in other words we can have a serious conversation about democracy and human rights in russia with russian government officials and russian civil society and the u.s. conference and we should. we should continue that and i suspect we will in the questions and answers. but i dare somebody to stand up today and tell me how not terminating or whenever the right languages jackson vanik, how that helps the cause of promoting rule of law, democracy and human rights. we don't see it that way. we want to lose other venues and other mechanisms and other instruments. listening to those after all on the ground in russia, not just what we think but what they think. ..

>> i'm playing basketball again, out in moscow, just so, you know. i've are had three injuries in eight weeks. >> you're going to the boards too hard. you mentioned the statement today calling for abolition of jackson-vanik and making the point that failure to do so plays into the hands of those who are anti-american, and they specifically made reference to president putin. the high hard one is as follows,

the closest analog i'm aware of is back when the u.s. had the famous sturgeon legislation, then against cuba, like jackson-vanik against russia. and the congress sent a steady team to havana to assess the impact on u.s. interest of the helms-burton legislation which, of course, try to tighten the embargo and limit the economic exchanges with cuba. the congressional delegation came back and said, we came to one main conclusion. the cubans that are on our side, the u.s. side, want to get rid of castro, want to democratize, et cetera, et cetera, tell us that that legislation in cuba is widely called the helms-burton-castro legislation.

because it strengthens the hand of castro it enormously. that even castro's opponent have to oppose helms-burton and so it rallies more support to castro, hurts our interests, should be abolished. do you find the same kind of phenomenon in russia that the continuation of jackson-vanik actually hurts u.s. interests in the country? >> without question, yes. and let me talk more about what the russians say. a statement today was an important one. as they are saying it now as opposed to intermediaries like me. but here's how it plays internally, right? remember what jackson-vanik was for, first -- i wrote about at the time tremendously successful piece of legislation. i think it was very important legislation at the time. but the problem as jewish

immigration since 1994, every year there's a process you go through to authorize that is not a real problem. so what happens to the debate in terms of inside of russia, this becomes, you know, these americans soviet russia that, you know, this issue that went away 20 years ago is still there because they're out to get us, they are out to destroy us. so it's a burden on the human rights activists. it's a burden on the jewish community or by the way, i see mark levin is here. i went around to talk to many leaders of the jewish community, not a single person supports jackson-vanik. it's a burden on them. it's not a useful argument for them. and so they would just as soon get rid of it and have a more interesting, modern, you know, intemperate conversation about the real issues that are facing those people as opposed to having, you know, their

opponents just roll out this will be americans or so, a rational that are still holding, for something there's no longer the problem to let me also remind everybody that they just be a different debate. i think this is a very important point. before russia had agreed to join the wto, and now they will ratify that sometime in may or june. that's going to happen. before that happened, there was an argument that we disagreed with. the obama administration, but at least you could defend irrationality of it, which is let's hold jackson-vanik as a way to put pressure on us to get the right deal for wto, to put pressure on it. russia did care about wto, only some people in russia did. it's a hotly debated issue, as anders knows better than i. but it open, they supported and they wanted it. they did create leverage on us. it work. we heard those arguments and on

poultry and pork are the ones i remember in particular, and we went back and we argued on we think we got the right kind of do. so there was a logic back then, but with russia joining the wto that had no leverage on us. we are done. that train has left the station so it's really hard to understand in his interest holding this, does serve. >> so it is clear what you said, and if you're right, certainly our study which is out for you to pick up on the way out, i encourage you to do so. it's on the table. makes the case as mike said, but if you write that that's a no-brainer in economic terms, which we certainly think is correct, so then it comes down to linkage, and people want to link the abolition of jackson-vanik with something else.

your obvious a close to what's going on on the hill, which a prediction and what is the likely strategy for trying to avoid linkage of that? do you think you can succeed? what's the strategy? >> well, i'd like to see each course on democratization and revolution on standards, that's true. and one thing i've learned from that literature, never try to predict the future about democratization our revolution, but i was a prediction with the u.s. congress does is even more scary a proposition, and i'm not qualified to do that because i'm not an expert on u.s. congress. so i don't know how to predict the. all i would say is, it is the highest priority for the obama administration. it's our top trade issue for this year. the president just last week, meeting with business roundtable, made that crystal

clear. i encourage you to go read what he says. we have a very active engagement strategy with both sides of the house because it has to go through both, right? we were delighted to host center, the chairman of the senate finance committee, which has jurisdiction on the senate side. i think any very successful trip. you should ask him, and in particular, we had to meet with people on the political side. you know, we had a meet with human rights activists and people to fight corruption so he could have the argument directly from them as opposed to a cable from me. and they are way more persuasive than we can be. so we are doing that, you know, and in terms of timetable, of course we would like to get this done before russia joins the wto because we don't want our companies to be adversely affected. and i want to see one of the thing about that. it's not just a one time thing. i hear some people say all know,

election year, maybe we will get it next year. that may be fine, you know, in the abstract. but if you lose that market, if you lose, especially for exporters, you know, that have tough competitor, you lose that one year, you are fighting for the next in to get back to where you are the you, you lost it. so it is a tremendous blow on very specific companies if we don't get this done in a timely way. >> anders? >> a bit more on senator baucus trip. it seems to me that -- [inaudible] >> and in particular, it seems to me that u.s. senate is hardly -- red carpet treatment, so many top level meetings. and at the same time we are seeing indie media massive anti-american campaigns, which

for example, engages deputy prime minister dimitri. how do you make sense of these two contradictory statements? >> well, i would say you are right about senator baucus' visit. he met with the president of russia. that doesn't happen very often, a codel, learning the link which. state department official. and across the board. every, and very productive meetings by the way. it wasn't just the facts of the meetings. they were serious meetings. i guess i would put it this way. the anti-americanism, which, of course, has concluded me from time to time personally, was something that we did not expect. it was somewhat shocking to us, frankly. especially because of the kind of relationship that we think we

have been developing with the russian government over the last three years. what i was told hundreds, you know, and many, many times at the highest levels of the russian government was they see continuity in u.s.-russian relationships. and privately, that was the message from every single person i met with. and by the way, there's been a lot of warning about i met with the opposition the first day i was there. actually the first alice there i met with about a dozen russian government officials, again at the highest level, and everybody said the same thing. and that's been the message that they have communicated to us. it doesn't mean that we're not going to have differences. an excellent case where that's not a trend thing, we have some principles that are classing -- clashing. and, therefore, in the context of wanting to continuity, they treated senator baucus the way they did.

we attribute the spike in anti-americanism to the presidential campaign. pretty obvious that somebody decided that there are votes to be had by increasing this. as a social scientist by the way, we used to be survey work and russia. i'm not so sure i want to see the data. we're going to try to collect some data on that, so should have a discussion about that. but someone had that hypothesis. the election is over, so we'll now see if that was a true explanation or whether there's something more fundamental. >> okay. the floor is open for questions. please identify yourself. you can go to the standing mic in the back of the trout in mic coming around, and fire away. we only have about 20 minutes so b6 and. >> -- so b6 and. >> great to see you again here in washington. we had -- >> please identify yourself. >> andy hutchinson's.

we had one of our meetings with executive branch and congressional staffers last week. you participated in that back in may. first, one that the efforts to educate the hill, they need to be ramped up very very, very significant and very, very quickly. that was kind of across the board from the hill staffers. on pntr. a lot more has to be done by the administration. a lot more. one point in supportive of pntr was kind of apply to the broader u.s.-russian relationship. that if the united states cannot do something that is so obviously in u.s. national interest, human, and how can mr. putin and company actually trust us to do things on much more competent issues were we to significantly disagree on? so there could be a linkage of that in the other direction. my question has to do with large u.s.-russian relationship. you know i've been a huge fan,

you guys have accomplished a tremendous amount. the problem now as you look out from the headline issues, they principally are the ones with fundamental disagree on the you mention syria, missile defense, iran and perhaps political system. he didn't mention iran. could you talk about what you would expect to get from the russians, the city iran? >> sure. first on your comment, i take the point, and we have an interagency team that engages with the hill on a pretty rapid pace. we been doing that for over a year. i know others in the business community have been doing the same. i guess i would just plea to those that need to be educated, go to the ustr website. it is all there. you know, it's -- [inaudible] well, you know, the also represent the american people. it's not just, you know, there are jobs that will be lost. our farmers that will not be be up to sell their stuff to.

