saving the postal service isn't all about closing facilities and cutting services. recognizing the questionable policy decisions that decisione years regarding the postal service's pension and health care robltionz a part of the postal service's financial problems, we call for in this managers' amendment refunding the more thank $10 billion that the postal service has overpaid in the federal employees retirement system. a portion of that refund, that $10 billion, $12 billion, whatever it turns out to be, would be used to encourage at least some of the 125,000 postal employees at or near retirement age today to retire now or within the next year or two savings the post service billions of dollars annually. you go back a decade or so ago, there were roughly 900,000 men

and women who worked for the postal service. for us in the postal service. today there are 550,000 people who are employees of the postal service. out of that, roughly 550,000 people, 125,000 are eligible to retire. are eligible to retire, and they have not chosen to do so despite the fact that they are eligible. one of the things the postmaster general wants to do, and i believe those of us who are cosponsors, coauthors this have bill, want to do is to encourage those who want to retire. 80% of the post office's costs are personnel costs. to the extent we continue to enable it to right size itself given the market share of 500,000 down to maybe 450,000 in the next year or two, 80% of the cost is personnel, that helps gets this enterprise back to the place where it's not bleeding

money every day of every week of every month of this year. today the postal service will lose -- get this -- $23 million. today. today if you look at the amount of the money the postal service owes to the treasury, roughly $15 billion. maybe more than that with a line of credit that only goes up to $15 billion. there's some controversy out of the 2006 legislation signed by former president bush. he insisted at the time that in order to sign that legislation, that we would have and the congress agree to i think maybe the most conservative approach to prefunding in retiree health benefits of any government agency or any business i've ever been associated with. i used to be treasurer of my state, governor of my state and we began prefunding for retirees, but nothing, nothing like this. we instituted that requirement in order for president bush to

sign on the bill at a time when the postal service was in good shape. that was a very profitable year, if you will, for the postal service before the roof fell in and the economy went to heck in a hand basket. but the postal service was in pretty good shape, very good shape so the taxpayers wouldn't be saddled with those obligations in the event the postal service couldn't meet it in years to come. president bush said we'll sign this bill. we want to make sure the postal service will always be making money as they were in 2006, and 10, 15 years down the line when they're not doing so well, we want to make sure a large part of their health care benefits for retirees are satisfied or paid for. that is not entirely a bad idea. we didn't know we would enter the worst recessions in 2008. we didn't know we would lose 2.5 million jobs in the second half of 2008. we didn't know we would lose 2 million jobs in the first half of 2009, but we did. it put us in the tank and put

the postal service in the tank far quicker than i think anybody had a reasonable right to imagine. but then in retrospect, the payment schedule put into place back then proved to be too aggressive once the bottom fell out of the our economy in 2008. our managers amendment scraps the schedule adopted in 2006, replaces it, i think, with a more realistic one that's based on what the postal service actually owes. and that change coupled with others that would better coordinate postal retirees medicare and federal employee health benefits would cut the postal service retiree health costs by more than half. not ignore them but cut them in half and put them in a more realistic time schedule. finally, our managers amendment pushes the postal service to redouble its efforts to innovate. to redouble its efforts to develop new products that can grow with -- grow revenue going forward. there are some who would argue that -- let me just dwell on

that for just a moment. mr. president, the -- there are, frankly, somewhere down the line, i don't know if it is a year from now or five years from now or ten tkpwraoers now, somebody -- years from now, a light will go on in somebody's head and they will say the postal service goes to somebody's door in america five or six times a week, they are in every community in america. why didn't we think of a particular idea to enable them to create a new source of revenue or a new source of revenue? i just want to mention some that are working. flat rate boxes, if it fits, it ships. the partnerships the postal service has with fedex and u.p.s. delivering by the postal service last mile or last two or three miles, a good way to make money especially as more people order things for themselves, their families or loved ones over the internet and have it shipped. the postal service can have a big piece of that business. there are other ideas as well. fedex, u.p.s., they get to

deliver wine and beer. the postal service doesn't. we change that in this legislation. the ideas, electronic mailboxes, we'll hear more about those in the days to come. other countries with postal services, they have thaoufd as a way -- have used that as a way to provide good services for people and businesses. i think maybe there is a good argument that we should allow the postal service to do that too. even further down the road and kind of out there idea, as the presiding officer knows, in neighboring pennsylvania, they don't have a coastline but they are close to ours, to new jersey. but five, six years from now we're going to have windmill farms off the coast of the united states, east coast from north carolina, virginia up to maine. they are going to be harvesting the wind, turning that wind into electricity. the wind doesn't always blow, but sometimes it blows a lot more than -- generate more electricity than we can use on a particular day at a particular hour. what are we going to do with that electricity? we're going to store it. you know where we're going to

store it? one of the places is in the batteries of the fleets of vehicles. who has one of the biggest fleets in america? the postal service. a lot of the vehicles in their fleet are 25, even 30 years old and we have these new vehicles coming to the market that are far more energy-efficient to replace those old, in some cases dilapidated fleet vehicles in the postal service. and the new vehicles with their batteries can literally be a place to receive the electricity generated on a windy day in the atlantic, on the outer continental shelf, to store that electricity and when needed put it back out on the grid. the electric grid to provide energy as needed across the northeastern, midatlantic part of our nation. that's an idea that's sort of out there. but we need to be thinking boldly. the postal service needs to be doing that. the -- i think one of the better pieces of our amendment, and this came from some of the more progressive members of the

democratic party and kind of joined up with some of the more conservative folks on the republican side, but the idea that the postal service needs to be entrepreneurial. they need to be more innovative. and when they come up with good ideas for making money, including like the idea we talked to at the luncheon caucus we had today. how about vote by mail. in two states today -- oregon, washington -- they vote by mail. what does it do to voter turnout? i think we're told by senator cantwell in her state last year, two years ago in the election, they had 72% voter turnout. this year they're expecting 84% voter turnout. this is a country where we're lucky to have 50% of the people who actually turn out to vote and we can see what it can do in those two states. they can be laboratories of democracy for our nation. encourage voter turnout, maybe do it in a more cost-effective way and, get this, provide a new source of revenue. they are a great source *f

revenue for the postal service. that's the sort of they think we need to keep in mind. i don't think there is any one silver bullet but i like to say there are a lot of silver b.b.'s and those are pretty big. those are ideas we haven't thought of yet we ought to do. let me just say, again, fairly close to the end, mr. president, but i don't mean to suggest that what the managers amendment to the underlying bill, the underlying bill reported out of the committee by about a 9-1 vote. the managers amendment craft bid senators lieberman, collins, brown, myself is not perfect. very few things associated with my name have ever been perfect. but i would say this my core values -- some have heard me say this maybe too many times. if it isn't perfect, make it better. if it isn't perfect, make it

better. we have the opportunity to take what we believe is the managers amendment, an improvement over the original bill, we have the opportunity to make it better. and i don't think on this case in, this case there are not just republican ideas, they're not just democratic ideas. they're not liberal ideas, they're not conservative ideas. they're just better ideas. better ideas. and my hope is that members will have the opportunity in days this week, in days to come to come to this floor and to offer their better ideas. i would plead with our colleagues, don't just come to the floor and offer amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with postal service. please come to the floor to offer amendments that can help make this bill better with respect to insuring that we have a postal service that's viable, insolvent in the 21st century that can meet our communications needs for individuals, for families and for business. this is not -- we're not going

through like a fire drill here. this is an emergency. this is an emergency. ened -- it's a huge challenge but also an opportunity to get it right this time. hopefully with a growing economy to maybe have a little bit of the wind to our backs. we have to pass a bill. my hope is we can pass a bill with bipartisan support that's good underlying public policy so that in 2016 the postal service won't be running losses of $23 million a day like they are today. that the postal service will have had an opportunity to use this refund that they're owed by the federal employee retirement system, $12 billion, to pay down much of their debt. maybe use a little bit of that money to help incentivize some of the 125,000 postal employees that are elderly, to go ahead and retire. we can do this in a way. a bunch of our colleagues are concerned, we hear it, senator

lieberman and i, senator collins and senator brown, colleagues are concerned about rural post offices. we have some of those in delaware, some in connecticut and certainly in maine, even some in massachusetts. i think we've actually come up with a pretty good approach here, and we appreciate very much the input of people like jon tester from montana and jerry moran from kansas, one democrat and one republican, to try to give us a better idea on how to move forward on post offices. let me just close with this. there are 33,000 post offices in america in communities across the country. a year or so ago the postal service, the postmaster general met with us on our committee and he said we have 3,700 of those post offices under review that we think maybe should be closed. 3,700 there were at the time about 500 mail processing centers across the country that the post office has for processing mail. he said we would like to close

about 300 of them. we would like to change the standard of delivery for mail from one to three days from maybe two to three days. some were afraid twho slip from 2003 to three to two -- from two to three to two to four. my colleagues who are concerned about the impact this will have on their rural post offices or rural processing centers, here's where we've ended up: the postal service pretty much backed off and said we're not that much interested in closing 3,700 post offices or 2,700 or 1,700 post offices. what they really would like to do is this, i think is a smarter, actually more cost-effective approach, more humane approach, and that is to say to communities across america where you have a post office, or maybe the postmaster's making $50,000, $60 thousand,000 $70,000 a year and the post office is selling $20 thousand worth of stamps, rather than close that post office,

