas where there's judicial emergencies. it's important we get this disptiodispensization of justic. the controversy on the i.p.o. bill does not exist. i would suggest to my friend, though, i don't think we should have a -- if this bill is so important -- and i believe it is -- though we have very many things to do -- the post, don't want it to go broke; we have the violence americans women to get done; we have all these judges, of course; we have cybersecurity. so if we move quickly and i'm going to move quickly to this i.p.o. bill, i can't imagine why we would need any amendments. i can offer a perfecting amendment and that would be to find out if the body, who feels strongly about what they've said publicly, that the ex-im bank

should be part of the deal. that takes about 15 minutes. but in addition to that, we're not going to have a knock down, drag out on the