this is not just big businesses. there's a lot of different companies involved here is principally, they will lose a big market. so, you know, i take the point but i also, i also want to be clear that all argumentation out there and we have been engaged in what i think is pretty proactive -- i see my colleagues in the back. they can jump in but i have left town the. i'm in a difference of negotiations with the russians. but i take the point we've got to do more. and i'm glad that your report is out, and i encourage anybody that thinks about this and has views on it to also take the time to educate the debate. >> with respect to iran, i didn't mention it because i don't see it yet as a fundamental issue. i see a cooperation on iran has been one of the successes. in the first period when we were

seeking diplomatic solutions, and again, i think a rather creative idea where we worked with the russians, then in terms of the sanctions, we were with russia. and that was asymmetric by the way. let's remember, russia had real economic interests that were lost because of the 1929, and politically the damage to their bilateral relationship of course was much greater than the damage that we faced your right? and that was a big, important achievement that we did. we drifted a bit, of course, or the last several months because of our unilateral sanctions. that's what the russians would call them. and by the new sanction that the u.s. congress has put in place, particularly with the national defense authorization act, the amendment of there. that has greater sum to attention and we are working on the. lastly, dealing with that, though set of issues. but i'm more impressed by the unity of, more than the --

missile defense, yeah, we have had some disagreements, but i've got to take, i'm an optimist on this. for a couple of reasons. yes, we do not have missile defense cooperation with russia in the year 2012. but we have only been trying to do that for just several months. let's remember, this was an issue of confrontation, serious confrontation for three decades. so why should anybody be surprised if we have been able to get this done. and cooperatively in a year? yes, we have the public statements about this, that, and the other, but when you talk about the facts them to talk about physics as opposed to politics, i think this is actually the place where, with time and with effort, we're going to be able to with russia. i'm an optimist on it. more difficult but even today there were some signs that

there's some things we cannot agree upon. i encourage you to see what secretary clinton said about. we're still in the middle of that negotiation. but, you know, incremental progress. and the final thing i would say is yeah, it's hard, you know, welcome to the real world. i mean, people say you went there, such a hard time to be ambassador. yeah, i'm interested in a hard job. i mean, what should anybody have expected otherwise? and we're partially a victim of our success, too, right? i read your report about what the administration should do, the transition, and probably half a dozen others here. go back and read what you're supposed to do. we checked awful lot of oxford as a result of that, what's left on the table are the harder issues, by definition. and our attitude towards that is we're going to continue to work. along the proposal i outlined,

without accepting linkage, without throwing our values at the door as we go in and without accepting trade-offs between our relationship with russia in a relationship with other countries that we have vital interests with. >> okay. question in the back. >> thank you very much. josh rogin with foreign policy. welcome back. i'd like to ask you, watching what is been an increasing trend of unrest inside russia. i'm wondering if you could speak to that. do you see that movement as growing and continuing towards the present elections last week free and fair? how which you -- [inaudible] how does russia's continued arming of the syrian regime speak to that? and what do you make of the campaign against secretary clinton and yourself personally, including statements were present elect and claiming that you are undermining the russian

government by supporting the opposition and the protest movements? thank you. [laughter] >> so, you know better, but everybody else doesn't know, sign up on twitter and every single one of those questions have been answered on my twitter handle but i want to get back that by the way because it affects more policy as well. but really interesting thing. so remind me. i've forgotten all the questions. oh, civil unrest, let's start with that one. first of all, i wouldn't call it civil unrest. i would call it civil society renewal. there's a difference. there's a big difference. this is not a movement that is seeking the violent overthrow of the current regime. and people need to be very clear about that. they are very clear about that. they seek to engage through

peaceful actions to reform the system. that's different than other places around the world, right, and they want you to understand that there are different. and that's what they are trying to do. you know, i have no, i just said, i used to teach courses on these topics, and would've learned is is predicting way these things go are really bad. i'm not a structureless by the way in terms of the academic debate. i think contingency and agency matter. so predicting contingencies and agencies by definition is hard to do. but what i would just say in broad strokes is that there is real politics in russia, that society is taking their constitutional rights more shows the. and the state is responding to that. not always in the ways, you know, that we would like. i tweeted out last week that as they arrested four or 500 people

that i said it didn't seem like a good way to respond to peaceful protest. nsa represent here, they responded right away. reminded me of the wall street demonstrated, occupy wall street demonstrated i think that's healthy. i think that's good that we're having that that kind of conversation, a, between state and society, indeed, between our governments. i don't see anything wrong about that. where i do think is wrong is when it's not a conversation based on facts, right? so when we heard and i heard time and time again that, you know, they're paying for the political opposition in russia, that is not true. that is not true. everybody, that is not true. [laughter] you have to say five times because people don't want, you

know, others have political reasons not to allow the truth to get through. unit, we support civil society. we support the electoral observers. we are proud of our work. but we're not getting involved in those kinds of things is. with respect to the attacks on secretary clinton and me, all i would say is, our strategy for dealing with that is to engage directly, and as smartly, comprehensively as possible. now, it's difficult and environment that we work in, and that's why things like twitter and facebook are tremendously interesting tools for me. i only got on twitter six weeks ago. i never had a twitter account to not allowed by went to the white house. and i was given very explicit instructions to use whatever means available to do what we call public diplomacy, right? so i used the media.

i have been on russian television, on state channels, russia today, as well as opposition. i think, you know, engagement is the right policy. we don't feel like with anything to hide in terms of what we are trying to do. and i found twitter to be a really interesting way to engage with russian society. if you're not on twitter, and i'm not going to ask for a show fans because i don't want to embarrass people that are closer to my age than josh's, i've got to do, i felt like i knew something about russia if i move to russia. i have written some books and working at the white house for three years. the amount that i have learned in the last eight weeks by just being on twitter is just shocking to me. i never ever expected that. so i encourage you, if you want to know what's going on in russia, you have to be engaging with that part of society, not just the other one. and by the way, you know, it's

very useful the work you guys do. i frequently, and using words that you guys do to push that in the russian debate. it would be great if you a russian edition by the way to work on that. but that's important, too, because you've got to push that kind of information to open up this thing. when i read tweet other journalists, i'm doing it to open up the debate. not necessarily taking position. so that's how we deal with those kind of things. object. >> we don't put out a statement so, that reflects exactly what we've done, including the endorsement of the oac report which we thought was very progressive. >> in the back. >> claudia rosett. you know russia very well. i know from years ago. i, anders but i the question that i do not expect you can answer honestly or in full, but

the -- might be interesting. this is about russia's relationship with iran and the sanctions regime that has been expanding and tightening and on which the u.s. administration appears to be relying to do with the iranian threat. in the last big sanctions push that the international community put together on saddam hussein's iraq, russia was the leading violator even sat on the council. found corruption reaching of all the way to the criminal. there was never a single investigation in russia. there were prosecutions in france, a u.s. never in russia. and here we are again. we've just seen, and i take it as perhaps an emblematic sign, the shift, the chariot the delivered weapons to syria in january made the news has just called and iran but i'm told carrying ukrainian generators. my question is, in this context,

if there is any prayer of russia not repeating with its remarkable talents and skills the sanctions then violations that have gone on before, who exactly in russia is finding that store? where does the buck stop? is there any authority at all that you see trying to track this down, willing to prosecute violators, doing anything? >> well, i don't know the story of iraq. i've read about, i don't know any details about this i can't comment on that. what i would say is that russia's relationship in 1929 is very different, that u.n. security council resolution 1929 is very different. well, i don't know if it's very different because i don't know. let me just say this -- >> it was just to say they have experience. >> well, i don't, we do not see that happening right now.

the president of the reserves in negotiations that resolution. they deliberately carved out some things that they did not want to come under the sanctions. and we don't, and, you know, you should investigate it. and if you do, send a copy. and i will tweak it out. but sosa, i'm interested in the. we do not see that as a serious problem right now. and moreover, even more striking, the sanctions that we did and that we are adhered to with the national defense authorization act, that russia did not sign up for and did not support and is emphatically argued with this went beyond 1929 and was not done in good faith, those companies that are affected by those sanctions, their adherents, and the reason is not because they love america or love iran or hate iran, the reason it's called the american

dollar in the american system. and those that are affected by those don't want to be subject to losing, you know, access to that system. so they're doing and not out of a policy but out of self-interest. and i would say this is not yet a problem. doesn't mean it might not develop to be one in the future. i don't know, but i don't see this as a problem right now. >> okay. >> given what i would call your kind of in your face introduction to moscow as ambassador to the united states, do you think that where some circles, something as in any other state virtually, do you think that this has significantly damaged your ability to create the bonds of trust -- >> just a couple moments left in this program. you can see it in its entirety.

go to our website at c-span.org. u.s. senate is about to gavel in to start the day. general speeches at first for an hour or so. legislative work will get underway at about 10:30 a.m. eastern. more debate on the transportation programs and projects bill. then an hour later lawmakers will vote on the remaining amendments on the bill, followed by a final passage vote. later the senate will consider the first of 17 judicial nominations. they're expected to take procedure votes today as well. and now live to the u.s. senate floor here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, sovereign of our nation, by whose will the world and all creation have their being, we magnify your name. we know that you are mighty and we are weak, but we take heart in the knowledge that we can rely on your strength. inspire our senators today to know the constancy of your presence, to be aware of the

certainty of your judgment, and to lift their hearts in frequent prayer to you, worshipping as they work. guide them by your higher wisdom and fill them with your peace. may this be a day when we serve you with gladness because your joy has filled our hearts. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god,

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, march 14, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. the republicans will control the first half. the majority will control the final half. following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the highway bill. senators should expect three roll call votes at 11:00 a.m. there will be two on remaining amendments to this bill that we've been working on for such a long time, and final passage. upon disposition of that, the

senate will be in morning business until 2:00 p.m. at 2:00 p.m., the senate will be in executive session. at 2:30 p.m., there could be up to 17 cloture votes, unless an agreement can be reached on those nominations. madam president, it's a real accomplishment for this senate to pass this highway bill, and it will happen now. we've worked through all these amendments, different tones and variations of subject matter, many of them not having anything to do with the highway bill. but, as everyone knows, that's what the national is all about a lot of the time -- the senate is all about a lot of the time. i now call upon my friend, the speaker in the house of representatives, to move this bill over there as quickly as possible. he's indicated that they likely would take up the senate bill. i hope that in fact is the case -- at the enbecause at the end s month, the highway bill expires.