provide that community with options. the menu of options would be maybe keep the post office open, say to the postmaster there who is eligible to retire, we'd like to incentivize you to retire. here's a $25,000 bonus if you go ahead and retire. you can retire, receive your pension, be eligible for benefits as a postal retiree and come back and work on a part-time basis and run that post office for two hours a day, four hours a day, six hours a day, whatever the community feels meets their needs, morning or afternoon, midafternoon, evening. and that retired postmaster can, the money that they collect, they keep. they don't have to reduce their pension. it is just extra money that they can make for continuing to provide this service. we still have the post office there. the flag still flies in front of it. that's one option. another option might be like to put that, if folks in the community wanted, to put that post office in a super market or

one of the supermarkets that we, that's close to my house in delaware, they have a super market, they have a pharmacy, they have a bank. it turns out one of our major national chains of pharmacy, walgreens, i was visiting their headquarters. their office is in chicago. i don't know if the chairman has been there, chairman lieberman has been there, but the pharmacy, they took me to a couple of them, it has a beautiful pharmacy, part of it is a post office. so you can see in places across the country, it might make sense to consolidate the post office in like a walgreens or some other kind of pharmacy or convenience store. it might make sense to say you have got a small town, they have a town hall, that kind of thing. how about consolidating those buildings together with the post office. we even heard the idea of creating an internet cafe in places where they don't have broadband. we can't have a rural post office where people in that community don't have broadband

access, maybe have it at the post office. there are just all kinds of ideas that are out there. on the mail processing side, instead of closing 500 mail processing centers across the country, the postmaster general has come to us, we have maintained, not to go from one to three-day service, or two to four-day service, to maintain kind of like a one to three-day service, one with an asterisk. one would be overnight service, next-day service in communities like if they are in the same metropolitan area. they would still get next-day service. outside of that metropolitan area, they might but in most cases it would be two-day cases. in no case would it be worse than three-day service. by going to this noddified service standard of delivery, the postal service would have to close 500 mail processing centers. probably be able to close maybe 150. they would be able to offer incentives to those employees to retire, they could migrate to other jobs within the postal service.

it would be i think maybe a smarter way to move this large, old but still germane, relevant postal service into the 21st century. i will close with this. this is not the time to kick the can down the road. i have no interest in doing that. i know senator lieberman, senator brown, senator collins have no interest in doing that. this is the time to fix the problem, to fix the problem. i'd like to think we are smart enough here in the senate to fix this problem. i'd like to think we are smart enough in the senate to work with the house, our staffs, we have a lot of good people, the folks at the postal service, the folks who work there, the unions, their customers, and a lot of people are in businesses all over the country. together working on this, i think are smart enough to figure out how to solve this. we need to do that.

last thought. during the recess, i mentioned to my colleagues, the presiding officer, to senator lieberman during our caucus lunch today. i don't know what you guys and gals did over the easter recess. i basically just covered delaware like a glove. i love to do it. i go back every night anyway. it's great joy. you know what i mean, to kind of reconnect with everybody. i also spent some time on the phone and meeting with folks who are in businesses in delaware and outside of delaware who usually rely on the post office. nationwide, there are seven million to eight million people whose jobs are integrated or are part of or facilitated by our postal service. seven million or eight million jobs. we are coming out of the worst recession since before i was born, since before we were born, and we need to get out of it. one of the best ways to do that is to provide certainty, predictability for a lot of businesses. one way to do that is to pass

postal reform legislation that finishes the job we started five, six years ago. we can do that. we need to do that. and i am encouraged that we will do that. i want to thank the chairman of the committee whom i love working with, as i think we all do. thank him for giving me a chance to work a little bit with him on this issue and to providing the great leadership that he always does. and to say to my friend, susan collins who just left the floor, that it's been a real privilege to work with her. and finally to our staffs. we're blessed with wonderful people, as joe knows, wonderful people on our staffs. my staff and michael and the team that are part of your staff and kate who works with senator collins, they have done great work, hard work, and we're pleased and privileged to be able to work with them. thank you. with that, i yield.

mr. lieberman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i want to thank my friend, the senator from delaware, for his excellent statement on the bill and where we are in regard to the u.s. postal service. really, i want to thank him for what he has done over the last several years to try to save the u.s. postal service in a changing environment and to lead the change. no one in the senate, i believe no one in the congress has worked harder over the last decade to reform the u.s. postal service than senator tom carper, and there is a way in which he is engaged by the kinds of problems that others try to get far away from. he sees an institution like the

u.s. postal service, he knows how important it is, and he is challenged by it and he goes at it with all of his considerable capabilities and persistence until he gets it right. i can't thank him enough for doing that. this is not the kind of issue on which you gain a lot of political advantage, but it's again a test of our government. it's a test of our capacity to maintain public services that people depend on in a changing world. and we all know. he has been the leader in this. that email is affecting the volume of mail. the post office has to change to stay not only viable but strong. i think we're going to do it in this congress, and no one will deserve more credit for that than senator tom carper. i'm glad i had the chance

spontaneously to offer that much-deserved gratitude and praise to senator carper. i want to say to my colleagues and staff that maybe are watching or listening, just to pick up a theme that senator carper spoke and try to bring it home. there are some amendments on both sides, they ought to be aired out. i believe that senator reid really wants to do that, wants to create a process where relevant amendments from both sides are not without limit but a good number of them get the chance to be debated here on the floor. it's my understanding that both caucuses now are hotlining a request to senate offices. if you have an amendment, you want to introduce on this postal reform bill, let your respective cloakroom know so we can see what the universe is and then

see if we can work out an agreement where we alternate submitting amendments and we can begin to get into the substance of the bill and hopefully move it to a point where before long we can actually adopt something. so i thank the chair and i would yield the floor. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: i ask to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i'm joined on the floor today for his first time on the senate floor, john crown, who works on our veterans affairs issues, came from the veterans' committee and joined our staff in the last couple of weeks. and john crown is a marine, did two tours of duty in iraq and we honor him for his service and he is -- wants to -- it seems wants to dedicate his life to serving people who also served their country. and people of all ages and both and all ideologies and who served their country any time in the last several decades.

so i wanted to announce his first visit to the senate floor today. mr. president, 70 years ago this week, on april 18, 1942, 80 brave american airmen volunteered for an extremely hazardous mission. the presiding officer, the senior senator from pennsylvania, knows that i like to come to the senate floor and talk about history and honor people who have played such an important role in our -- in our history. and i wanted to talk about these heroic men. they were known as the doolittle tokyo raiders. they accepted their mission without really whang it entailed. their commission, which followed the attack on pearl harbor. pearl harbor had happened the december before. it was our nation's first feighansive against japanese -- offensive against japanese soil in the second world war. planned and led by lieutenant generally jimmy doolittle, the mission was risky from the outset. it was the first time the army air corps and the navy

collaborated in a tactical mission, flying 16 u.s. army air corps b-25 mitchell bombers from the deck of the u.s.s. hornet, a feat that had never been attempted before. the morning of the raid, the u.s.s. hornet encountered japanese ships 170 miles from the prearranged launch point. fearing the mission might be compromised, the raiders proceeded to launch 170 miles earlier than anticipated. by departing 650 miles from their intended target, these men accepted the risk they might not have enough fuel to make it beyond the japanese lines to occupied china. accepting this choice meant the raiders would almost certainly have to crashland or bail out either above japanese occupied china or even over the home islands in japan. any survivors, they knew, would certainly be subjected to imprisonment or torture or death after reaching their targets, 15 of the bombers continued to china, while the 16th

dangerously low on fuel, headed to russia. the total distance traveled by the raiders averaged 2,200 nautical miles over 13 hours, making it the longest combat mission ever flown in a b-25 bomber during the war. of the 80 -- that's 8-0 -- of the 80 raiders who were launched that day, eight were captured. of these eight prisoners, three were executed, one died of disease, four of these prisoners returned home after the end of the war. of the original 80 raiders, five are still with us today and they are celebrating this week their 70th anniversary in dayton, ohio, honoring their fellow raiders who are no longer with them. as they gather this week, i'm proud to introduce this resolution with my colleagues from both parties and from each state where these men reside. it's my pleasure to have senator hutchison from texas, senator murray from washington state, senator alexander from tennessee , senator tester from montana, and senator baucus,

also from montana, and senator nelson as my cosponsors. it's my sincere privilege, especially to have senator inouye and lautenberg, both veterans of the war, as cosponsors too. as the raiders gather this week, these five men will honor other heroes. and this is what's even, perhaps, as interesting as the first part. the chinese citizens who cared for, protected, and enabled them to survive in a foreign land, a very foreign land to these american men. a chinese delegation's coming to dayton for the reunion. among the delegation is a man whose father helped carry injured raiders to safety and even nursed one raider to health i would be certain that they couldn't talk to each other in a common language. they had never seen anybody like the other one, yet one, a chinese, helped this american airman. it's only fitting we recognize this week's anniversary and commend the five living members of the -- and the 75 deceased

members of the doolittle raiders for their heroism on that day. it's fitting to honor the chinese for their compassion they showed the american raiders they encountered. this is a humble attempt to show our gratitude. the valor, skill proved invaluable to the eventual defeat of japan during the second world war. today these men, with their chinese friends, remind us that quiet decency and uncommon valor in the face of sure danger, however rare, are traits that know no limit. i thank the president. i would ask the president, presiding officer, that the -- that the following comments be a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the last two weeks most members of the senate were back in their states talking, i hope listening more than talking, and learning more than perhaps talking, learning about issues and