that could lead to the laying off, termination of well more than a million people. this bill, when signed by the president, will save or create 2.8 million jobs. it's important we get this done. as to the judges, there have been conversations of -- with me and a number of different combination of senators, and it's -- i'm hopeful that we can work something out on this. if not, as indicated, we'll go ahead and have these judges votes. we really need to get something done. we have 17 judges -- and this does not count the appellate judges, that the circuit court judges, which is there's four of those. so i'm hopeful we can work our way toward this culmination so we don't have this situation. we've been in touch with the white house. i know there's some quern about what happens -- there's some concern about what happens during the two-week recess we have. i'm confident if there is a will, we can work our way through that.

the i.p.o. bill we got from the house, there is conversation about how we should proceed on that. i think there's agreement that there should be a limited number of amendments and move this as quickly as possible. i hope in the next day or two or three, we have more success here in the snavmen senate. announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order shall the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein 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. mr. coburn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i rise to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i'm worried about the senate as a body today. i came down here to the floor,

and i listened very intently to the chaplain's prayer, and he asked that we call on the higher wisdom -- not man's wisdom but god's wisdom. and i note with lots of consternation and worry that what is a very fine institution is being put at risk basically through failed leadership. and let me explain what i mean by that. living 64 years and running organizations and running a business, the quality that is most needed in leadership is a quality called "reconciliation." and when that doesn't happen by our leaders -- and i'll not singling any one leader in particular out -- and i'm not

singling think one leader in particular out -- but when that reconciliation doesn't happen, it isn't just directly related to the events surrounding that lack of reconciliation. it does damage to institutions. and what we're about to see today carried out is the placing of partisan principles on both sides of the aisle ahead of the principle of advice and consent in the senate's role. and, unfortunately, our leader didn't protect the senate's rights under the constitution with the last four nominations in terms of recess appointments, and we can debate that. but the fact is, the institution, whether it had been a republican leader or democratic leader, the

number-one thing that he had intos to be protected are the rights -- the number-one thing that needs to be protected are the rights of the senate as it relates to the other branches of the government. and $an i think that's unfortun, and i think that's part of our problem today as we fail to trust one another to do the right thing. so let me go back to leadership. the real qualities of great leaders is they bring people together of disparate views and they solve those problems, and they don't reject or they never accept the fact that an impasse is the answer. and what we have queue queued uo set up today is going to be an impasse. everybody knows it. it's going to be an impasse. and all that does is reflect poorly on the senate as a whole and on the leadership of the senate on the whole on both

sides. so my caution would be to return back to what chaplain black said. there's greater wisdom than we have. that's the wisdom we ought to be drawing from. as we reconcile differences in the senate rather than destroy the comity of the senate and destroy the ability of us to work together in the nation's best interest in the future. i would also tell you that the other thing i'm disappointed about is that we have the senate focused on that small issue instead of the very great issues in front of our nation. the very fact that we're going bankrupt, that we've not done one thing this wreer t year to y trim the excesses of the federal government, we've not addressed in any way, shape, or form the

very problems that are going to create tremendous burdens, not only on our children but those people who through no fault of their own will not have a safety net in the future because we failed to make the tough decisions today. and that's wrapped up in political expediency. and one of my favorite quotes -- it's a summary of martin luther king jr.'s words; it is not his exact words, but he said the following: carrot has asked the question. is it expedience? vanity asks the question, is it popular? but conscience and character ask the question, is it right? and what i put forward to the two leaders today is what we're about to let unfold this afternoon in the senate, is that the right thing for the senate

or does it have to do with expediency and popularity? and if it has to do with those two things, whether it's connected to the next election or not, that's called failed leadership. that's a failure to lead, to reconcile, to bring people together. we're better than that. our leaders are better than that. we should not allow this to happen. i yield the floor.

quorum call:

mr. durbin: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business on majority time. and i would yield the floor of course to the next republican senator to come to the floor because i know they have 15 minutes or so remaining. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you. madam president, it's time toned the delays and to move ahead with an up-or-down vote on these judicial nominations. there are 22 judicial nominations sitting on the skaoufp calendar, 17 for district court and five for circuit court. these are appointments to federal judgeships. and in many instances they are appointments that are long overdue and desperately needed. 12 of these nominees were voted out of the judiciary committee

last year -- last year. twaof them as far back as october. you think they -- two of them as far back as october. you'd think they must be very controversial people. it turns out 17 of these 22 nominees received strong bipartisan in the committee. 13 had blue slips, which are slips, permission to go forward from home state republican senators. 11 of them would fill vacancies deemed as judicial emergencies. i don't understand how we can do this to the federal judiciary and to the men and women who are involved in this. the american people need these nominations to be confirmed in a timely fashion, and it's only fair to these men and women who are offering their lives in public service and sometimes jeopardizing their current jobs because of the uncertainty of their future. all americans want our federal courts to be there, to prosecute criminals, to make certain that we have a day in court in civil

proceedings and also to maintain the integrity of our judicial process. there are only two ways to schedule a confirmation vote in the senate. either a unanimous consent agreement or file cloture, which basically means force the issue. forcing the issue takes time, and time really isn't on our side. we have important things to do: finishing the transportation bill today, moving forward on other important issues. since president obama took office, senate republicans have routinely objected when we've asked for their consent to promptly schedule confirmation votes on judicial nominees. when you take a look at the record here, president obama has faced the obstruction from the republican side of the aisle is unprecedented. president obama's districts court nominees have been forced to wait on average more than four times longer than those confirmed under president bush or under president clinton. overall at this point in their terms, president obama has had

only 131 nominees confirmed, while president george w. bush had had 172, president clinton 183. right now there are 39 judicial nominees pending either on the judiciary committee or the senate floor. promptly confirming these 39 would bring the president's overall number close to parity with president bush. it wouldn't give him an advantage. it's time to stop the delay. i think it's important for us to confirm these nominees as quickly as possible. we don't have to go through this painful and embarrassing charade of calling cloture vote after cloture vote on nominees that were accepted on a strong bipartisan vote, have been approved by republican senators and are simply being held up on the hope by some republican senators that the day will come when there's a republican president who can fill these vacancies. that isn't fair. taking that approach is what gives our chamber a bad name. ten of these nominees reported

out of committee last year. why continue to delay them? i note during president bush's first term the senate confirmed 57 district court nominees within seven days. these nominees languished on the calendar for months -- months f. there is a legitimate objection to any nominee, step forward and state the objection. if you oppose the nominee, when the vote comes, vote "no." for goodness sakes, to let these names and nominations languish on the calendar isn't fair to the nominees and it isn't fair to the courts that are facing in many instances judicial emergencies because of these vacancies. among these nominees are two from illinois. senator mark kirk and i had an agreed-to bipartisan approach. we put together bipartisan committees. we each found our favorite nominee. we submitted the nominee to one another. we asked for approval. we got the approval. we have two extraordinarily good

people here: john lee, proposed by senator kirk -- pardon me. john lee, proposed by me and jay tharp proposed by senator kirk. both came out of committee without controversy. two excellent nominees sitting on the calendar. for goodness sakes, i ask my colleagues why would you do this? it isn't fair to these individuals. it isn't fair to senator kirk, and it isn't fair to this process. let's move these tphaeuplts forward as -- names forward as quickly as possible. i yield the floor. i see senator sessions is here. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: this week the average price of the gallon of gas is $4. the national unemployment rate is 8.3%.

and if one includes those who are frustrated, so frustrated they've stopped looking for work altogether, of course the unemployment rate is much higher than 8.3%. with all of this, the democratic majority is about to spend more of the senate's time on another heavy-handed power play that won't get them anywhere. but it will make clear yet again how out of touch they are with the needs of the american people. first, we need to make clear what this is about and what this is not about. this is not about making sure the president's judicial nominations are being treated fairly. despite what the majority would like you to believe, the president is doing quite well on that score, as is clear from both the facts and the admissions of our democratic friends themselves. as senator alexander noted yesterday, the senate confirmed 76 out of 78 district court

nominees whom president obama submitted in his first two years. the president withdrew the other two. that's a 97% success rate. not bad. the senate confirmed 62 of president obama's circuit and stkrebgt -- district court nominations last year alone. and if you look at president bush and president obama's lower court confirmations when they both had two supreme court appointments for the senate to consider, president obama is doing much, much better than president bush. president bush had a total of 120 lower court judges confirmed in four years, while president obama already had 129 lower court judgeships confirmed in just three years. so president obama has had more confirmations in a much shorter period of time. to the extent that there's

anyone here to blame, the obama administration and senate democrats should actually look in the mirror. of the 83 current vacancies, over half of them -- 44 -- don't even have nominees. let me say that again. of the 83 current vacancies, over half of them -- 44 -- don't even have nominees. and as for the minority of the vacancies for which the president has actually submitted a name, almost half of those are still in the judiciary committee. so nearly three-fourths of the current vacancies -- 61 of 83 -- are due either to the administration failing to nominate someone or the democratic-controlled judiciary committee failing to move them out of committee. given what we have to work with, it's no wonder the majority leader complimented republicans -- complimented republicans -- at the end of last year noting that the senate had in fact accomplished quite a

bit on judicial nominations. that was the majority leader of the senate just last year. the senior senator from minnesota, a democrat on the judiciary committee, acknowledged the same thing. so this is not about making sure the president is treated fairly in his judicial nominations. in fact, this isn't even about judicial nominations at all. this is about giving the president what he wants when he wants it. and what the president wants is to distract the country from his failed policies that have led to soaring gas prices and high unemployment and to instead try to write a narrative of obstruction for his campaign. he doesn't care if he eviscerates the senate's advice and consent responsibility to do so. what the majority should do is work with us to move these lifetime appointments in an orderly manner like we did 62 times last year and like we've already done seven times this year. as i suggested yesterday, we

could get to the bipartisan jobs bill this week and process some judicial nominations as well. the jobs bill passed the house by a vote of 390-23, 390-23. and president says he supports it as well. while we're working on a bill to get people back to work, we can make progress on other judicial nominations. so i would encourage the majority to work with us on both legislation and nominations, not to go off on a partisan, unprecedented path that won't get us anywhere and won't solve the problems that americans care about. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank our

republican leader, senator mcconnell, for bringing some perspective to this situation. i've seen the circumstances in the senate and how the nominations process has changed over time. when i came here, there were no filibusters. maybe there had been one in which they delayed a nomination because of problems that ended up the nominee withdrawing because it had problems. but virtually none. it was the position of the senate we didn't filibuster nominations, and i still believe that. but i would point out that in 2001, the democrats met in conference and they had a plan to change the ground rules of confirmations. they are announced it to "the new york times" -- they announced it to "the new york times." cass sunstein and laurence tribe met and they came out and started filibustering

systematically president bush's fabulous nominations that he'd sent up. he sent eight nominees early in his administration. two of them were renominations of president clinton's nominees. they were promptly controlled -- confirmed in the senate but immediately filibusters of superb nominees like janice rogers brown and others commenced. this was led by the democrats. then-senator obama was one of them. he filibustered. senator leahy filibustered 26, voted for -- to block an up-or-down vote for 26 nominees. i think we've had voting on up-or-down votes, a real

filibuster since president obama has been in on two nominees. and what happened with -- there was such a controversy over this changing of the rules in the early 2000's that we resulted in a compromise. 14 senators called the gang of 14 decided that they would break the logjam and create a new rule. it wasn't a perfect rule. i really think filibusters are not the right thing for judges. but they said, we will have them but only in extraordinary circumstances. and that sort of became the new rule. and a number of the nominees, after years of waiting, were confirmed. others were not. so that's the way we operate today. but that's not the problem. that's not the problem at all. under president obama's term in office, since he's been in office, he's had on a percentage basis about the same number of

confirmations that president bush had during the same period of time. he's had fewer lower-court nominations, though. he submitted fewer nominations, about 20% fewer nominations, than president bush had. and the average time from nomination to confirmation of president obama's nominees is within a week of the average time for a nomination -- one of president bush's nominees. the process is working okay here. what is happening? i tell you, i know what's happening. this democratic leadership in the senate, make no mistake, they control this body. they've been trying to create a perception that there is obstruction going on. they're going to pretend that these 17 judges who have been coming up for their retun routie

to be confirmed are being blocked. they've been moving at the regular pace. it is a gimmick, a stungt stunto create an impression politically. we need to working on things that are important. we now will have finally after three weeks votes today maybe to pass the highway bill. well, why did it take three weeks? we went about two weeks without anything. we've had votes now all of a sudden at the end, about two days' worth of votes and the bill will be up for final passage. why wasn't that dong thre -- why wasn't that done three weeks ago? because senator reid obstructed the ability of senators to offer amendments, and he tried to move this bill forward without amendments, except the ones he picked. and that's not right. the majority leader does not get to pick amendments or how many that should occur to legislation in the greatest deliberative

body in the history of the world, the united states of the senate. he does not have that power. so he tried to move the bill forward, and republicans said no, we will not move to final vote until you agree on amendments. now he's agreed to 20 or 30 amendments. in about two days' time, they will all have been voted on. some of them went away before voting. and the bill will come up for final passage. why didn't it happen earlier i? because they're in rope-a-dope. they don't want to talk about the things that are needed toker this country. one of -- that are needed for this country. one of them is a budget. it has been over 1,000 days since this congress passed a budget. why aren't we spending time on that? senator reid said it is foolish to pass a budget. it is not foolish to pass a budget. it is necessary to pass a budget. this country has never needed a budget more than it needs it today -- never.

we are heading to financial catastrophe. erskine boll chaireerskine bowle headed for the most predictable financial crisis in our nation's history. why? because of the debt we're running up. and we heed to confront that. but -- and we need to confront that. but senator reid didn't want to talk about it. he didn't want his members to have to have votes. and if you bring up amendments, they'll talk about the debt course of america, which is on an unstannel path. -- which is on an unsustainable path. judges have moved at a reasonable pace, as they've always moved. there'i vote for 90% of them. what's unusual is we're violating the statutory law of the united states of america

that says you should have a budget. we're required to pass a budget. by april 1 it should be up in the senate. it should be passed by april 15. isn't that perfectly sane that the united states of america would have a budget? and the senate doesn't want to do that. and what else should we be talking about? we should be working to have more affordable american energy. now, look ... we all want to create jobs. our creation on the democratic side ran through a big stimulus bill that spent government money, ran up $800 billion, every penny added to the debt of the united states. we're in debt. we spend $800 billion, all borrowed, all added to our debt. it didn't really do anything for the economy. only 4% of it wejts t went to rd

bridges. what a tragedy that was. it was supposed to fix our crumbling infrastructure. and at least we would have had something concrete to show for it, had we built roads and bridges. so now we're in this situation, how do you create jobs? we can't keep borrowing money. we don't have it. expert after expert in the budget committee where i'm the ranking republican have told us that. they've told us, you cannot keep borrowing this kind of money. experts have told us that the size of the debt we have now -- $15 trillion -- already is slowing growth in the country. we need economic growth. we don't need it slowed. and it's being slowed now because we've run up so much debt, experts tell us. so i'm worried about that. how do we create growth? well, one of the things we need to do is produce more american energy.

we don't need a secretary of energy. i've tang to callin taken to cae department of anti-energy -- that says in 2008 he wants to see the price of energy goes up. he was asked, i think, yesterday in the committee, do you still believe that? well, no i've changed my mind since 2008. the economy is not doing well and maybe i don't now -- now at this point i don't think energy prices should go up. can you imagine, the secretary of energy fundamentally having as his guiding principle that he wants to raise the price of energy? and the president said himself before he was elected. this is a radical idea driven by extremists who don't understand that the cost of energy hammers the american people.

said that the average american is spending $4,000 a year on gasoline and almost $400 a month. you were spending $200 a month when president obama took office on your gasoline. you're now spending twiews that -- you're now spending twice that much, $400 a month. in the form of a basic tax on you. and we're importing oil. but what we're finding is, we're finding more in the united states. and we've got better techniques for bringing it out of the ground and we can produce a lot more. private lands are showing increases in energy production and exploration. they're doing a good job. but the government lands are down 14% because the president is blocking production on government lands, blocking offshore production. he really is. we were projected to have issued lease sales from the gulf of mexico of 12 major tracks.

that's been reduces to just two in the last two years. this is putting us behind. production of oil and gas in the gulf of mexico is down, jobs are down, and when we allow drilling in the gulf of mexico, oil companies bid for those right. they pay money to the united states government. not only do they create jobs in america, they pay us for the money to get the right to drill and then they pay us for every barrel of oil they produce. it creates wealth for america. why do we want to loan money to brazil to produce oil and gas offshore of brazil when we can produce it in our own gulf? so those are the things we need to be focused on. why aren't we talking about that? well, in addition to the budget -- and taxes. i was talking to a businessman

the other day. and he said that this investment tax credit that encourages you to invest in new machinery and things for your company, that he examined that and he decided he would take advantage of it and accelerate a purchase a bit to some of the things he wanted to do. got a big tax credit. but he said the paperwork was this thick. the lawyers and accountants and effort he had to go through cost him at least a third of the advantage he was supposed to get from the government. it's not necessary for things to be that complicated. we need simplified, pro-growth tax reform. why is that not on the floor of the senate? isn't that a priority for america? everybody i think can agree, if we simplified our tax procedure, if we made it more growth-oriented, we could create jobs without losing revenue to the federal government, create

economic growth, and put our country on a path to a sound future. we got to have economic growth and we can't get it by continuing to borrow from our children -- really, borrow currently and spend money to try to jump-start through a sugar high the american economy that's dragging along. and we have this major problem with governmental regulations. i'm hearing it everywhere i go, from farmers who are being told that they're going to have to not have dust on the farm. and when i ask about senator roberts, one of the department of e.p.a. people, how are we going to keep dust down? they said you can buy a dust truck and go by and water it. how silly is that?