problems and what they were seeing and hearing in their state. i was in ohio from ashtubula to parma to glains vil to meet with -- zanesville to meet with ohioans and discuss ways to get our economy back on track. too many ohioans are struggling, as too many people in pennsylvania are struggling. many are still looking for work. others have seen their wages cut or hours reduced. but there are, from chillicothe to though lee toe, from ports -- toledo, from portssmith to mansfield, there is recovery. recovery for our suppliers, but more than that, and some of the small businesses supplying these companies are beginning to show real signs of growth. few places are more symbolic of this than a company called american manufacturing. the name of the company is american manufacturing, located in toledo. three years ago the auto industry, as we know, was on the verge of collapse. threatening to take down with it

thousands of auto supply -- auto parts suppliers. american manufacturing got down to four employees. they had been 125. they supply container crates, metal container crates for the auto industry. had once been 125, down to four employees. president bush tried but was blocked by -- mostly by republicans in the united states senate, his own party members, to do a bridge loan in assistance for the auto industry. president obama, with a strong democratic majority, over the opposition of -- of many, many republicans, although some republicans in my part of the country, the industrial areas around ohio, including ohio, were supportive, were able to rescue this industry. we knew that rescuing the auto industry was way more than about helping chrysler and general motors. we knew that it mattered for not just those large companies and their workers, but mattered for

johnson controls, it mattered for magnum, it mattered for small companies like american manufacturing in toledo, companies that depended on the auto industry. in fact, estimates are that 800,000 people in ohio are in the auto industry one way or the other, directly or indirectly work for auto companies. these 800,000-plus jobs were dependent on congress moving forward in early 2009 and doing the right thing. the decision wasn't popular. there were all kind of naysayers. there's no question now that it was a success. a number of people from governor romney to lots of people around the country, lots of conservative politicians in washington said let the companies go into bankruptcy. we can structure it but let them go into bankruptcy. let them put the financing together to come out of bankruptcy much the only problem

is that nobody, nobody, from bain capital to others were willing to lend money to these two companies who were in such terrible problems. the government loaned the money. much of that money is paid back, and things are better. but let's not forget that in january 2009 when president obama took office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. our economy was in freefall. this is the time the auto industry was going down. to stop the bleeding one of the things we did was unlock the frozen credit market for small businesses and manufacturers through the small business administration. through these s.b.a. loans, we saw a local bank in toledo, ohio, a new bank, a bank that had been around for a handful of year, step up, invest capital in american manufacturing in this company in toledo, and this company now just is about who hire its 100th person.

this company is successful because of the art owe rescue and it's successful because of the small business administration coming out of the recovery act, having enough money to guarantee loans with this local community bank. not a wall street bank but a local community bank to get this company back on its feet. we're seekers mr. president, even with all of this, madam president, with the auto industry working -- a understand we know two terrific examples of how it is working in my state. the chevy cruze, , assembled in youngstown, ohio, would not probably not exist if it were not for the auto rescue. the engine is made in defiance, ohio, the transmission is made in toledo, the sound system is made in springsboro, ohio, the steel comes out of butler county, ohio, middletown, owe 0. stamp something does on in parm

a a, the assembly is done in lordstown, ohio. look at the jeerntion the jeep wrangler, made in toledo prior to the rescue. but only 50% the parts for the jeep wrangler were made in the united states. today the wrangling l.er with more people working there, prowlingsing more carks still assembled in ohio. yet 75% of the parts, not 50%, what it was, 75% of those parts now come from companies in the united states, made by workers in the united states. but we're now seeing, though, mr. president in addition -- as the you a owe industry begins to grow, and the auto rescue is so clearly the right thing to do -- thank god in senate didn't listen and the house didn't listen to the naysayers -- in spite of that we're still seeing huge trade deficits with china in out auto parts.

tenge years ago our trade deficit with china in auto parts was about $1 billion. that meant about $1 billion more we -- we bought about $1 billion more than we sold to china. that was ten years ago. today that number has grown to almost $10 billion. the first george bush, president bush, sthaid a $1 billion trade deficit, meaning you buy $1 billion more than you sell, translating to about 13,000 jocks. today, do the market today the trade deficit, the bilateral trade deficit between the united states and china is $10 billion. and we're seeing it in other things. we see it in auto, we see it in solar, we see that china uses unfair subsidies, they subsidize water, they subsidize energy, they subsidize land, they subsidize credit, and on top of that they have a currency advantage because of their manipulating of the currency.

sitting idling by is not an option. my colleagues both sides understand that. that's why my klein currency manipulation bill, the biggest bipartisan bill to pass the senate in 2011 by who are than 70 votes costing taxpayers nothing but leveling the playing field so china can't manipulate its currency and cheat in international trade, that legislation passed, as i said, with 70 votes. a recently released report shows that if this congress -- the house of representatives down the hall -- if they would pass this and send it to the president's desk, and the president would sign it, it would support the creation of 2 230eu million american jobs without adding a time to the deficit. it would be the opposite. if you take 2 million people who are now unemployed and put them in jobs of $15, $20, $25 an hour, manufacturing jobs, you would clearly see the deficit shrink, more people would be back on the payroll paying taxes

and contributing to their community. it is time to take bold action. it is time to stand up on china currency. i appreciate the support of my colleagues in the senate on the china currency bill. time is running out in the house. i a am hoping the house of representatives passes this bill, too. it is time we put american workers and american manufacturing companies first. i thank the presiding officer, and i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. landrieu: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today to mark and celebrate the career of a louisiana native, a very dear friend of mine and someone that is admired by literally thousands, if not millions, of people in texas and around the world. that gentleman is dr. kenneth hall. next week dr. hat hall will rete after almost two decades of leadership at bucker in international, which is one of the world's outstanding nonprofit organizations formed many years ago in texas. dr. hall served as the fifth

president, only the fifth president, in over 120 years. after his retirement as president in 2010, he's continued to serve as c.e.o. of this fine organization. buckner, as it is known, is a global christian ministry that does extraordinary work with vulnerable children and families throughout texas and other places in the united states and recently expanded internationally. they helped to run self-sufficiency programs, community transformation programs, education, jobs readiness, and training, after-school programs for vulnerable children and remarkably i've seen their work both in downtown dallas, texas, as well as out in remote villages in ethiopia and the quality and expertise is identical and it is heart-warming. the causes of vulnerable children both here and overseas is something, of course, that's extremely close to my heart.

i've spent a good bit of time here in the senate working with my colleagues on issues that advance their welfare. and it's been my privilege and honor to know dr. hall over the past several years. he was born in louisiana, earned his b.a. from the university of texas at tyler. he earned a master's of divinity and doctor of ministry doctor from southwest baptist theological seminary. served as pastor of four churches in texas. he's been married for many years, a beautiful family, his wife linda and their two married children and their grandchildren. but i want to say just a brief word about buckner itself. it was founded over 135 years ago when a baptist minister, r.c. buckner started an or fan eighth with a donation of $27. he took off his hat, put a

dollar in it, passed it around to the ministers present and with $27 started the first orphanage west of the mississippi to help the children that were coming on those orphan trains across our nation. took them off of those trains gaifnedz them homes and families. the organization has grown since then. but under dr. hall's leadership, buckner expanded to include more than $200 million in capital improvements, anne downlt of more 200 million. he also worked to expand buckner's reach overseas. i had the pleasure of traveling with him to ethiopia recently, and i wntsed firsthand the -- witnessed firsthand the incredible work and his personal passion for helping families become more self-sufficient, maintaining children and their birth family groups, and helping to literally transform communities with this special buckner touch. so it has been said before, to be who you are and become what

you are capable of is the only goal worth living. it is my hope that dr. hall will continue to achieve his goal in this life. we will miss him, his self-less service and his dedication and we honor him today in the united states senate for over two decades of service to one of the nation'nation's best nonprofit, faith-based organizations. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snoer from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i am delighted to follow my colleague from louisiana because i'm rising this evening to talk about a bill that she has put an enormous amount of effort into, and she's really had a significant role in the suggestion of the bill that i'm going to talk about. we have a bill in congress that

is perhaps the most significant jobs bill that we'll be able to pass in this session. it's described as producing 2.9 million jobs. nearly three million jobs. rhode island is a relatively small state, but it means 9,000 jobs in the state of rhode island. we have about 60-some thousand people out of work right now in rhode island. 9,000 takes a significant number of those folks and enables them to get to work. it is a serious jobs bill. it also went through a completely impeccable process here in the senate. it passed out of the environment and puck works committee -- and public works committee with the strong support of our chairman

barbara boxer and the equally strong support of her ranking member, senator inhofe of oklahoma. they come from quite different political persuasions, but they were together on this bill, and it passed unanimously out of the environment and public works committee. it came to the floor. we had a completely open process on the floor. it spent five weeks on this floor being discussed, debated and amended. and it was quite thoroughly amended. there were more than 40 amendments that were either voted on or accepted while it was here and on the floor. so from a process point of view, it was exactly what everybody hopes for in a piece of legislation. and it passed out of the senate with 74 senators voting for it, a 75th who would voted for it but had to be away in his home state. so the final tally in effect would be 75-22, a landslide

bipartisan vote. a jobs bill that passed with an impeccable legislative process and produced a landslide bipartisan vote. what is that bill? it's the highway bill. it's the bill that we've been working on now in congress since the days of the federal highway system under president eisenhower. it's not complicated. everybody understands it. and three million jobs depend on its passage. unfortunately, it's snarled up for reasons that are hard to explain over in the house of representatives. the speaker has not called up this bipartisan, very well-regarded senate bill. it has support outside this institution from everybody from the united states chamber of commerce to the labors international union. it has environmentalist support. this is a bill that's not being held up in the house because