they've got rules to keep children from helping out on the farm. they have rules dealing with a ditch, calling it a and a half half -- calling it a navigatory stream. thisthis is regulatory overrule. every regulation needs to be examined. if it produces a positive result for america in terms of health and safety and general welfare, i'm for it. but if it's the kind of regulation that doesn't produce a benefit but adds to the cost of doing business, costs that add up to the average american consumer, then it needs to be eliminated. it would help create jobs and help make us more productive. as we work on producing american energy which creates jobs in itself, that additional

production of energy does have the tendency to pull down prices. there's just no doubt about it. it may not happen day to day, but as energy reserves are increased, as energy production and exploration occur and more is produced, it tends to bring down prices. so we need to focus on things that bring down prices of energy. we don't need to be mandating forms of energy that costs two, three, four, eight, ten times as much as the base energy we have today. we can't afford it. it adds up to the cost of doing business. the consumers pay it in their pocketbook when they go to the store. and when businesses look for a place to build a plant, they consider the whole world. and if our energy prices are lower and reliable, then they can afford to invest here, hire

american workers. but if our energy prices are too high -- and i can cite you examples of investments in my state of alabama that were determined one way or the other based on energy prices -- if the price of energy is too high, they go somewhere else. they can't afford it. they have to seek the lowest price. that creates jobs and growth. we need to have an energy secretary who understands his job is to protect the health and safety of america and produce as much american energy as we can at the lowest possible price. not to be engaged in some social engineering. i've got to tell you, it troubles me that the secretary of energy doesn't even own a car. he rides a bicycle. this is what we've got running this country. it's the kind of idea that's not realistic for the average american citizen. and people with big salaries and

so forth going up -- the price of energy goes up, it doesn't bother them. but the average guy after he pays his rent, his house payment, his health care, his food, and he has to pay $100 more a month, $150 more a month for the same amount of gasoline he got, the small business paying more, you tell me that doesn't hurt this economy. you tell me that doesn't cost -- raise unemployment. it absolutely does. and it's stupid. we do not need to be doing things that don't make sense. we cannot afford it. this senate needs to be focused on that, not some unprecedented, unheard of, gimmicked up complaint that we're now going to have 17 cloture votes on judges, many of which have been on the senate floor less than a month. and half the nominees that have

been made to the senate today are now in committee. senator leahy, the democratic chairman, hasn't moved them out of committee yet. they'll move. he moves them very fast, frankly. but they haven't moved out of committee yet; how can it be senator mcconnell's fault that they haven't been confirmed? it's a lifetime appointment. judges aren't entitled just to be given a lifetime appointment like that. people running for congress, they work for months and years trying to achieve the job. so it doesn't hurt that a judge sits on the floor for awhile. maybe somebody will come forward and say let kneel you what this judge -- let me tell you what this judge did to me. maybe he did wrong or something. sometimes that happens. you need a steady process, and we're moving forward well within the tradition of this senate. but what's happened is this senate is obstructing legislation that's coming out of the house that would fix energy,

tax reform, small business growth proposals that, they're t even being brought up. they're being obstructed by senator reid and the democrats. that's a fact. i'm not making this up. so, this is the body that's not doing its job. the house produced a budget. they produced an historic budget that was realistic. i would like to have seen them go a little further, frankly. we may not agree with everything in it but it was an historic budget. it changed the debt trajectory of america. it began to bring our debt on a downward path instead of this surging upward path that we're on today. they did it last year, and they're going to do it again this year. and what is the senate going to do? nothing. and we're not going to have a

budget in the united states of america. and it's a sad, sad day. so, madam president, i feel strongly about this. i've seen the debates over judges. i saw fabulous judges like justice alito in the supreme court. i saw justice roberts sit for a long period of time when he was nominated for the circuit bench. alabama's fabulous justice, justice bill friar, now in the 11th circuit was blocked for months and months. janice rogers brown, supreme court of california, african-american, great justice. priscilla owen, unanimously well qualified, supreme court justice of texas, she was fabulous. they held them all. the only ones they confirmed were the two judges that president bush reappoint that had president clinton nominated and didn't get through.

madam president, i would just close by saying we do need to work on this issue of what the senate needs to be focusing on. and i believe it needs to be focusing on a budget, energy, taxes, regulation, things that will make a difference for america, make our country stronger and healthier and more productive and more competitive without adding to the debt. i thank the chair, would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: madam president, i was listening with interest to my good friend from alabama, a man that i worked with very closely on a number of issues, but on this one we just see the world a little differently. he has made his point that the democrats held up a lot of judges and so on. i understand that. but there's just no comparison. facts are stubborn things, and we need to look at the facts when it comes to voting on judges. i just wanted to share, before i talk about the highway bill, this one chart.

judicial nominee wait time. i mean, this is the facts. this isn't made up. these are the facts. with president clinton, we see the wait time. with bush, we see the wait time. obama, we see the wait time, way over 100 days. so we're going from 10 to 20 -- 22 to over 100 days. this tells the story. if people want to know why our majority leader has decided to bring all these judges today, it's because of this. and we have emergencies in some of our courts that just don't have the judges. and here's the thing: these judges are so well qualified. we have one amazing judge waiting to be confirmed from our central district, i think he's about third on the list here, and got a great vote out of committee. these nominees have put their

lives on hold. you know, i want to say, madam president, this may sound odd but my favorite part of the constitution is the preamble. i read it a lot. when i go into the schools, i talk about it to the children, and we discuss what it means. and when it says "we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice," that's the first reason. we want to form a more perfect union, and the first way to do it is to establish justice. how can you have justice if it's so delayed? how can you have justice when it's politicized? i think this says it all. so, as we go from a bipartisan bill into the, unfortunately, the partisan waters, i think it's important for the people of the country to understand we don't want to pick a fight at all. i mean, we want to get things done around here.

democrats want to get things done. we've proven it by reaching out to our republican friends on the highway bill, many other things. payroll tax and on the judicial nominations we want to do the same. so i wanted to just make that simple point before i get back to the reason i'm really here on the floor, and that is to complete work on the transportation bill. madam president, you're a member of the environment and public works committee. you've been instrumental in getting this bill to the floor. people asked me yesterday, some of the press people, what it's been like to get this law to the state it's in now, this bill, to passing the senate. and i said people like to say watching a bill become law is like watching somebody making sausage. i said it's a lot messier than that. it really is. i mean, this bill was almost derailed because somebody wanted to talk about contraception. then we had issues that have nothing to do with the bill

dealing with offshore oil drilling, and issues dealing with pipelines and issues dealing with extraneous matters. but we got through it all. and we got through it all for one main reason, i think, and that is the desire of the vast majority of senators -- certainly not all. there are some on the fringes who don't want to do this bill. but the vast majority of senators want to get this bill done. and why is that? it's because this is a bipartisan program that's been in place since dwight eisenhower was president, a republican president, who clearly stated, because he was an expert on logistics as a general, that you have to move people and you have to move goods efficiently in a first-rate economy. so i think everyone -- not everyone. most people see that. we've got a few colleagues from the far corner of the right that want to do away with the highway program, but thank goodness they

didn't succeed in their votes. they got too many votes for my liking, but that's where it's at. but we were able to say strongly, no, this is a program that the national government should play a role in, because this is one nation under god. and if you have great roads in your state and your next-door neighbor has no way -- hasn't paved any roads, you're kind of stuck. and that's why we have a national highway program. so,we also -- one more reason wy we got where we are is that we had more than 1,000 groups behind us, way more than 1,000 the and they represented americana. they represented everyone from the construction workers who are struggling with a very high unemployment rate to the businesses who employ them, who want to be able to provide the work and want to be able to do what they do best, which is

building things. so for all those reasons we've gotten to where we are. but there's one more reason, and i wanted to take my last few minutes here to talk about the staffs that work together on this and the chairmen, the various chairmen. madam president, this is an unusual bill. it is a jobs bill. it is a huge jobs bill, 2.8 million jobs hang in the balance. and we had to deal together with four different committees. this is unusual. we had, of course, senator inhofe, my rank member, who was just extraordinary. he was just a hero when it came to this bill, talking to people on the floor yesterday, you know, from the heart, with the facts, urging them to help us pass the managers' package, urginurging them to help us pase bill. so my hat is off to senator inhofe. interestingly, you know that

we're on opposite sides on environmental issues. we really are. and we have some very tough arguments and very tough debates, and i just see a clean and healthy environment as something we need to do to protect our people. he sees it as a bureaucratic regime to stop business, and we do clash on it. the thing is, we've never lost respect for one another. but on this issue, we have come together. there's very little distance, if any, between us. so senator inhofe i thank. senator baucus, the chairman of the transportation subcommittee of e.p.w. and, of course, the very strong chairman of the finance committee, i can't thank him enough. he had the tough job of filling the gap that we had in terms of moneys for the highway trust fund. this was not easy, madam president. he had to find ways to do it that everybody -- well, not everybody, but most people endorsed. and he was able to get the job

done with many colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and i particularly wnts to give a shou-- andi particularly wnts t- and i particularly wnts to give a shout out to senator thune. i also thank t want to thank ser vitter for his assistance. on the other key committees, senator tim johnson, chairman of the banking committee, senator richard shelby, the ranking member of the banking committee, they couldn't have been nicer. i called their staffs very often to make sure that they were moving forward, and they did move forward. and, by the way, just as the e.p.w. committee was able to vote out a bill unanimously, everybody supporting it, so did the banking committee. and i'm very grateful to them. senator rockefeller and senator hutchison, chair and rank member of commerce, i thank them from the bottom of my heart.

they had some difficult bumps in the road. when the bill came out of committee, there was controver controversy. working with senator cantwell, we figured out a way to get a vote on something she cared a lot about. we were able to smooth out that bump in the road of the and frankly they came together like two true champions and were able to get over the partisan differences and come up with a bipartisan bill. so we married together four committees' work. that was amazing. the work of four committees married together into this transportation bill, bipartisan from day one to this day. and that remiewndz reminds me hg we've been on this bill -- five weeks. five weeks. and today we're going to, i believe, see victory.

in terms of snorks i have to thank -- in terms of senators, i have to jiang ou to thank our l. when you are the majority leader and there have been books written about this, you have to keep the trains moving. you've got to keep moving with legislation, move it forward, move it forward. everything has a deadline. everything has a date. every committee chair wants their bill on the floor. i know what it is because i have the good fortune of being in -- on the leadership team. and he could have easily said, senator boxer, senator inhofe, i've given you three weeks. we're still not off dead center. but he stuck with us. i am so appreciative to him. and so are all the working people in the businesses who rely on this bill. our whip, senator durbin, who worked so hard with his staff, rema of his staff, just day in

and day out, what were the votes going to be like on those amendments. i so appreciate it. senator schumer, senator murray in the leadership pushing this forward. and i thank senator mcconnell for working with us to get this done. i also must thank staff by name. i hope i don't leave anybody out. i want you to know somebody again asked me what this was like and i said, there's a song -- don't worry i'm not singing it -- it's "the long and winding road." and this was the long and winding road, to navigate this bill was really very difficult. and i have a chief of staff and chief counsel to the committee who is beyond extraordinary, and her name is betina porea. she deserves an enormous amount

of credit. because she was able to work with all the staff to bring them along, so that their concerns were heard. from day one to this day. and i want to thank her. and her counterpart on senator inhofe's staff, ruth van mark, another extraordinary person, been with senator inhofe for more than 20 years. just a tower of strength. and also has great respect for the colleagues on her side of the aisle, working with them to make sure they knew that this bill is a reform bill. this bill takes 90 titles down to 30. it is -- it is a strong bill. and it is a fair bill, and it's paid for. david napolello, there's nothing i could say about david to make you understand the talent and skill that that man has brought to our committee. all i can say is this bill a testimony to his skill.

james o'keefe. that's david's counterpart. we have all become very good friends. he worked for senator inhofe, though, so i would say betin anchts david, ruth, and james have all become like family working on this. i am going to list the incredible people who worked for me who worked with betina. andrew doorman, murphy barrett, tyler crushforth, grant cope, mike burke, tom lynch -- noi know that mike works for -- with senator cardin and staffs on the committee. and tom lynch works with our committee through senator baucus. mark hogner, charles brittenham, alex rinjel, dmitri karakesos -- just amazing. and lastly, i want to thank the

leadership staff. this became a bill that was so big and involved so many committees. you couldn't do it without a leadership team. and so working, of course, with the leadership, with the senators i mentioned in the leadership starting with senator reid, senator durbin, we had bill douster, amazing job, bill. rema, highway mentioned -- who i mentioned before, who did the whip counts, and the staff directors of the key committees that worked on this, ellen doneski, and russ sullivan. that was a long list of people. but i felt compelled to come down here because a lot of times our staff -- and you know this; you have achieved ac achieved sg

things sm. you know without having the staff behind us to make sure every "i" is dotted and every "" -- and every "t" is crossed. nobody really knows about this. i wanted to do it before we get into the bill. and so i would ask the chair exactly what time, madam president, do we go back to the bill? the presiding officer: two and a half minutes. mrs. boxer: in two and a half minutes. so i would say that i will -- i will then speak more then about the bill because we have some amendments. could you advise me, if you would, madam president, what the order of votes are today on this transportation bill? the presiding officer: first amendment is corker number 1810, next carper number 1670.

hutchison 1568, mccain 1669, alexander 1779, boxer 1816, paul 1556, and shaheen 1678. mrs. boxer: i just want to thank the president for this because i wanted members to know. now, it's very likely that several of these will not require votes. but i think we will expect at least -- between i'd say three and five votes. i think that's a fair indication of where we're going. so i will be back to discuss those amendments at the appropriate time. i thank you, i yield the floor.

mr. merkley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that my intern andy heckbirth bein be allowed privis of the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. perk america you rise tmr. merkk about the senate's constitutional responsibility to advice and consent. senators on both sides of the aisle have taken that duty very seriously, because if they do not honor that, the judiciary does not function. we talk about the three branches

of government, but in no possible way did the writers of our constitution envision that the senate could use the advise and consent power to undermine the ability of the other two branches to do their jobs. the presiding officer: senator, morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1813, which the clerk will report. under the previous order, the time until 11:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. under the previous order -- until 11:30 a.m., the time will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the clerk: a bill to reauthorize federal aid highway and highway safety construction programs and for other purposes.

mr. merkley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon.

america mirk ask unanimous -- mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i am erisingrise -m rising to talk about the senatest advice and consent. this pausch is enormously important. and in mo way did the founders of our narks the writers of our constitution envision that this body would use their power to advise and consent as a method of undermining the ability of the other two branches to perform their responsibilities. indeed, throughout the history of the united states, senators from both sides of the aisle have taken this responsibility of advice and consent very seriously. this duty requires us to put aside ideology and partisanship because otherwise our constituents, due to our inaction, would be unable to obtain the speedy and public trial that is supposed to be their birthright as americans. americans aren't thinking of their district courts in terms of red courts and blue courts.

they're not thinking of their circuit courts in terms of red courts and blue courts. no, they're thinking about lady justice. they're thinking about justice being delivered in even handed and swift manner. and when they see the obstruction of the judiciary that is emanating from the senate, they're frustrated. they're frustrated, and they recognize that judiciary, when it's damaged, justices unappointed, then indeed that means delay for cases. and that means that their right to a speedy trial is taken away. and they're thinking about the chaos that results when a case remains in limbo for too long. so why in the past few years have we allowed partisanship to overtake our duty to maintain a functional judiciary? simply put, what has happened is some senators in this body,

motivated by misguided notions of partisan warfare, have decided to abuse the supermajority power of this chamber in order to undermine the judiciary. this bears little resemblance to the senate of 1976 when i first came here as an intern, when the power of the majority was recognized as an exceptional act, exceptional act of conscience to be used only under the most enormous issues. enormous issues, when you were willing to stand on the floor of the senate and make your case before the american people as to why the simple majority envisioned in the constitution for this body to act should be obstructed. but now what we see is folks exercising their power to obstruct a simple majority, and not coming to the floor to defend their position. they're afraid of the public reaction to their obstruction to this body because they know the public expects us to be responsible in reviewing and

voting on nominees for the executive branch and for the judiciary. the senate of 1976 would never have entertained the idea that well-qualified nominees would be routinely subjected to filibusters. and indeed, even throughout most of the last decade this has not been the case. so imagine my surprise when i came here as a new senator in 2009, revisiting the chamber that i came to as a youth back in 1976, and i discovered that the two senates bore little resemblance to each other. that the reasonably responsive, bipartisan, collaborative body of 1976 had been replaced by a group now paralyzed by the abuse of the filibuster and the supermajority. instead of debate and deliberation followed by up-or-down votes, senators have been even blocking the motion to proceed, in other words, blocking the ability to debate

whether to get to a bill to debate an issue, two levels removed from actual discussion and decision-making. and in contrast, the image that americans have of a filibuster in which jimmy stewart comes here to washington, and he comes down to the well of the senate and he carries on his fight and his argument in front of the american people until he collapsed of ex-shaugs. now -- ex-sauft shun. now those who object go out and hide while american justice remains unfulfilled and that is not right. there has been egregious abuse of the filibuster across all areas, but it is particularly destructive in regards to judges. that is because we are often talking about judges who everyone agrees are well-qualified, judges who pass out of committee unanimously, judges who when they reach a final vote pass this chamber

with 80 or 90 or 95 members saying yes, that person is the right person to fill that judicial vacancy. why on earth -- why on earth are we dragging our feet on these nominees when we have courts in crisis? lest my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think we're simply raising this now because we're in the majority and they're in the minority, let's revisit the point in 2004, the exact same point into the administration of george w. bush that we are now into this administration. here is a chart that compares those two administrations. we have both the circuit court and the district court. so this far into the administration of george w. bush, the time that it took to go from committee to being confirmed, 29 days.

the time now, 131 days for a circuit court in many -- circuit court nominee and getting longer with every delay that we have. and the district court, this time in the bush administration, 22 days to go from committee to confirmation. and now under the dysfunction of our current senate, under the abuse of this current senate, 93 days. if these bars were reversed, my colleagues would come to the floor and say look what a good job we did previously and what a terrible job is being done now. and i would agree with them that we have to be able to get votes up and we have to be able to vote. we need to work together to change this situation, because the result of these delays mean that there are more and more vacancies and more and more

judicial emergencies where it's been declared that those vacancies are having an emergency impact on the function of judiciary. let's take a look at that issue. here we have judicial vacancies in recent presidencies. in march 1996, 53 vacancies for that far into one administration. in march 2004, 47 vacancies under bush. and now we here -- here we are 44 vacancies in -- 84 vacancies in district and circuit courts. virtually a doubling of those vacant positions that are preventing speedy and responsive trials across our nation. this is why our chief justice declared there is a judicial

emergency in our country, that justice delayed is justice denied, that we, the senate, must do a better job of fulfilling our responsibilities under the constitution. now, in many cases the home-state senators for a particular circuit court or district court the senator from tphaoerbgs they have done their job. they vetted the candidates, the administration has picked one of them. often this is a bipartisan deliberation. yet, here we are, even after it cleared judiciary committee in a bipartisan fashion, here we are paralyzed on the floor of the senate. so we have no one else to blame. we can't blame the home-state senators. we can't blame the judiciary committee. it's only the floor of this chamber that is the obstruction that is basically taking an arrow and aiming at the heart of justice across this nation. it is time for this body to do

our job, and it's time for these nominees to be voted on here on the floor of the u.s. senate. and it's time to fill those vacancies and put justice in place in order to fill our responsibility to advise and consent and to fulfill the judiciary's responsibility to provide justice across our nation. thank you, madam president. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. quorum call: the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

s.