there is an important interest that was overlooked or that has -- that is an adversary to it. it's just being held up for, i don't know. i would say washington insider reasons, having to do with the politics of the house of representatives. but when there are three million jobs at stake, that's a real shame. and it started to be noticed by, for instance, the rating agencies. standard & poor's just published on april 2 a report entitled "increasingly unpredictable federal funding could stall u.s. transportation infrastructure projects." well, when you stall u.s. transportation infrastructure projects, you kill jobs. and that's what's happening. here's how they describe it: "currently the surface transportation bill remains mired in uncertainty. holdups in funding

reauthorizations, and/or significant cuts in infrastructure programs are delaying some projects and forcing others to be scaled back." delaying some projects means taking away jobs. forcing others to be scaled back means taking away jobs. here's what happened as they describe it: "with the march 31 expiration of the highway trust fund looming, congress passed on march 29, last minute, yet another extension to fund u.s. highway programs. this latest continuing resolution, the ninth, provides funding through june 30, 2012. as construction season begins in the northern half of the country, this continuing uncertainty in funding could force states to delay projects rather than risk funding changes or political gridlock come july." and that's exactly what's

happening in rhode island and in many other states. i was home over our recess. i met with our very capable director of transportation, michael lewis. he served under republican and independent administrations. he says i've got a list, sheldon. i've got a list of all the projects that we want to get done this summer, in the summer highway construction season. you can't build highways in the winter in rhode island and in which of the country -- and in much of the country. so the work has to be done in the summer construction season. he says here's my list. if we have to live with this extension, if we don't find out until maybe the 4th of july what kind of money we're actually going to have to build these projects, he said i can't take chances. i've got to start dropping projects off my list. and every one of the projects that falls off his list is jobs. every project that falls off his list is annoyed rhode islander. he estimated -- is an unemployed

rhode islander. when people say we've extended the highway program until june 30, don't buy it. that is not a neutral act. that is a harmful act. that cost 1,000 jobs just in rhode island. if it's extended further, the problem gets even worse. we cannot tolerate these continued extensions. we've got to get action on a long-term authorization. and to go back to the standard & poor's report, here's what they say, "once a long-term authorization is approved, we believe it will provide an impetus for transportation agencies to reconsider high-priority projects that had been shelved because of lack of funding." those high-priority projects that had been shelved because of lack of funding, when they get taken off the shelf and put into the street that,'s jobs. that's why this is a three million jobs bill nearly.

but they say if the authorization is extended by even more continuing resolutions, such high-priority projects will remain in limbo. so, i intend to come to the floor as often as i can. i know there are other colleagues who want to come to the floor. we want to come every day. we want to set up a daily drum beat of attention to the fact that a three million jobs bill is being held hostage in the house of representatives by the republican speaker for political washington insider reasons that have nothing to do with the merits. this is a bill that everybody is for. and to continue to urge that the speaker take up the bipartisan, fully paid for, widely supported, very well-legislated senate map 21 highway bill. three million jobs fend on it. -- three million jobs depend on it. i'm here to urge the speaker to do his job and i yield the

floor. ms. landrieu: would the senator yield for a question? mr. whitehouse: gladly. ms. landrieu: i had a group from louisiana in my office on the same subject, so i appreciate your leadership. it was a group of the american engineering society that was here in washington today. i don't know if the senator had an opportunity to meet with such a group. but have other groups come by your office to express, as this group did, their utter frustration with congress's inability to get such a basic piece of legislation through stph-p and, you -- piece of legislation through? did they tell you the same thing they told me, which is senator, when engineers are not working in america, no one's working. we're the ones that are designing the projects to be built. if we're not designing them, they're not going to be built. and if you don't get this transportation bill passed for a longer period of time, we won't be going back to work. is that the senator's understanding when he meets with groups in his office?

mr. whitehouse: exactly. i have met with the rhode island road builders who are concerned about where the work is going to be and how much of it is going to get done. as i said in my earlier remarks, i met with our state director of transportation. i've met with the mayor of our capital city, which has a very significant highway construction project that needs to get done in that city that would provide an enormous number of jobs in that city at a time when rhode island still has over 10% unemployment. so we need these jobs. that project needs to be done. that infrastructure is crumbling. it's a land bridge. it goes through the city above other roads. it's i-95. it's our main artery for the entire northeast, and it's in such poor shape that they have had to put planks across between the eye beams that hold up the

roadway. and the planks are there so that the pieces of roadway that are falling in don't land on the car driving by on the roads underneath. amtrak, the main rail artery for the northeast, goes right under the same highway. same deal. they've got the planks up overhead to keep the roadway from falling in on the trains below. so this is an urgent matter, and it's not -- it's certainly the road construction industry, but it's everybody who wants jobs and economic redevelopment that's around this infrastructure. it's the mayors that are concerned about it. frankly, it's people who drive over these highways and want to know, this thing is 50 years old. time to rebuild it. let's get on with it. it shouldn't be complicated. ms. landrieu: the senator may be interested to know, in louisiana, as he said he had 9,000 jobs at risk in rhode island. we have 26,700 jobs at risk in louisiana. this is a very significant deal and challenge for all of our

states. now we don't have the trouble of the winter and the summer, but unfortunately, louisiana does have one of the largest percentages of bridges that are deficient in the nation. we also, because we have to build on such soft and unsettling lands, need to have repair money readily available so that our people can evacuate in times of hurricanes and natural disasters. we've been working, senator, you may be familiar with the area because you've got friends and relatives in our state, of the i-49 south and i-49 north, but particularly i-49 south that connects new orleans to lafayette in a hraoup arnold south louisiana -- in a loop around south louisiana, america's energy coast that is so important for not only saving those wetlands and that great industry of fisheries, but also supporting oil and gas production. that highway is yet to be built in a nation that depends on the resources that we send to your state and to other parts of the

nation. so i'm like you, i can't for the life of me figure out why the house would not move with more quick action to pass a longer-term bill. now maybe if they can get just anything out of the house, we could get to conference and start negotiating some things that might be better than a three-month short-term authorization which, mr. president, i hear nothing but complaints from everyone, from the left of the environmental movement to the right of the business community, they said, senator, we can't live with these short-term authorizations. we need two years. we need three years. we need five years. we need something that we can build on, count on, budget for and fend on. other -- and depend on. otherwise it's too expensive. it's start-and-stop projects. you have to lay off a crew, then hire them the next day. or you can't place your orders in an efficient fashion.

the senator from rhode island knows, you just raise up the cost of all the projects. so why would a house claim to want to be so fiscally conservative but act in such a way that is the opposite? that is really making all of these projects more expensive. so i think the senator from rhode island is absolutely correct, and i would like to join him on the floor, and i hope our colleagues every night, to come to this floor and say it is time to pass this transportation bill. it's time to help colorado, new mexico, louisiana, rhode island to put jobs, to get people back to work and to fix this crumbling infrastructure. and, mr. president, nine is enough. i mean, the cat has nine lives. this cat has run out of opportunities. i mean, this is the ninth short-term authorization. i mean, we have got to move to a more long-term, sustainable infrastructure plan for america. this is truly an embarrassment, i have to say to my friend.

so i want to just thank you for your leadership. i will join you in subsequent evenings on the floor to try to raise this issue and explain to the american public not the inside baseball and the inside politics, but to explain what's the most important thing about this is we need the jobs and we need them now. mr. whitehouse: and i very much appreciate the senator from louisiana's tenacity on this subject. it's a characteristic of hers, but it's always a good thing to be her teammate and have that tenacity deployed on your side. so i'm delighted that she's here. as senator landrieu said, she has bridges, one in five of rhode island bridges is deemed structurally deficient. one in three highway miles is in poor to mediocre condition. this is work that really needs to be done. the american society of engineers gives our infrastructure on average a "d" rating. that's the trouble that we're

in, and we can't sort this out. and so i intend to urge as many of my colleagues as i can to come to the floor, and i hope we get the floor covered by some of our colleagues on a literally daily basis until we get this resolved and point out the places where jobs are falling off around the country. because this wasn't done where people are getting laid off around the country because this isn't getting done. there is a direct link between jobs not getting put on the list, funds not getting put out for those jobs and folks not getting employed. in this economy, we can't afford that. we certainly can't afford it for internal insider washington, d.c., reasons. so i thank the presiding officer and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum.

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent we now proceed with dispensing with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: due to a clerical air, printout of amendment number 200 on which was filed at the desk last evening had missing pages. i ask consent that the amendment be modified with the additional pages at the desk with the -- with the additional pages at the desk. further, that the cloture motion filed earlier today with respect to amendment 2000 be applicable to amendment 2000 as modified. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 420. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 420, designating april 5, 2012, as gold star wives day.

the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the senate now proceed to s. res. 421. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 421, designating april 20-22, 2012, as clobo youth service day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that we now be permitted to proceed to s. res. 422. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 422, commending and congratulating university of kentucky men's basketball team for winning its eighth division i national collegiate athletic association championship. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection.

mr. reid: reid: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 423. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 423, congratulating western washington university for winning the 2012 national collegiate athletic association division ii men's basketball championship. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed, to the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any statements related to this matter appear in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until tomorrow, wednesday, april 18, at 9:30 in the morning. following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to

proceed to s. 1925, the violence against women reauthorization act. with the first hour equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that the majority coal the first 30 -- control the first 30 minutes, the republicans the second 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: today cloture was filed on the substitute amendment to the postal reform bill and underlying bill. if no agreement is reached, the first cloture vote will be thursday morning. i do hope, mr. president, an agreement can be reached. for the information of all senators, the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to the substitute, as modified, is 1:00 p.m. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> let me read to you what ms. white said in her affidavit. i do depose and state in 1999 or 2000, and he told me he had a conversation with roger clemens

in which roger admitted to him using human growth hormone. mr. clements, once again i remind you you're under oath. you said your conversation never happened. if that was true, why would laura pettit remember andy telling her about the conversation quite >> once again, mr. congressman, thank you mr. members the conversation we had. indiana's relationship was close enough to know that if i would've known he had done each gh, which i now know, that he was knowingly knowing that i had taken hgh can i would've talked about the subject. he would've come to me to ask me about the effect. >> the group citizens against government waste today released

its annual report out earmarks in the federal budget. the so-called pig book reports 152 earmarks down from 9000 earmarks in fiscal year 2010. the annual report revealed that although earmarks have dropped drastically, numerous pet projects have still found the race into appropriation bills. this is a little more than a half-hour. >> good morning. i'm tom schatz, citizens against government waste. send we published the first pig book on our objective has been to eventually eliminate earmarks. the conventional pig book shows tremendous progress has been made towards that goal. there are only 152 earmarks, a record low. but it's a 90.3% decrease in the 9129 earmarks since fiscal year 2010. the total cost is $3.3 billion which is an 80% decrease in the

$16.5 billion in the appropriations bill two years ago. there are no earmarks for museums, theaters, opera houses, bridges to nowhere, with utilization research commissioner of agriculture or brown tree seems. there is no state-by-state break down and there are no oink rewards. instead, many earmarks since the year 2012 involve larger amounts of money and includes seaward details than in prior years. for example commit $50 million earmark for the national guard counter drug or a program, which appears in the department of defense appropriations act corresponds to nine earmarks totaling $23 million in fiscal year 2010. in that year, the project appeared in the congressionally directed spending section at the end of the bill and includes the names of the members then the location of the projects in accordance with the transparency

moves. members created new categories of earmarks such as additional funding for ongoing work and a continuing authority's program program all on within the army corps of engineers inside the energy and water appropriations bill. unfortunately in our view, our appearance here today also means that the rational moratorium on earmarks has been violated. it's always been a difference in definition and in our view them do appear to have violated the moratorium. we're not here to predelivery definition. we are here to put out was made up his progress thanks to the members today, taxpayers, members of cagw and certainly changed attitude on both sides of the aisle on capitol hill. since each boa certified as earmark free, there is far less transparency. it is not clear who asked for earmark server might be making phone calls to various agencies after the bill has been adopted in the money is sitting there to ask them to send a particular

project to a state or district. the next seven tracking earmarks to be enforced president bush's january 2000 executive order that each federal agency must really communications for members of congress relating to earmarks. it's not a coincidence all the programs in the 2012th congressional pig book condescend to earmarks. in november 2011, president obama reiterated his agencies should release letters to members than all contact you direct agencies have to find particular projects. as usual the department of defense was the repository of the vast majority of earmarks, 61% and defense, $2 billion under the $3.3 billion total. and the senate was once again the source of far more earmarks in the house. out of earmarks that could be identified as coming from the

house or senate, 77% of them originated in the senate. some of the air makes that again appeared in prior years and the national technology laboratory, $10 million for the chicago sanitary ship dispersal barrier, $8.9 billion for san joaquin river esterase should and $3 million for a plant control. one of the longest-running earmarks, which they see receipt $5.9 million is the east-west center in hawaii. the center has received 10 earmarks worth $102.8 million since 2001, since 1997 it's been around longer. all by senate appropriations and the senator admitted in 2007 the project was created up to the objections of the state department and without any hearings. the similar group ignores the south that are receiving earmarks in 2001.

there is no doubt that money for the east-west center also would've gone southward not located in the state of senate appropriations committee chairman. one of the more egregious earmarks in the defense bill is $5 million added to the star btus program which teaches science, technology engineering and that's a risk you in multiple locations at or near military bases around the country. since fiscal year 2001, six earmarks costing taxpayers $19 million have been direct it towards starting spirit figure 2012 government accountability office and found that $3 billion was spent in 13 agencies in some programs, eliminating the program would drop to number all the way down to 208. because the moratorium is only temporary, senator pat to me and representative jeff flake, both of whom are here today have

introduced the bipartisan earmark elimination act, which would establish a permanent ban on earmarks. unfortunately the senate rejected an amendment to senator to me offered by a vote of 40 to 59 and a bill introduced by congressman flake has not reached the floor of the house. that would be the sole objective and i would be truly eliminating earmarks. the effort to permanently ban earmarks is essential. many members of congress including senate majority leader harry reid, senate appropriations committee chair and daniel and away, a number of republicans including cagw's mike rogers to public and have been clamoring for the restoration of earmarks. representative rogers had earmarks are required in order to pass legislation referring mostly to the transportation

bill, which is a trouble reaching the house floor not because of a lack of earmarks but because it is simply too expensive. senator reid has stated often earmark it has been going on since her country and there is a constitutional obligation for congressionally spending. senator in a way will do everything he can to reinstate earmarks. until it permanent ban is established, taxpayers will be justified in believing members of congress are being created in trying to skirt the moratorium and continue to obtain earmarks. it is certainly reasonable to close to 59 members of the senate who voted against senator to me's amendment would like to continue having earmarks. as in previous years all of the items in cagw's congressional pig book meet our criteria which was established in 1991 in conjunction with the bipartisan congressional coalition. the item must be requested by only the house or senate, not

authorize, not competitively awarded, not requested by the president, greatly exceeding the presidents budget request for the previous year's funding, not been a subject of hearings thursday is only a vocal for special interests. and again, and the 2012 congressional pig book, eat all earmarks have been approved in prior years. since 1991, cagw has identified 110,129 earmarks come with a total of $311 billion. we would like that to be the final number or pending the approval of the sufferers to permanently ban earmarks. with that, and like to introduce senator john mccain, the ranking member of the armed services committee and the longest standing attendee at the congressional state press conferences. >> thank you for your continued efforts and leadership.

.. we have seen that happen so i'm very grateful for my colleague's efforts, for the efforts to have a permanent ban on earmarks, and if you think we are all of the ones because of the reductions in earmarks spending, look at the vote in the united states senate that tom just referred to. 40 to 59, 59 members of the

united states senate with pork-barrel projects, and they would like to see the all-time favorite was the $50,000 to study the effect on ozone layer of flatulence in cows. i want to congratulate my colleagues. it's not easy when a constituent or an important part of the state's economy comes to you and says we need a small amount of additional money and if you will just write a letter or insert it in the appropriations bill, then we will be able to create jobs. so it takes courage to stand up, and i am happy to see so many of my colleagues have followed their lead but the fact is since there's already conversations about we can't pass the highway bill because we haven't got enough earmarks, isn't that a damning indictment of the

mindset of members of congress that we can't pass a bill unless we pay people off? so, tom, i think you and appreciate your efforts. i just want to mention one area that still goes on and that obviously is the defense authorization and appropriations bills. there are earmarks and authorization bill as well as the appropriations bill. why is it that i worry about that? because as tom mentioned it is the center on when they asked why he robbed banks he said that's where the money is. welcome the money is in the defense appropriations bills as well, and a great example of that is $120 million from three earmarks, $40 million each for, quote, alternative energy research. alternative energy research. we are talking about cutting the army by 100,000 people, the

marines by 80,000 people come and get we have the armed services and the business of the advanced alternative energy research. the navy lead the parade and spent in excess of $400 per gallon for about 20,000 gallons of the biofuel. the role of the armed force of the united states is not to engage in energy research. the job of energy research should be in the energy department, not taking it out of the defense department. as tom, thanks. i'm not sure how many of the 21 years you've been doing this. i think most of them and my colleagues and i want to again reiterate, coming your reward for dysphoric will be on earth. thank you very much. >> we have senator jim demint, leading this effort when he was in the house and now of course

in the senate >> thank you, tom and citizens against government waste for years of work. it's a testament that persistence can change the way things are done in washington particularly want to thank john mccain who has been i think a lot of our inspiration to take this on the and to see in the last year and have actually get a temporary ban on your marks is something that to some aníbal said could never be done. we also been told for years that earmarks had nothing to do with passing big over budget bills. but as soon as they were suspended, suddenly these big bills have more difficulty going through and as john said the his been used for years and we all knew it to bribe, to sweeten and to get the bills through and we found a lot of the bipartisanship in washington is

all about spending and as long as we can spend money, republicans and democrats work together if we can handle the candy. we stop that tenderly, but tom, you know, we are going to try the next few weeks to redefine what and earmark is instead of fixing how we do tariffs suspensions. they redefine and the earmarks of a can do it. instead of fixing the corps of engineers work, which we could do and make it work better for the american people, they want to bring back earmarks to the core. the same with the transportation bill. we know over half of the senate and probably over the house wants to bring back your marks, so unless all of the american people continue to be engaged and make no mistake the only reason earmarks for band temporarily is because americans found out about it, due to

particularly through the citizens of government waste, they were against it and candidates in the last cycle of reaffirm and in your marks and when they came in they voted that way and got rid of them. it's going to be a little bit harder to keep it that way so hopefully we can get a new group coming in this cycle for the champions on building your marks permanently as pat to me and jeff and others tried to do. i want to thank my colleagues and citizens against government waste. we've made progress but we can't let up to the we can push across the finish line. >> next we have senator pat to me who carried over his opposition to the remarks from the house and the senate and again as the republican sponsor of the year marked elimination act to respect thank you and i also want to congratulate you as well as my colleagues poor standing here today that have been champions in this battle. it's very fair to say that seldom do we have this much

progress on such a challenging issue in washington as we have had in dramatically reducing the volume and the cost of your marks, 98% reduction is really serious progress. and i think we ought to celebrate that. but of course, the previous speakers are exactly right. that submission to allow us to overwork that our work isn't done. there's every effort underway to resume this process. as we've heard and it's absolutely true the problem of your marks goes beyond the several hundred billion dollars of the earmarks that have been identified in recent years but it actually is decrease that steers the path for the bloated spending of all kinds. so i do think a permanent ban is necessary. the legislation that i drafted would accomplish that by allowing any individual senator to go down to the senate floor and offer a point of order against a particular year marked

in any given bill. it wouldn't take on the whole bill. it would allow that earmark to strike the offending your march and would require a two-thirds vote by the senate to override that earmarked. now it's hard to get two-thirds of the members of the senate to agree, so i think it creates a very high hurdle which is what we ought to do. i for one am optimistic we got the 40 votes. this is the kind of thing would require multiple votes that is going to require input from constituents. the american people are overwhelmingly massively with us on this. what a terrible process the earmarking is and how it leads to other very bad outcomes. so i think if we stay at this, tom and thanks largely to your leadership.

thanks very much. >> thank you, senator to me. next we have congressmen jeff who continues to see appear. a longstanding attendee stalwart supporter for the elimination of your marks and the republican sponsor of the version of the bill in the house obviously we wouldn't be celebrating where we are today without the efforts. over the years it's been an interesting process and i think on the house floor i have challenged some several hundred individual earmarks and how many of those votes we've won outright on the floor, just one. republican earmark and the other party hated that more than they love their earmarks.

it started happening the members would actually find out which your marks for being challenged and they would rush to the floor so they could withdraw their earmark rather than defended and then you have the bridge to nowhere and we kind of new this process was going to come crashing down. in pennsylvania and the sponsor of the earmark what we will show them how vital this year mark is and so the mayor came with a top hat and rodents and had a press conference. they go back pretty quickly what a spectacle and if people didn't

know how out of control the process was, they certainly knew it then and so i'm glad to be where we are but as senator mccain has mentioned and others, we've got to go much further. pat to me is introduced legislation i'm happy to be a sponsor in the house to make this year marked in permanent. another thing we need to do as well is control the power of the purse and the year markers' pretend that that means we have the ability and should have the constitutional right to earmark. what it means is we should provide oversight on how the federal agencies spend money. if we don't think they are correctly then we rein them in and establish the parameters in which the money is spent. it doesn't mean that we look and see the abuses and apply a longstanding abuses of our own and that is what the process came to be. thank you again and let's keep pushing until we can make this permanent. >> i do need to interject that

one of the most enjoyable occasions during all these years of examining your march is when we made him porker of the month. [laughter] next we have congressman jim jordan who's the chairman of the republican study committee and another stalwart supporter of the elimination of your marks. >> thank you. let's go back five years ago i was sworn into congress in january 2007 and some had predicted five years down the road that of the house and senate have a down on your marks, democratic control would have the ban on your marks, no one would have predicted that and so that is a testimony to the work of tom and citizens against government waste and folks up here talking and i just want to commend everyone who's been involved in this effort in particular senator to me and soon-to-be senator flake for their work on this van. i want to highlight one program that's driving me crazy and it's driving the american taxpayers

crazy but senator mccain reference to this relative to the alternative energy forms. what's going on right now in the department of energy is unbelievable and of this loan guarantee program, 27 companies got your tax dollars. 23 of those companies have ratings of double b minus from standard and poor's which is another way of saying they were john creed it to be of no private money would go there yet it's okay to put american taxpayers' dollars into these organizations and eight of the 23 companies had closed privacy indy 500 obama administration. so while we give to focus on your marks, we have to do exactly what congress meant the talked about and hold these agencies accountable for the goofy spending and the duty programs that they are promoting. and i know that tom and his organization will be on top of that as well, so i just want to commend everybody involved in this effort and a subtle but the progress that we are beginning to make and with that i would yield back. >> thank you, congressman and of course we are well aware that

your marks are not the only examples. we've plenty of work to do and next we have dr. thomas, the chairman of the republican policy committee. >> thanks, tom for the incredible work begun to get to make this book small, i remember when i was in the state senate it was a different shape but as a whole lot thicker and if you look at these charts over here, you will see that this is the least number of your marks that have been put forward in congress and where we've had a press conference to celebrate and so we ought to be submitting a very short pogo of times the decrease in the number and the smallness in the book but this is a process and some change there. if you think about what happened, the leadership in the house of representatives changed. so i want to commend the leadership with my colleagues of

house of representatives who are making certain this is slope of the graph that we see beside us this morning but public policy is a process which doesn't mean it has to stay down there. so the work of the cagw and my colleagues in the house supporting the senate and the american people who are demanding accountability and transparency when it comes to spending and are demanding that we not look up larger pieces of legislation so they can get past as other individuals have referenced this morning. so i am pleased to be back at the press conference and i look forward to coming back next year to have the flout line on the charts to the left. thank you. >> thank you. now we have congressman paul brown on the vote rating of the council for citizens against government waste has had three years in a row and taxpayers three years in a rich and obviously it poses earmarks.

>> i've been around politics a long time. this is the smallest that i've seen. people destroy the life and knowledge and citizens against government waste are informing the american public about how their elected representatives are wasting their money. i have four questions i asked myself about the legislation. the first one is it right, does it fit the principles founded upon, is it in the original intent. makes it easier by going through those questions. and tom, i wish all members of congress would use the same questions and then we wouldn't be here talking about earmarks' because most in the government is unconstitutional according to the original intent. you see, the only way that we

are going to stop the process and have a van as for the american citizens to demand a different kind of government. my people destroy the life and knowledge and, in the citizens of the government waste or informing people about that wasteful spending, and those people all across the nation are the reason that we have a small load today. i want to remind you of the former senator that said when he feels the heat he sees the light. there are many members of the senate and the house that need to feel the heat and see the light. some of those people need to see the door. these earmarking process these have caused more people to go to jail than anything else, and i congratulate citizens against government waste and their fight to end this year marking process. let's go back to the constitutional government. the american citizens demand

constitutional limited government. as the founding fathers meant to shrink the size of government to go forward so that we are financially viable as a country. so it is going to be absolutely critical for the american people to demand a stop to the earmarking process and to pass the bill as well as stop the outrageous spending that's going on in your in washington. so i congratulate against government waste and congratulate tom and for hard work that he's done since 1991. keep up the great work, tom. >> thank you, congressman and remember, thank you all for joining us today. before we take questions i want to point that out and think shawn kennedy the manager research whose media policy is as yet for putting together this really easy pig book and also who's brought along a network of new jersey.

we have the local states and now we have to go out of state but that's okay across the state lines and we appreciate them joining us as well. with that i'm happy to take questions and the members as well if you have any questions for them. yes, sir. >> [inaudible] >> sorry. if you commit for the microphone. sorry about that. >> the call of this transportation bill on the floor having a hard time moving through. states cannot handle the federal transportation, national transportation cost by themselves to read it has to be federal money, doesn't it? >> the earmarks that you object in secret or is it just the of the ejection of the spending in the secrecy does that mean there's some way this could be done that you would be happy

with? >> historically, 1916 first federal highway act, know your marks, 1956, interstate transportation act, the two specific items mentioned in the bill. president call riggins e to the bill in 1987 that had $1.1 billion in earmarks. president bush signed a bill that had $24 billion of your marks. so yes, it can be done. maybe we have to go back to look at the original idea which was to simply based on the formulas that congress has adopted. if the members don't like the formula, they can change the formula. but the bridge to nowhere was in the last highway bill. it was clearly a boondoggle among many others. not only do these projects make it more difficult to get to achieve the goals of the transportation department, but the money for the transportation starts from the bottom-up. metropolitan planning organization, the county to the state, our view would be that he

would divulge the money back to the state and let them make these decisions rather than have the money flow out and get sloshed around here in washington to come back down. any members want to comment on that as well? >> in fact, the congressman from georgia has a dissolution amendment to the transportation bill. hopefully have the opportunity to vote on it. there's plenty of money. the states can run it with the excise tax on fuel if we send it back to the states and that is what a member of the society trustee. to send the power back to the state as the tenth amendment says they should be and then we won't have the earmarks process. >> part of the problem with a highway bill over time is that as your marks increased so has the amount of money that is diverted from the real priorities that we have, particularly roads and bridges and going to the museums or bypass the coo -- bike paths or

parks. and what it also means as the end of the earmarks means the states could have been treated so shabbily in the formula and would finally have the opportunity to get more of their own funding back. arizona has never done better over the past couple of decades than 91 cents on the dollar. now, without earmarks the senate to bill starts and all states at 95 cents on the dollar. so it is a good thing. and as senator mccain mentioned, those that were pushing the bill see that it's tougher to move it without earmarks and should be. and the chairman of the committee actually said now we have to focus on policy and it's a good thing. >> let me add to the transportation question. september, 2007, senator coburn was given the report from the inspector general at the department of transportation, which discusses the impact of a year marks on the higher

priorities at the department of transportation. one result of which would be dfa high priority program, which is three years behind because of your marks. so, there may be flying generally but that is a perfect example of what happens when the earmarks interfere with the plan that has been made at the agency and at the state and local level. yes, sir. if you leave for the microphone. >> i'm wondering if the ban on your marks how are some groups still finding success getting the kind of projects funded? how are they still able to do that? >> these are broad additions to the president's budget so rather than having the names of the members identified with the project the at to the $50 million in the counter program, the question now is the transparency after the fact. if it gets spent competitively

then maybe the moratorium has been adhered to the problem is that no one knows what is going on at the agency level. the phone calls being made, text messages, which is certainly difficult to find. these should be immediately released by the agency's. they don't like these earmarks' either. i think the vast majority is doing it would have to answer the phone calls or follow these provisions that in the past have had nothing to do with their daily activities they have often received over had to cover the cost of monitoring and spending money on these earmarks. the house voted on the state department authorization bill to eliminate funding so there's an effort all around to get rid of the smaller was expense of your marks, and we think that will hopefully continue again to

answer the question more specifically, since there are no names attached to them we are not exactly sure who to ask for other than the most obvious, and the fact that 77% of the earmarks can be identified as originating in the house and senate came from the senate indicates that the senate is again pushing these through. we would like to see the permanent ban and then hopefully we won't have to do this anymore. >> any other questions? think you all very much again. thank you again for joining us and to the members.

congressman bobby scott and democrat of virginia insists on the judiciary committee was one of several house democrats. nearly two years ago that the push for fares sentencing when it came to crack cocaine versus power cocaine the supreme court picks up this issue today. what are the deciding? >> with your deciding is whether or not the change ought to be deprived of those who committed their crimes before the bill was enacted but are being sentenced after the crime after the bill was signed. that's possible if law is vague and we certainly hope it is applied retroactively with congress. there is no difference between

crack and powder, that there is no criminal justice purpose to be searched coming and we noticed as time went on that there was a huge racial disparity, substantial portion, 80% of african-americans and by 40% they were african-americans comes and you have a huge racial disparity with no purpose and the reason is it is punished much more severely under the law because particularly with the minimums we change the law to make it more fair it went from the 120 is pretty that is you need more power to get the same minimum that you've got with crack from 18 to one, which moves it from something that might have been over the weekend to where they're probably feeling about to be won-1.

there is no reason for the difference but it's a lot better, a lot better faugh. we had been applying it was unfair. there would be the law to require the judge is to continue to impose unfair sentencing. >> why did they get to the point that the court is deciding that its issue wind law goes into effect? >> because it wasn't an absolutely clear when they passed the law. >> was the domestic by congress? >> we are trying to get the bill passed and discuss issues like i concluded that it would be a plight retroactively because once you've decided that it is unfair, the judges required to impose unfair sentences that statute of limitation you could have the next five years people are arrested for crimes that have been committed before the bill was active and then before

the trial and by the sentencing comes a year later. it has concluded is unfair, racially discriminatory and disrespect for law. >> the court today looking at two different cases consolidating them into one for review, the defendants' lawyers would be are doing the would be are going to make this retroactive it didn't have before. did you talk to the administration personally? >> i think the administration has concluded with a majority of congress concluded is the imposition of the sentence was unfair, and no criminal justice purpose it's just unfair if. it serves no purpose particularly when you can get

probation at the time 99 times more at the exact same. the only difference in crack is the same drug is just prepared differently. and to have that kind of difference is just absolutely bizarre and to ask a judge to impose a sentence that everybody knows is unfair. it just breeds disrespect at all. >> let me tap into a legal background. some are saying the justices have to look at and 1871 law on this issue about whether or not affairs sentencing act can be retroactive. what is the 1871 law? >> the question is whether it can be done retroactively. it can be if they conclude it is the intent of congress. it is often found out

specifically. if they don't apply retroactively, then congress will have an opportunity to change that. some clouds to give the legislation. you mentioned it a little bit but it was signed into law august 2103 for 28 grams of crack and 500 grams of powder, ten year sentence for to under 80 grams of crack and 5,000 grams of powder. >> the old law is 5 grams of crack which was cynics something somebody could do in a weekend but it also had a manager in minimum for the position only for cracked crack was the only drug that provided a for a manager in a month. >> and got rid of that? >> it got rid of the mandatory position only and for dillinger had to go up to the 28 grams,

which it isn't the best but it's a lot better than what people could easily have over the weekend. >> any justices that you are going to be particularly interested in hearing from? fy >> devotee clear evidence with the penalty is unfair from because of the huge racial disparity without any. >> let's get a phone call. door the independent in maryland. go ahead. >> good morning. i was just wanting to make a statement anybody should be locked up for taking any kind of drug user. there should be legislation that would make them have rehabilitation because once you have a personal record and it comes out they can't get a job, then they have to go on welfare or whatever because you've got

to eat. we are making a vicious cycle on getting these people held today to help, mandatory health to be to help. they might want to stop, but they can't because they have a bad habit, but the should push for the mandatory rehabilitation >> just like they do with drugs it works when they forget, they think about it. but you could do something for taking something. islamic one of the things you want to consider is the purpose of the drug law to produce the use of drugs and of

rehabilitation to reduce the drug and system and the amount of penalty you have to apply to get somebody to actually make a deliberate decision on drugs can be viewed in this situation. power cocaine you can have up to 500 grams of powder, up to 500 grams and still get probation. 5 grams of crack in five years mandatory minimum. with that draconian difference, you still have people saying i'm not going to mess with it. i'm going to just use cocaine use of dealers a manly delinks cocaine cannot crack and a deal with whatever the customer wants. the criminal-justice system with a huge disparity changes people's behavior. what changes people's behavior, rehabilitation for those that are on drugs but also the idea

of alternatives, prevention and early intervention and the act which invests in young people to get them on the right track and keep them on the right track making sure they have opportunities for the children's defense fund calls the cradle to prison pipeline and construct a call pledge your cradle of the workforce pipeline and after-school programs to make sure they get a decent education, make sure they can read by third grade and make sure they can go on to college. with the incarceration rate we have today in the united states, we could easily afford another strategy less reliant on waiting for young people to drop out of school, mess up, get caught, and then argue about whether it is when the manager in minimum or whatever draconian penalty will be used up front or get in trouble to begin with.

all of the studies are showing in the research center concluded the united states incarceration rate is adding that the crime rate detracting from it. we lock up so many and the calculated over about 350 per 100,000 beginning the diminishing returns over 500 per 100,000 are actually counterproductive. we are at 700 per 700. the minority population in some states get 4,000. most of the world is 50 to 200 over 500 counterproductive united states averaged 700. instead of using money for counterproductive incarcerations maybe we should invest in people's drug rehabilitation to be one of the ways we could actually reduce crime. i think the fact that it is illegal is one thing and that may help.

>> in terms of the allocation of resources there are more resources and in getting people on the track the doesn't improve drugs and those are using drugs mature the rehabilitation is available. and the long waiting list that they could ever get it and we need to make sure that we use those resources so the rehabilitation is there and it is another example instead of locking people up well for the intensive life changes people would get rehabilitation and job training and on the path to become a law abiding citizen rather than getting locked up and coming right back up to the same situation and in the been the same situation. >> charlene, democratic current level rock arkansas. >> he was saying the jim crow is now james crow esquire, and we

see it in the many young black men killed by racist believe so that is where they have gone into the military the innocent black man sentenced to prison by the prosecutors and judges and the resist legislation pushed through congress and the other legislative bodies such as the law that is supported by the resist corporation because all of this seems so pervasive through the system that it had to be a plan and that standard a ground war has the prospect of turning the country apart had it not been discovered what happened to www.press.org martin. >> can i bounce this off of you and congressman bobby scott. when the debate was taking place over the sentencing for crack cocaine verses powder cocaine, goes into law enforcement arena

said that there's more violence associated with crack cocaine verses powder cocaine and one organization said have proven useful and a better course of action would have been to raise the penalty for the powder cocaine. law enforcement officers are not trained to go incommensurate with the percentages in the population. the trained to arrest people define committing crimes. we don't sentence people. >> when they see that it's more highly correlated with violence, crack is the way it's dealt in the industry and its general used somewhere else may be a correlation or they may not. so if you are going to sentence people, you ought to sentence them for what they did and not the fact that crack is more prevalent in the

african-american community and power is more prevalent in the white community. if you want to enhance penalties if you use of violence and distributing the drugs whether it is powder or crack, violence. if you're using juvenile to distribute what it is cracked or power and if you add on the enhancement for what was actually done, not just because it is cracked or powder, then there may be a penalty alternately for crack, but in each case if somebody is using violence for power not for crack or powder to get the higher penalty. so you have to have the enhancement based on what was actually done. >> if i can get a response to the collar she talked about the standard in ground law. >> guest: the problem is any case like this where you try to figure out what to someone, then the problem you have is that you

have one witness with one side of the story come and the other side of the story isn't there. so it's free difficult to have any kind of case when you and to -- at on the standard grout wally due to -- and ground all it's very difficult to have anything that is other than the wild west. the unique thing about the trayvon martin case is that it's more evidence. you have three phone calls going on. trayvon made one, zimmermann made one and the witness was making a phone call. you have a witness looking at things from you have a phone calls going on, an autopsy, you've got a lot of different evidence. the disturbing thing about the case is the local police apparently did no investigation. it appeared zimmerman came in

and said it's okay and then announced they were not going to arrest him. they didn't announce they were having an ongoing investigation, they just announced the case was over. when you start off with the background of crack powder cocaine disparity by all studies is shown to be racially discriminatory without any purpose it is designed that way and then you have a question of whether or not this is a racial disparity in the trayvon martin case it ads to the credibility of those that want to make it a racial case. frankly the state and the federal government came in and actually did an investigation, and i think you have the criminal-justice system now functioning, and we have to sit back and let the process work but it seems absolutely bizarre. there is no concern or investigation, nothing.

the defendant is entitled during the presumption of innocence, and it is in all cases i think the criminal justice system is functioning now we can sit back. >> the issue of racial profiling will be the debate for the senate judiciary committee today. live coverage on c-span3, starting at 10 a.m.. the judiciary committee will hold the first congressional hearing on the racial profiling since the september the 11th, 2001 terrorist attack. the hearing will include witnesses from all enforcement, etc. but the overall issue of racial profiling today before the senate judiciary committee hearings. republican, long beach island and new jersey. good morning. >> caller: good morning. our powder cocaine and crack cocaine exactly alike? >> guest: they are not exactly alike. the are prepared differently but it's the same drug, the same

pharmacological formula. crack is just prepared differently. i'm not an expert on how they are prepared, but from ecologically they are prepared different, distributed different because it is generally in smaller packages than powder but all of the studies have shown that there is no meaningful difference between the two come and certainly no difference sufficient to justify 80% of the people getting caught in crack and the draconian mandatory minimums, just generally cause problems because the judge is required to oppose the sentence and the matrix on which he is sentencing is based on the total weight of the drug operation. if you have somebody that just has a minor role and to get girlfriends' caught up in this, they are sentenced as if they were the king can.

because once the amount of drugs is determined, everybody in the conspiracy gets stuck with that, and they get along with mandatory minimum. >> host: joseph on twitter wants to know is there any evidence crack etc is worse than powder, the authorities the back to the debate over crack versus power back in the 1980's. people fought crack cocaine would be a lot worse. >> host: they thought it would be a lot worse, and when they died is and everybody erupted and the bill ran through the congress. the draconian a mandatory minimum for crack. it turns out he was using cocaine, not crack, so all of the hullabaloo was misplaced. but he essentially the same drug, not sufficient difference to justify the a draconian difference where in the old law,

99 grams of powder you can get probation and you are looking at a five-year minimum on the part of a judge. >> host: independent in maryland. >> caller: hauer you dillinger? yes, now, we talk about i have a former joke crack cocaine and cocaine and all the rest of it, now look at tobacco, tobacco kills and has a habit forming drug on nicotine and gives people multiple diseases. how come there isn't something to go after people like that because they pay taxes? >> tobacco is an illegal drug, and that's just been the

tradition. we make choices, alcohol was banned at one point and then probation ended. it's just a decision that people make. some are prescriptive drugs and some are legal percent and some are legal and controlled the city argued regarding crack could easily applied to drugs versus alcohol, intoxication with alcohol isn't without the same problem. rahm, democrat in the elizabeth >> caller: i have a question for mr. space putative i want to know does he truly think that provision against any sort of drug is going to work, it seems to me that for every ten escape. spec the criminal justice system on drug use its one in the distribution i think the criminal justice system can have

an impact on distribution people take risks involving criminal justice sanctions if they are dealing drugs. but on using, the evidence is somewhat poor in terms of the impact that the criminal justice system has on a person's decision to use drugs. if you talk to a drug counselor and ask the question what impact is a criminal justice system have on the person's decision to use drugs you will only get a one word answer and that is non. so, i think the point that is being made is accurate and it may have some impact. in terms of resources, we need to put more resources into devotee of attention for those using drugs, and to get people off on the right track and make sure that the of other activities and other options. that's why i introduced the act to create that kind of situation

where young people have a lot of options, and as they make their choices, they decide that drug abuse is inconsistent with their goals. if you are going to die at 21 come if you are not going to college, they are much more likely to use drugs because what difference does it make him? if all the other hand you expect not only to go to college but professional school a criminal record may adversely affect your ability to get a license or medical license, you are much less likely to use drugs. so getting people into a situation where they are on track to go to college rather than on a track to going to prison i think would be extremely helpful and that is where most of our focus ought to be. >> here is american hero on the footer who says where is the constitutional authority for the government to regulate what drugs or medicine man decides to use?

>> guest: there is constitutional authority to regulate drug abuse in the commerce clause the general welfare but i think the idea that we focus all of our attention on the criminal-justice system to drug use is misplaced and a substantial portion for what ought to be rehabilitation and getting people the right track, those are the kind of things and then investments to get them on the right track and keep them on the right track, we pay significantly for the situation people are kind of drifting off and dropping all the school and going to prison, we spend a lot more than any other. we lock up a portion of the population than any country and it's not free. for the same amount of money, we are wasting and then a lot of areas of the counterproductive incarceration we could put that in the prevention programs that would in fact reduce drug abuse,

crime, teen pregnancy, and a lot of the expenses most of these programs, the prevention initiatives save more money than they cost, and that is really where we ought to be putting a lot more focus, and these are budget decisions and priorities. >> host: randy, republican williamsburg va. good morning, randy. >> caller: good morning and good morning to you, robbie scott, at education i'm the mobile fitness trailer that's moved around the area the last eight years. working in your schools and neighborhoods, and all this sounds wonderful about the prevention and all that, but i find very little support from the mayor. sadly - walking on the door after having a body of work that's demonstrated that i am an expert and have the experience

to change your community having shown up on the corner of 17th and jefferson with my mobile health facilities and entertaining hundreds of children throughout the day. >> host: okay, but the point. >> caller: >> host: >> guest: the idea that you focus on the prevention is admirable and that is where the focus ought to be. in terms of the mayor, she has been very aggressive in trying to get a reduction initiative focused on prevention and early intervention. the nationally recognized expert on gang reduction has been working with the city and the mayor to get their votes on the council has been problematic but he spent very aggressive trying to get activities, prevention and early intervention focus in this city and the main strategy iran such drugs, and they were

doing all enforcement part after they messed up, and particularly the sheriff has been very active in working in the jail to make sure people get an education so they don't come back after. the mayor has been aggressive in the early intervention come and the superintendent of the school has had a very aggressive dropout prevention initiative to deal with people increase on the graduation rate. there was a high correlation between dropping out of school and future likelihood of crime and to the extent tuthill you can get people to stay in school and the work force, you have a significant reduction in crime, particularly drug abuse. >> host: democrat of virginia sits on the judiciary committee.

our topic is the supreme court taking up this issue of their sentencing for crack cocaine versus power cocaine but also want to get you to touch on the racial profiling of the trayvon martin issue. "newsweek" with the latest addition, they ask the question is obama making it worse about the racial divide, critical of the approach in the majority 51% actually believe he has been on hold for bridging the country's racial divide. even blacks have concluded by the 20-point margin the relations have not improved under obama's watch. guest could you have to look the initiatives are and there is no question a lot of these initiatives are resistant once you get into congress. look at the jobs initiative. one of the best things that can happen is people get jobs in los angeles in the home boys

industry there's nothing that stops a lot like a job, so if you can get people in the job that is the most important thing. >> host: brandon independent in delaware, you our next petraeus mekouar you doing this morning. i just wanted to make a comment about the crack cocaine sentencing law we is to take what you can get because it is still very much racially profiled because you see it on tv you typically see powder cocaine with the big busts. like to say with a little petty busts that people get the jurors for is the crack cocaine, and these drug counseling things in these states are a joke, it's a waste of money because like you said most of the people that go to the class is one is on marijuana so they are not even thinking about trying to stop smoking marijuana.

very few big drug dealers in jail. it is a petty 20-dollar hustler on a corner that's in jail. >> host:? >> guest: when you have low-level people getting arrested you were doing very little for the drug problem because bill low-level people going to jail half the territory immediately. so you are just running the revolving door doing that. >> it still has a manager in minimum in there and the manager in minimum has been studied and shown to be ineffective in reducing crime so that the judges want to have the discretion imposing the sentence that makes sense and you have a mandatory minimum and has to be imposed whether it makes sense

or not come and we still should have gone and not only eliminated the mandatory minimum of gone to the 1-1, not 18 period one. so it still is the discriminatory effect but it's a lot better than it was some people have suggested we shouldn't have agreed to the compromise. well, you know, i think the compromise wasn't a perfect compromise, but the choice was and whether we would have won-1 or 18 period one but stay at 18 or at least take a step in the direction to get 18-1. no commitment to stop at 18. so the people the would like to ultimately eliminate the minimums and get 1-1 so we are going to continue the fight. but when we have the opportunity to make a significant progress the legislative choice is to take that and continue to work. >> host: "washington post" you probably saw this headline from the left on a and aware the

floor for an accord might have left potentially innocent people where prosecutors failed to notify the defendants for their attorneys even in many cases the new were trouble. >> guest: that article out lines the scandal that is convicted on the bogus evidence that the hair sampling for one where the technology back then wasn't as good as it is now, and dna follow-ups have shown where the match based on whatever science the are using them was not in fact a match and in fact made people essentially excluded as a possible culprits rather than convicted because of the evidence, and the article suggests that many prosecutors to