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: i ask that i may speak as if in morning business for the time i may consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: i am honored to offer my support for the nomination of ronnie abrams to the united states district court for the southern district of new york. i also want to thank president obama for acting on my recommendation and nominating another superbly qualified

female jurist to the federal bench. i have had the privilege of knowing ronnie for many years. i know her as a fair-minded woman of great integrity, rather distinguished legal career. she's proven herself as an exceptional attorney, as the deputy chief of the criminal division at the u.s. attorney's office in the southern district of new york, she supervised 160 prosecutions of violent crime, organized crime, white-collar crime, public corruption, drug trafficking and computer crime. she helped shape the policy and management of the u.s. attorney's office, guiding its success in a broad range of high-level, high-stakes cases. her record shows her commitment to justice. and i can tell you, she has a deep and sincere commitment to public service. there is no question that ms. abrams is extremely well-qualified and well-suited to serve on the federal

judiciary. i strongly believe that this country needs women like her serving in the federal judiciary, an institution that i believe needs more exceptional women. ronnie abrams received bipartisan support among the senate judiciary committee members, yet because of the political games we have today, she's waited foreign 227 -- she's waited more than 227 days to be confirmed. as my colleague from oregon pointed out, that's far, far longer than any nominee had been receiving under the george bush administration. i've traveled all across new york state at event after event urging more women to enter public service. i'm encourage that had women now make up nearly half of all our law students and about 30% of the federal bench. for the first time in history women also represent nearly one-third of the seats on the trial courts, court of appeals,

and after the confirmation of justice society -- justice sotomayor, the obama administration has taken significant steps towards maintaining and increasing the representation of women in the federal judiciary. 47% of president obama's confirmed nominees have been women compared to only 22% of the judges confirmed under his predecessor. while it's true that women have a long way in filling the ranks of the legal world, we still have a long way to go to achieve equality in a federal bench that is truly reflective of the american people, and i believe it's incredibly important that we do reach that point of equality because it can bring us closer to full equality and justice throughout our nation. not only is miss abrams an exceptional jurist, there is no doubt that having miss abrams serve on the federal judiciary

will bring us closer to that goal. i ask my republican colleagues to come together now around the shared value that we believe as a nation, as a body that everyone deserves justice. we have to work together now because as it stands, there is' is' -- there is not enough judges right now to do the work that our overloaded courts need them to do. we have to be able to hand down justice in a timely manner. former attorney general to president george w. bush michael mukasey recently remarked that the civil litigation system has ground to a halt. that is not the kind of system the american people deserve, and we cannot let partisan politics and political bickering get in the way of allowing our judicial system to function properly. i recommend miss abrams because of her dedication to the law, her commitment to fairness and her ability to serve the people of the great state of new york with dignity and integrity.

i have been very honored to recommend her for this position, and i urge my colleagues to move forward to support her confirmation. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i would like to call up -- the presiding officer: we are under a quorum call. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: i also would like to ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 1556. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes amendment numbered 1556. mr. paul: i would ask unanimous consent that we dispense with the reading of the amendment. the question i have for the senate is has your government

gotten out of control? have the regulators become so numerous and so zealous that we can't even carry on the ordinary affairs of our government? this amendment would allow, if a bridge is made impassable -- we recently had a bridge where a boat ran into the bridge in kentucky and you can no longer cross the bridge because it's not there. we have to wait for environmental regulations and environmental studies which sometimes can be four and five years before we can repair our bridges and our roads during an emergency. this is crazy. this goes on even in regular affairs such as trying to replace a sewage plant in our state or throughout the united states. do we really want to live in a country where we have to stop and count how many barnacles are on your bridge before you decide whether to rebuild the bridge? do we stop and decide how many mussels are attached to the bridge before we rebuild the

bridge? we'll rebuild the bridge anyway, but we spend a year's time or more wasted on these studies that in the end we're going to rebuild the bridge. i will give you an example. we have a small town in kentucky that has a sewage plant and the population of the town has outrun the sewage plant. when it rains, the raw sewage goes into the river. i don't know any republican or democrat that wants raw sewage in the river, so we need a new sewage plant in the town. with you you -- but you know what? what does the e.p.a. say? they want to count the mussels, count the mussels in the river, and then he had they want to estimate will there be more mussels or less mussels after you build a new sewage plant? guess what, when you build a new sewage plant, the sewage won't go in the river which is what we all intend and in the end what will happen, but in the meantime, we waste time and money. this small town of like 300 people will have to spend $100,000 on an e.p.a. study to hire someone to count the mussels. while they are counting the mussels, they will have to hire

someone to count for the indian artifacts. if they find an arrowhead, it may delay it indefinitely. we have gone crazy with these regulators. we want some rules. we don't want anyone to pollute your neighbor's property, but the e.p.a. is out of control. what we need to do is in emergencies or urgencies, when a bridge collapses or a roadway is washed away, we don't need to spend a year or two or four or five years doing an e.p.a. study which basically enriches some contractor who counts the mussels. we don't need to be counting the mussels in the stream. we need to get to repairing the bridge which we're going to do anyway. we're just going to waste a year counting the mussels and paying some contractor $100,000 a year. so this amendment would allow states to opt out. when we have a problem -- the bridge we have out in kentucky has two communities. many people live in one community and have to drive to the other community. they can't get there because of the bridge.

they want to wait a year because they have to count some barnacles are on the bridge. this is a commonsense resolution and should pass. but i will tell you the way washington works. the other side doesn't want my amendment to pass even though it has common sense, so they are going to offer an alternative. their alternative is say something but do nothing. it's called a sense of the senate resolution. they will proudly proclaim that we need to make it better and please, mr. regulator, make it better but they won't change the law. mine would actually change the law to allow you to start rebuilding your bridge or repairing your road almost immediately in the same location free of the government regulations. we need to do this at all levels. this is a very small, incremental step forward. it's something we should all agree on. if you watch the vote later on today, you will find out that we don't all agree, and instead the other side is going to say say something, do nothing. so this is something we need to as a society get started on

because we're being killed by regulations. this is one small step on something that should be bipartisan. there are many more steps that need to be taken because throughout our country, millions of jobs are being lost from overzealous regulators. millions of people's privacy and private property rights are being evaded by these regulators, and this is a very small incremental stop of the encroachment of these regulators, and i urge support of my amendment 1556. thank you, and i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mrs. boxer: would my friend withdraw the request for the quorum call? the presiding officer: does the senator withdraw his request for a quorum call? mr. paul: yes. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: first of all, madam president, i ask unanimous consent to call up boxer amendment 1816. i ask that the clerk report the amendment by number.

the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. by number. the clerk: the senator from california, mrs. boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 1816. mrs. boxer: madam president, i just have to say that senator paul's amendment is a broad overreach that would endanger the health and safety of the people that you represent, that i represent and every senator represents. and what i have is essentially a side-by-side amendment that encourages and tells the agencies the senate supports a very speedy process which is already in the law to review and approve health and environmental protections when we have to rebuild. you know, the current law is flexible. if you look at the reconstruction of the bridge in minnesota, everybody knew what happened there. it collapsed in august, 2007, and the bridge was completely replaced by september, 2008. without these draconian types of

measures that my friend put forward. in other words, he's looking for a problem. the fact of the matter is we were able to see that bridge rebuilt in a year. that's amazing. and no environmental laws were waived. people just worked and made sure that they all were expedited. so there is a difference between expediting a review which we support. as a matter of fact, the underlying bill is very strong on that. we expedite reviews without giving up anything for the people. they can still make sure their rights are protected. let's say a highway is washed away in a flood. if you were to follow senator paul's advice on his amendment, you would virtually have no studies to take a look at whether it makes more sense to rebuild it perhaps just a few feet away from where it washed out. it might avoid then the cascade of water that washed it away in

the first place. you may have a situation where you're rebuilding a bridge, and as you put the foundation in, you find out through these studies, because they perhaps were never done before, these bridges are old, that there is a drinking water aquifer right below there. so if you move that a few feet, you resolve the problem. what is the point in not having information and making a huge mistake and rebuilding? we had a situation right here from an earthquake where we learned so much after the bridge collapsed that if we used different materials, for example, it would withstand the next earthquake better. we do have earthquakes all the time, unfortunately, in our great state of california. so it's an overreach, it's radical. you don't want to waive all the protective laws that protect the drinking water of our people, that protect the environment. so i hope that we will vote against the paul amendment. i think it's very important to

do that. and support my amendment which basically is very clear and tells agencies they should use the most efficient and speedy process under the law to review and approve health and environmental protections. the bottom line here is that our underlying bill already includes significant bipartisan reforms that will ensure accelerated project delivery, including limiting the number of steps needed to clear a project for construction, easy and early coordination between agencies to avoid delays, incentives for accelerating project delivery decisions. 1556, this amendment my rand paul, walks away from this bipartisan approach. it launches a sweeping attack on federal and state health and environmental safeguards. you know, when you need to rebuild a project and it involves toxic materials like lead and asbestos, they have to be handled and disposed of

properly to protect public health. waiving all these federal and state reviews and approvals endangers our people, and i hope we will vote no against amendment 1816 -- i'm sorry -- that we will vote no on amendment 1556 and yes on amendment 1816. i thank my friend and i would note the absence of a quorum -- one moment. madam president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session for the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. hutch son: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i am not -- not going to call up my amendment that would limit the tolling of federal highways to the three that have been applied for and tentatively approved by the department of transportation much because senator carper and i have talked and his amendment which would have expanded that is also offered but he's not going to be -- is not going to be considered. mine also was offered but is not going to be considered. here is the point, though,

madam president. it is time that we have a real discussion and a debate about having tolling that would cover all of the free lanes of our federal highway system be able to be allowed by any state or any entity of government. we need to bring this out. and i would ask the senators who are -- the chairman and ranking members of the committee to have a hearing and let's talk about this, because i believe that when president eisenhower said we need a national highway system for national security -- that was his major purpose, but it has always been a huge help for commerce and the ease of commerce and travel among our states. he never envyingsed that --

envyingsed that a state would then put up tolls across an entire federal highway and make the taxpayers who have paid for 50 years to build these highways, many of which are not in their states, pay then again to use the highways that they have built with the vision of president eisenhower to have a system for national defense, connectivity, and commerce. so i'm not going to offer and withdraw my amendment and senator carper is not going to offer his amendment that would expand this type of option. but i do think, madam president, that it is essential that we have a policy that our highways that have been built for 50 years, to give us the vision that president eisenhower had of a national highway system, the

understanding that we've completed it, the skeleton has been completed. and now it's time to look in a different way at these highways. number one, a toll on one lane that adds a new free lane, i agree with that. that's fine. so as long as you have the same number of free lanes for the people of the united states who have paid for this and the truckers in the united states who are using these, as long as you have that concept, i'm fine with tolling to add. but, madam president, to take all of the free lanes or most of the free lanes and say we're going to scrunch up the truckers and the taxpayers who have used these freeways and built them is wrong and i think we should have a policy against it. and i hope and i see the distinguished chairman of the environment and public works here is here, senator boxer.

i would just ask that as we move through this -- and i do hope that we have this two-year bill and i commend the chairman and the ranking member, senator inhofe, for a two-year bill that does keep our infrastructure going. but i would hope that in the future as you beginning the consideration of a long-term bill that we would have a discussion that number one, would have a policy of this country that we're not going to clog the freeways that have been built by america with toll lanes to make americans pay again -- that would be number one -- and number two, that we would open up the possibility that states that are donor states that are giving their hard-earned tax dollars to other states that now have the same capacity to build out, that they would have the ability to opt out except for

the maintenance of these freeways and use their transportation dollars for their needs. because we are a fast-growing state, as is the state of california. we need our highway dollars for our own priorities, and i think that should be considered in the future. with that, madam president, i thank the president and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the chairperson of the environmental and public works committees, senator boxer. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: madam president, i would like to congratulate chairman boxer and ranking member inhofe for all of their hard work on this very important bill. this legislation is a major step forward toward addressing the significant infrastructure needs of our country and creating desperately needed jobs. i appreciate the inclusion of an amendment i offered which increases the federal cost share for emergency relief permanent

repairs in extreme disasters. my intent is that the provision will apply to all open disasters as of the date of enactment of this bill. is this the chairman's understanding as well? mrs. boxer: i want to say to the senator from vermont, first of all, thank you for all your hard work on the environment and public works committee. you focus on jobs like a laser beam and yes, you are correct. the intent is that this provision would apply to all open disasters which would include the states that were pummeled by hurricane irene last year. mr. sanders: with that i want to thank the chairman very much for her hard work and for her success. thank you very much. i yield. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask consent the mccain amendment 1669 as modified be withdrawn and the shaheen amendment numbered 1678

no longer be in order as these issues were revolved in the manager's package last evening. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: further that the carper amendment 1670 and the hutchison amendment 1658 no longer be in order as they no longer intend to offer these amendments. and finally, that there be two minutes equally divided prior to each vote and and all awfer afer the first vote be ten-minute votes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: could i ask what the amendment is that is now pending before the body? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on amendment 1810. mrs. boxer: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mrs. boxer: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on amendment number 1810. if there's no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the noes appear to have it. the noes do have it. the amendment's not agreed to. under the previous order, there's now two minutes of debate equally divided on amendment number 1816.

excuse me, 1779. mrs. boxer: i yield back all time. the presiding officer: without objection. if there's no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. there are now two minutes of debate on amendment number 1860. -- 1816. mrs. boxer: madam president, i just want to ask if it's possible by unanimous consent that senator carper could have two minutes to discuss an issue that senator hutchison addressed before, if my colleagues are okay, we could take a break from

the voting. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you. i would yield to my friend. mr. carper: thank you very much. i just want to say before i say anything else, thank you. our thanks to -- heartfelt thanks to you, senator inhofe, to the members of your staffs and to our staffs for just i think a job very well done. we're proud of you and in a place where not a whole lot gets down here some days, this is good stuff. mrs. boxer: thank you, tom. mr. carperer: i want to take a minute or so today, madam president, to talk about an amendment i filed to this legislation along with senators kirk and senator warner, to whom i offer my sincere thanks, as well as to a whole lot of organizations around the -- around the country who have supported this legislation. as you may know, under current law, a small number of states around our country now enjoy the flexibility to implement tolls on interstate highways. under the amendment that we filed, some additional states could choose to apply for that same flexibility. states would only or could only use toll revenues, a type of

user fee, to pay for additional transportation investments along those roads that are actually being tolled. in delaware and a handful of other states, interstate toll revenue is an important part of our state's transportation budget. senators kirk, warner and i believe that other states should have the same option available to them. however, in an effort to move this critical transportation legislation forward, senator hutchison and i both agreed not to offer our competing amendments on this subject to the bill. with that being said, i filed this amendment, madam president, in part because congress needs to face the facts when it comes to transportation funding and declining gas tax revenues. we're using less gas. we have more energy-efficient vehicles. we -- the cost of roads, highways, bridges and transit continues to go up and we need to be able to pay for them. we can't just borrow money from around the world to do this kind of thing f. we want to pass another transportation bill when this legislation that we're debating does expire in two years, we must address

structural flaws in the highway trust fund that are making long-term investments nearly impossible. and i hope our respecting -- our respective amendments that are at odds with one another, but i hope that they represent the beginning of an honest and important conversation about our nation's long-term transportation needs and how we pay for them in a fiscally responsible way. and with that, i'm pleased to yield the floor to whoever seeks recognition. the presiding officer: there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1816, offered by the senator from california, mrs. boxer. mrs. boxer: thank you very much, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you very much. colleagues, we have two choices on how to handle rebuilding of infrastructure, maintaining infrastructure, whether it occurs after an emergency or is just in the stream of regular maintenance. now, what we have done in this

bill is extraordinary and i think everyone would admit we have speeded up approval process for all construction here in the underlying bill. this was a hot issue. senator inhofe and i were coming from different places. but we reached strong agreement and what we say in our amendment number 1816 is we encourage and support what we've done in the underlying bill and telling the agencies that after a disaster, to move as fast as they can while protecting the people. now, what senator paul does in his amendment, it doesn't apply even to after a disaster, it's any time. so you could be fixing any problem that involves the most toxic materials and all the laws are waived. it is an overreach. it is radical. i would urge an "aye" vote on the boxer amendment and a "no" vote on the paul amendment.

mr. paul: madam president? the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? mr. paul: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: we have a bridge out between marshall county and trigg county. it takes an hour to go around the lake. what we're asking for is an exemption from onerous and overzealous federal regulations that can slow the process of rebuilding a bridge or a road by years. the average time for an environmental review for a construction project is four years. now, the other side wants to pay lip service. they want to say something about it but do nothing to fix the problem. the people who live in marshall county and trigg county want their bridge fixed. they want to get to work and not take an hour and a half to get to work. the way we fix this is we get rid of the red tape. the way you do that's by changing the law. so what i propose is that we vote against the say-something/do-nothing and vote for reform that actually has teeth and would take away the red tape and allow us to immediately begin to repair our

bridges without big brother obstructing the reconstruction. thank you. and i yield back. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: