cases that trial counsel will go to the office and maybe even view the interview, start, you know, looking at the evidence that we have from the very early on stages. >> okay. but your recommendation would make it a requirement. >> yes. >> to all the services. >> yes, ma'am. that the trial counsel be notified at least within 24 hours. >> and with regard to the collateral misconduct, what do you see as the -- or did you look at, another question. did you look at any possible downside of eliminating the collateral misconduct in all cases? >> yes, ma'am. >> what did you find if. >> that gets into a bit of a sticky situation because some of the ramifications could be -- although we have to evidence -- you know, if i've been involved in collateral misconduct and i'm going to be in trouble, say i was smoking marijuana or underage drinking or having consensual relationships with somebody in a come boot zone --

combat zone which is a violation of general order number one, it could be that we're going to have some individual say, well, i wasn't raped, but if i say i was raped, i'm going to get out of trouble for that. so that is a risk. that is something that we've considered and something that we should continue to consider. but i don't think it should be a barrier to -- >> is that the only risk you saw? >> that's the only one that i saw. i don't know if anybody else in the committee saw any -- >> ma'am, if i could -- >> yes, thank you. >> along that vein, prevention efforts are going to be tied into some level of accountability, you know? so i think that during the course of, you know, i know that major general snow had mentioned that they were going to put greater emphasis on prevention. but if prevention efforts kind of highlighted the, you know, the dos and don'ts in behavior in order to insure that

you do not assume greater risk to yourself, do we lose some level of accountability and -- [inaudible] those presense efforts -- prevention efforts if we fail to highlight that? >> sure, that's a great question, ma'am. what i've seen the services start to do is when they're tying their prevention efforts, it's not just, okay, if you don't want to be a victim, don't do these things. their starting to tie -- they're starting to tie the prevention efforts if you don't want to be a victim or accused of sexual assault, so we're looking at not only one party, but to all parties involved, these are the prevention efforts you're going to take. i don't see that as undermining. i would have three or four years ago. but the way the prevention efforts are now going, it's qume cumulative to where we're not just looking at a gender, or we're not looking at, you know, the victim or the suspect.

we're putting our prevention efforts into both at the same time. i think that might mitigate some of that. >> with that, just one quick question. thanks, barb. without going into -- well, is victims' counsel helping this situation short of establishing procedures to grant immunity? in other words, if the victim already has counsel, have you seen any processes that would indicate that if the victim's counsel is able to talk to the interrogator and/or the trial counsel, probably more so the trial counsel, understandings can be worked out, and there won't be a problem? and the understanding may simply be between counsel where we're not going to prosecute until the conclusion of this process, you

know, the victim's whatever happens, prosecution, etc., trial. her allegations trial. and at that point we will review it, and it may well be that there will be no prosecution of the collateral misconduct, is that what's going on with or without victims' counsel? is what -- what's actually happening here? >> the early reports are that it's helping. the difficulty is, ma'am, the trial counsel doesn't make a determination whether something's going to be prosecuted or not. the trial counsel doesn't make a determination whether a commander's going to hold that service member accountable, and that's one of the difficulties. >> does not. >> will does not. >> right. >> so if you're sitting in a room, basically, you have to get the chain of command involved right away. so when you get the chain of command involved, basically, you have to stop what you're doing, you have to stop all the process and procedure. we're right in the middle of a, sometimes can be a very emotional interview, a very emotional thing -- and then we have to stop them because they

were underage drinking. that, basically, would stop the process and does stop the process until you get some other people that can make those decisions and those qualifying remarks involved. and that's very problematic. so that's why we're asking for a review of a potential list of what would be considered minor collateral misconduct so that we would just be able to bypass that whole scenario and just, okay, i'm not interested in that. i mean, it's part of the case, it's part of what led up to this or what happened afterwards, but we're just going to -- just like every single civilian police department, we're just going to go forward, and we're going to continue on with the investigation of that very, very serious report. >> ma'am, i, i'm with you and agree that i think the special victims counsel will aid in this problem and try to help us sort some of this out. >> could you speak up just a little? >> sure. >> thanks. >> sure. i'm with you, i definitely agree

they will aid in this problem. it's a come for example issue. i also think we're making recommendations about involving the judge earlier in the process, that might help getting requests for transactional immunity early in the process is going to be critical. so i think that's where -- we're identifying, i think, a very complex issue i think needs to be studied by the joint services committee to look how to do this. whether or not we're going to be able to identify a list, i have some concerns about because i think each case is so factually specific that you're going to have to deal with those facts. and in a sense that trial counsel, a special victims counsel, they're going to have to decide whether this is something we can deal with early in the case and whether or not there may be some sort of immunity that needs to be granted early or a decision made not to pursue this conduct. so i hear you. i think it's a complicated issue. you know, whether or not we can

really get, you know, a list i'm not sure we're going to be able to get a list of minor misconduct -- no, it'd be very difficult, it seems to me. it is going to be case by case. >> that's what i think too. >> just to be clear, your honor, the subcommittee's recommendation is that the secretary establish a procedure to grant immunity and that -- [inaudible] a list of qualifying sentences. because what we see happening on the ground right now is actually very uneven process that -- [inaudible] in a way that's actually not, not in accordance with what the law requires and the way the investigative process -- [inaudible] so right now what's happening is that dod policy wants to have this -- [inaudible] come forward despite collateral misconduct, but we just don't have consistent processes right now. the third part is to standardize that policy, and the second part is to -- [inaudible] investigators and victims on

firm ground as they go through the process of interviewing. >> as a practical matter then, would you be suggesting that the trial counsel would be able to decide whether to grant that immunity on the spot, or is this meant to be automatic? or are you leaving that to -- >> the terms to apply to this? some committee members didn't like the term "automatic," some worried about a shift away from the convening powers, but to have this decision -- it happens too fast to get it on, get that bar away from the interview, the initial contact the victim has with the response of the system, and so our recommendation was that the immunity happens in a way -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> i would say that when we had this discussion in the subcommittee, i think it's fair to say that we envisioned a very

short list that addresses really three or four major types of collateral misconduct, minor collateral misconduct, one clearly being underage drinking. one prohibits all opposite sex members if their barracks. so that is something, you know, so anytime something happens around their barracks, somebody's in the wrong barracks, and that's minor chattal misconduct. but that is, you know, what we envisioned. and some of these, as russ said, violations of general order number one or being in a location where you're not allowed to be, you know, outside of the barracks. >> judge jones? >> the biggest difficulty we see, ma'am, is that it interrupts the investigative process if we have to stop and then wait a day or two while people figure the out. because what happens with that victim in the meantime? what happens to the evidence? what happens to all those other things? it can be very problematic.

>> so, judge jones, this runs to your concern. i mean, we do have a list of finding which is on page 7 of the interim report. it says for the last ten years dod policy documents used the following list, and here's the list for the most common collateral misconduct in reported sexual assaults; underage drinking, adultery, frat earnization or violations of certain regulations or orders the like of which mr. strand referred to about sexual activity, for instance. so it is a short list. >> and the other comment -- >> [inaudible] >> yes, thank you. i was going to point that out too, so thank you, professor hillman, and the other comment i wanted to make is that on this recommendation 13, it's three-pronged. it's a three-pronged recommendation once you get to the actual narrative part. so it's not as flat a directive as that may appear on slide. there are, there's a process which we recommended in the

three recommendations. and the other thing that i think did appear in mr. strand's presentation and i want to reemphasize is that we already know that naval criminal investigative service in these cases does not advise, they are not following article 31, they do not advise tear victims of their rights -- their victims of their rights when collateral misconduct comes to their attention. and we did not hear anything that their investigations or good order and discipline was being adversely affected because they weren't making those advisement of rights. >> just to follow up on that point. but did you find an increase in reporting in the navy? >> i don't, i don't know that we found any increase in reporting, because i'm, i'm not sure that they are going to the extent of advertising that to the naval personnel that you can come in, and we're not going to ask you. >> thank you. >> yes --

[inaudible] okay. >> i'd follow up on that too. that comes down to the article 31 being if you are a suspect. it's the victim -- it's the person's right, the person who is accused. so your choice is you either violate the rights, which is the process you just described, or you have an immunity process. the only comment i'd make on that immunity is if you're going to come up with this list, it's not just within the law enforcement, it's not just within the legal community, the commanders that have to understand where that line is. it's going to be every service member that's in a barracks or coming into a unit. what's your communication plan? if you're saying, look, you're talking about a sexual assault that potentially involves drinking, that's not what we're concerned about when you walk through the door. whether you were in a person's barracks in a deployed environment and there's usually a general order that says you can't or it's the same-sex type of a crime, you have to be able to -- if you don't keep that list really short and really clear, one, you're going to have a communication problem with the

victim that walks in and says i thought i had immunity if i came to talk to you, and you haven't clearly explained it to them. at that particular time they're underneath the initial investigation, it's traumatic, there are a number of things -- you don't know what shape that person is. so i understand the concept of wanting to protect them, i also understand not wanting to violates somebody's rights because you'd rather have immunity. i would just suggest you've got to keep that really, really short because you've got to make sure the service members understand exactly what lines you're handgun to draw on that process. >> well, i think equally important to respond to that, that the investigators know what is, what they don't have to stop and advise rights for, because it's more important for them to know, okay, this is a list that i have prepared by the service secretaries in conjunction with the secretary of defense. that's -- we ought to let them decide. we're recommending that they decide and also whether or not we just need to make some fundamental changes to article

31. and i would also point out that ncis' practice, obviously, as the lawyers in the room know results in use of immunity for that particular victim. so it's already in effect for whatever the size of, what, 300,000 people in the navy, something like that? >> yeah. but it's in effect in a way that doesn't comply with the laws as they're currently written. so what you're saying, i mean, it's a suspect is what triggers. i'm not saying it's wrong, i'm just saying that's the effect of what's being done. >> and that's why in fairness to our subcommittee and the very important questions that have been asked about this that i wanted to point out that we, it's a three-pronged recommendation which starts out with coming up with some uniform practice within the services, first of all. i mean, i realize -- >> one really, really minor question on that. ful you're recommending we go the ucr. what is the actual standard for

the ucr when you're saying this uniform standard? is that -- >> about founded and unfounded? >> right. >> in the ucr what the civilian community does, it must be baseless or what's the other word i'm looking for -- >> false. >> false. baseless or false. [inaudible conversations] >> yes. a false report or baseless. >> that's all i wanted -- >> because it didn't meet proof and then false is somebody made a false report. >> yes. >> but underage drinking wouldn't fall under that -- >> that's a different, she's asking a different issue. i i think she switched to another one of -- >> oh, okay. >> that was, you all have -- i forget the statistics on the number of witnesses that you interviewed, but it was staggering, it was a lot. with this particular issue, to what extent were commanders, was this discussed with command pers? commanders? the issue being collateral misconduct? is that, commanders a part of your information gathering on

this issue? >> [inaudible] we talked to to commanders about their overall impressions of the process and what their role was in stopping this, but we did not question them specifically on this issue. we talked to investigators and to the victim advocates primarily about this eshoo of collateral misconduct and to trial counsel with their challenges in getting information they need through the investigative process. >> thank you. >> and, judge jones, if i may, one of our findings, admiral hauck, is that the military services do not support automatic immunity. and as professor hillman said, there were members of our subcommittee who were also having problems with anything that used the word "automatic." >> was there -- oh, i'm sorry. you go ahead, ms. fernandez. >> on the victims services subcommittee, this was one of the issues that we struggled with the most. in fact, it was one of the few recommendations and findings where the subcommittee was split. the majority came out with a

need to study the issue more because we didn't really feel that we had enough evidence to make the right kind of relation. again, we were split -- recommendation. again, we were split, and we'll hear more about that later on. let me ask you, did you feel you had enough evidence before you to make the kind of recommendation that you have now, or would you have liked more on this particular issue? >> we,. [inaudible] we do have evidence that this is a problem for successful investigation and prosecution and a problem for potential victims feeling confident enough to come forward. that, for me personally then -- not speaking to the reasons, but everybody came to the conclusion on the subcommittee -- to me, that's enough evidence. and not to mention, we actually see this as not having an actual impact.

commanders are actually not prosecuting collateral misconduct in most cases right now. this could potentially, this could tie the hands of some commanding officers in some instances where they would want to prosecute a person for a violation of orders that was part of a series of events that led to a sexual assault. i don't want to pretend that that wouldn't, that couldn't possibly have that effect. but the huge majority of cases are alcohol-facilitated sexual assaults where we're talking about underage drinking or violating orders related to the drinking policies which will continue to become ab an issue. and because of that, we need a list that communicates to investigators and to victims and to everybody else out there including offenders who see the collateral misconduct of the victims as a way to prevent them from disclosing what happened and coming forward. so we didn't think we had enough -- >> i also have had the

unfortunate opportunity to stop a victim in the middle of talking about rape and advising that person of their rights, and it is just -- and i speak for all the agents that i work with and talk to. it is one of the most difficult things that we can do, you know? there's no way to make it easier, there's no way to say, well, you know, i've just got to follow this procedure. i'm not really thinking you're a bad person because we're not allowed to do that, we just have to whip that out and talk about it. it changes the nature of almost every investigation once we advise the victim of their rights regardless of how we go about doing it. and if we had to wait for the command to get involved and decide, well, we don't have to ed rah her her rights, yes, we do, it really does have a chilling effect. >> but if i could say one thick, thick -- one thing, recommends 13c, we talk about sending it to the joint services committee to examine three different possibilities too.

so i think we do agree there is some need to examine it further. >> judge jones, if -- i think that we've closed a loop on these first two sections. i think that, first, let me mention that i compressed the recommendations with the -- and our staff helped me come press the recommendations to put them on the slides, so the actual text of the recommendations in the interim nature as they are is actually in the document you have. many bryant and colonel schultz just pointed out, those are more precise of exactly what we're thinking. the slides don't have that level of detail which was a decision to not put too much on the slide. and i think that we can actually, judge jones, if we take a ten minute break, i think we can actually finish training session of the next part here before the break that was scheduled. so if that's acceptable to you, then we'll do that. >> all right. we'll take a ten minute break. >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> well, coming up live this afternoon the senate foreign relations committee will convene to hear the latest about russia's intervention in ukraine. officials from the treasury, state and defense departments will testify live starting at 3 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span3. the u.s. senate's about to return to session the afternoon. this morning senators voted to advance a bill that would provide incentives for energy efficient manufacturing and promote energy savings in buildings. party leaders also working toward a measure that would require approval of the keystone xl pipeline project. senators will be returning this afternoon after having the official photograph of the 113th congress taken this afternoon. we'll have live coverage when they return, should be just a couple of moments here on

c-span2. while we wait for more senate action, the senate republican and democratic leaders, mitch mcconnell and harry reid, debated the bath forward on providing incentives for promoting energy savings. senator mcconnell expressed frustration at his party's inability to offer a package of amendments that would limit epa regulations, and senator reid responded that the number of bipartisan amendments have already been attached to the bill. those remarks happened at the start of today's session. here's some of what today had t, say. >> mr. president, let me just briefly make a few observationse a aboutni some only the majority leader's opening comments. as he knows full well, senator visit earth dropped his -- visib earth dropped his request, and the sen minority in the senate s had eight votes since july.

we haven't had a fulsome debate for seven years. what we're asking for here is four or five amendments related to the subject of energy. one of the biggest issues in our country. that is hardly obstructionism. it is laughable to suggest that it's obstructionism, for the minority to be given four or five amendments on issues related to the underlying bill particular hi since we've only -- particularly since we've only had eight amendment votes on amendments we wanted to vote on since last july, and we haven't had a fulsome, broad-ranging energy debate since 2007. so i would say to my friend, the majority leader, i don't think this is anything at all unreasonable about what we're requesting here. far from obstructionism, it's about time we had a debate on

energy. we're having an energy boom in this country. it's important to our constituents all across the land. 45 republicans represent millions of americans. we'd like to have a chance to have our voices heard occasionally. eight amendments for the minority since july? this is not the way the senate ought to be run. >> mr. president -- >> the majority leader. >> responding to my friend, the reason we haven't had debates here in the senate on legislation is because the republicans won't let us get on bills. now, let's take the bill that we're talking about here today. could we step back just a minute and try to do something that's good for the country? shaheen-portman is a good bill for america. from last year to this year, and my friend can say all he wants

about the junior senator from louisiana. everyone knows what he's done on legislation in the past. now, he called me and told me that we weren't going to move forward on this bill unless -- [inaudible] but from the last time we did this bill, here are amendments that are incorporated in this bill. mark udall on energy efficient schools, franken amendment to require federally-leased buildings to benchmark -- [inaudible] udall-risch,. [inaudible] whitehouse-collins on low income housing retrofits. landrieu-wicker, energy star food party testing. landrieu-wicker on green federal buildings. -- [inaudible] amendments on energy efficiency and federal buildings and

residential buildings. and a sessions-pryor amendment on third party testing. last month shaheen and port man released a new portion of their bill, 14 cosponsors, seven on each side. it's sponsored by the republican side, and the democrat side. mr. president, it would be hard to find a more partisan, consensus piece of legislation. but always, mr. president, always this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. but always it's the -- [inaudible] okay? try to figure out where i put that shall. is it here, is it here? where is that dollar -- >> would the majority leader yield for a question? >> i will yield in just a second. mr. president, this is what i talked about earlier. we have been going five years with this, five years trying to stop anything that obama wants to do.

obama would like to see this passed. so would a bipartisan group of senators. but for five years we've put up with this. it doesn't matter what it is. if obama wants it, they're against it. so, mr. president, we can have all this sweet talk about how the senate should operate. the senate should operate by allowing legislation to go forward. here is a perfect example. but, no, no. i have told them they want to vote on keystone, they can have a vote on keystone. that's not good enough for them. they add four or five other amendments. it's never quite enough. and so we can see what's going to happen. they're going to led -- let us on the bill today, and they're going to say because we don't get our amendments, we're not going to vote to get off the bill. it's happened time and time again. we waste hours and hours. so, mr. president, with all this happy talk about how the senate should operate, remember, we choose the rules.

why did we do that? because we had scores of judges that we had to wait for them to give us permission to move to. they changed the rules. we don't in any way apologize to anybody for having changed the rules. now, mr. president, here's where we are. legislation is at a standstill, and we have on the books now 140 nominations are held up. they've held everybody up. we get a few here and a few there. but the one thing they can't hold up any more are judges. we're moving through the judges, and if they want to continue blocking ambassadors -- i'm sorry, the secretary of state, former chairman of the foreign relations committee, is going to angola. we don't have an ambassador there. we don't have an ambassador to peru. scores of countries. we don't have an american

representative there. these are people, mr. president, there are some political appointments. we can talk about those separately. every president has political appointments, but i'm not pushing bills. what i'm pushing is the fact that we have these career foreign service officers who have waited an entire lifetime. they've worked in these countries in very difficult situations, they've been political officers, economic officers, now they get the chance to be an ambassador. it is like going to the superpole in the diplomacy world, and they're not going to get that. now, mr. president, i think that the american people understand what's going on. that's why as a result of the polls we've seen people understand the games the republicans have played for five years. and people are going to have to decide this october -- i'm sorry, this november, as to whether or not they want another two years of obstruction as we've seen. so, mr. president, this is good

legislative policy, shaheen-portman bill. it would be good for the country. but as usual, we have a lot of things good for the country, and we don't get push done around here. so we can -- give us some amendments. this is, mr. president, what they say every time. every time. because no matter what we do, it's not good enough. shaheen-portman is a good bill. we have ten new provisions in it. that's not good enough. we're getting a vote on keystone, that's not good enough, and that's the way it always is. so there's no surprises to me here in what they've done today and what they'll do probably on wednesday or thursday. >> mr. president? >> the republican leader. >> my friend, the majority leader, wandered rather far afield. the subject for today is whether or not it would be inappropriate at 20 minutes after ten on a tuesday for the majority to have four or five amendments of its choosing -- sometime during the course of the week.

now, it's great that some amendments have been accepted by members on my side. i'm happy about that. the majority picked the ones they were willing to accept and accepted 'em. and i think that's great. but what about the rest of the members of the minority who are not suggesting that we would drop unusual or -- amendments on an entirely different subject, four or five amendments during the course of the week with short, relatively short time agreements related to the subject of energy. it strikes me, mr. president, that's just simply not unacceptable. we've had eight votes on amendments of our choosing since last july. eight. this is not the way to run the senate. i mean, the minority represent a lot of americans, millions and millions of americans. we're entitled to have our ideas debated and voted on in the senate as well. ones that we want to vote on,

not ones that the majority leader picks for us. and so that's the point here. we don't think what we're asking for is in any way unreasonable and certainly consistent with the traditions of the senate, particularly since we've only had eight votes on amendments of our choosing in the last seven or eight months. i mean, goodness, gracious. there's a way to finish this bill. it does enjoy broad bipartisan support. the members, the majority leader mentioned the president. i don't know that his name has come up in connection with this. we're simply asking for the opportunity to debate on and vote important energy amendments on an energy bill during the -- [inaudible] of the week. that's all we're asking for. >> senate leaders from earlier today. the senate will be gaveling back in this afternoon, a little bit later than their scheduled 2:15 as members are having their

photo taken of the 113th congress, so they were expected to be in at 2:15, running a little bit later, we'll have live coverage, of course, when the senate returns. do want to let you know that senators voted to move forward with a bill that would provide incentives for energy efficient manufacturing. party leaders also working toward a measure that would require approval of the keystone xl pipeline project. we'll have live coverage of the senate when they come back here on c-span2. while we wait for that, a discussion on the highway trust fund which could run out of its federal funding stream in august. this is from this morning's "washington journal." portfolio portfolio. .. running out of money. why should i be concerned about that happening? guest: you get from point a-to-

point b at some point. you are driving, taking a train, a transit system, a bus, something like that -- all the goods you get, everything you order from amazon, that comes on a ups or fedex truck that travels over our roads. it is the lifeblood of our economy. it really is what drives our nation. host: this goes specifically to a fund. what is the fund and what is it tasked to do? guest: it is the highway trust fund, created in 1956 under legislation by president eisenhower, starting with a toee cent gas tax that went fund the initial construction of the interstate highway system. things were going well for a few decades, but as they continue to grow and build the system there more on more work to be done in less and less money coming in to this fund. we are starting to have a problem of not enough money to

repay -- repave roads, fill potholes, to fix crumbling bridges and things like that. >> the primary cast on is gas tax? >> yes. there's also a few other small fees, truck tire fee and the heavy-duty trucks the connection of years ago congress gave the fund, given the ability to earn interest which interest rates are next to nothing now but that doesn't mean much but maybe down the road when interest rates are low higher that might account for a small bit of money into the fund. >> host: recent stories talk about running out. is that the case? >> guest: under the decision they cannot go fully broke but they can as the mouse gets closer to zero, the department of transportation is tasked with managing that and making sure it is not reached a zero balance. whether they'll be slowing the money that goes back to the states totally shutting down the program. at a few different options and none of them are good and that is a lot of lawmakers on capitol

hill scared. >> host: when is that expected timeframe? >> guest: part of the issue is dot does not know exactly when that is. they get quarterly updates from treasury. there's no computer screen taken a look at and see an updated balance that maybe takes up or down every minute or every hour or anything like that. they put up these monthly updates. right now they are projecting about the end of august but again as the next few months go by that can change. that could slip into the next month. that could be back up to early august. keep in mind congress is out for all of august for the congressional recess house of representatives part of the driving season as well trendy and summer construction season especially in the northern states right now is a crucial time as lawmakers just crossed a few streets, working on a solution. a lot of the winter states need to be working on their summer plans because their ground is thawing and billy the kid few months to get a lot of the work done for the big winter freeze. >> host: as a solution to the fund running out what are the

options? >> guest: there's a number of them. one that gets the most attention is a simple gas tax increase. it's what's funded the fund for decades now. a number of people like it. it's as close to user fee as we can get at this point. it's not directly tied to how much you try but it's close enough. there's a few other ideas as for his repatriation using corporate tax, closing tax loopholes to try to bring foreign money back to the u.s. a few other ideas like that but one of the big ones is the gas tax simply because it's the thing that is funded this program for over 50 years. >> host: when legislators increase the gas tax what's the reaction? >> guest: they focus on the increase and attacks. a lot of them did not like -- interest when it does not breakdown of simple party lines. we seem president obama his entire five year tenure go back to 2009 when he was campaigning, 2008 when he was campaigning he said he did not want a gas tax increase. a number of democrats done.

republicans some privately to but they really all over the place on this and that's fueling a lot of this concern is there's no consensus. >> host: what is the current tax? >> guest: 18.4% -- taking .4 cents a gallon. a little extra money mostly paid by truckers goes to freight and other projects. >> is the money comes in from all the 50 states, does that mean all the 50 states gets a general payout as far as those funds are concerned or does it depend on the size of the state treasury it does. it's a very complex set of formulas. all the states were given the gas tax wen went to washington t goes through these very complex algorithms, stateside, population, over the years some politics for the way they write these formulas that it helps if the chairman of the committee with control over this. at it goes through this

complicated system of a number of formulas in several different programs and goes back to the states and one of the hot topics of been this quote rate of return which sort of the minimum every state gets back but i believe that's about 95% now. no state is paying in and not getting, they're getting near everything that they pay in but not all of the. >> host: you've heard our guest talk about the highway trust fund as far as insolvency, its future. we'll talk about that and other aspects of the. here are the numbers to call this morning. (202)737-0001 democrats. (202)737-0002, republicans. if you want to send us a tweet you can do so @cspanwj and send us an e-mail at the journal at c-span.org. the folks at pew state put out information when it came to the highway trust fund that broke down to this. they looked at the spending by

government levels. with $57 billion in spending for hybrid issues from the federal government, more picked up by the state of local government as well. talk about this breakdown. what happened with this federal portion. it's affected by the trust fund. what does it mean for states and localities as was the future of their own projects? >> guest: means a couple of different things. for one when it comes to the states they see the federal government, this crisis is been going on for quite a while. we been punting, i say we, congress has been punting for quite a long time. everyone patted themselves on the backs a couple years ago and ended up being a two-year bill. this is after six years which that certainty for states, you can't build a bridge, you can but you can't finance a bridge. you need that long-term certainty for these projects. on one hand the states are sorted pursuing things on their own. we've seen in d.c. we have seen

just on either side of us both virginia and maryland take action for just their transportation funding. it's not just partisan. in wyoming which is about as red as it gets, they've ever read a gas tax increase. it means the states are not counted on federal governments anymore. they're doing things on their own but at the same time that the program is very important to them. states rely on the. rhode island, small state in our country, their only, the only aspect, the director few weeks back, their only federal program, the only state program offers money simply matches the federal program. you can envision if that is gone, rhode island has the original dollars that they can use. that's not the case in every single state but their states all around the country that are facing a major backlog or stoppage or other that issue. >> guest: what about a program

that was done under stimulus for these projects. the state still have access to that money? >> guest: that was about five years ago. that's really starting to wind down. there are i'm sure some states have a little bit left, and one of the biggest splashes was $8 billion for high-speed rail in california is just now starting to get up and put shells on the ground to build their project. but yes there's an issue with states all across the country. >> guestcountry. >> host: windows that run out out and when does it have to be renewed? >> guest: two different tracks on this. there is the policy, what did he does, things like that. that comes from the house transportation committee and in the senate, the environment and public works committee has most of it. the senate commerce committee has lived. banking committee has jurisdiction. the big issue though is really going to be financing which is up to the house ways and means and the senate finance committee's. >> host: your first golf comes

from john and john is a known, democrat. hello. >> caller: hey. >> host: john, go ahead. good morning. >> caller: what i would like to see is get -- >> host: john, you're on the air. go ahead, please. >> caller: it seems like we are running out of money -- >> from this morning's "washington journal." we will leave a note to return to live coverage of the center for more debate on energy efficiency. still not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the republican whip. mr. cornyn: thank you, madam president. americans understand the relationship between affordable energy and the economy, they understand it. they may not know all the numbers but intuitively they know in their gut that affordable energy is critical to a sound and a strong economy.

between 2008 and 2013, america suffered through a financial crisis, a deep recession. sometimes called the great recession. there's nothing great about it because it turned our country and its committee on its head and resulted in the highest level of unemployment since the great depression. and yet over the same period of time, u.s. production of oil increased by 50%. by 50%. from 2007 to 2012, america's production of shale oil increased by an astounding 18 fold while our production of gas grew by more than 50%. in fact, it's now projected that the united states could well be a net exporter of natural gas, and you'll recall those terminals that were built

along the gulf coast and elsewhere to try to facilitate the importation of natural gas are now being retrofitted and turned around so the excess natural gas produced right here in the u.s.a. is available to export. and as we've learned among other things, this could change the geopolitics of the globe because if america and the rest of the world is no long he dependent on the middle east, if europe and the ukraine were no longer dependent on russia for their sole supply of energy, it could change the world as we know it. as i started out by saying, people understand the difference -- the relationship between affordable energy and a stronger economy. nowhere else do they understand it any better than in bismarck, north dakota or the permian basin in texas.

those are the two places the last time i checked that had the lowest level of unemployment in the country. and it's not a coincidence. these are places that are producing huge volumes of american oil and natural gas and is creating a lot of jobs in the process. in short, even amid a difficult period of economic stragg nation -- stagnation, america has been experiencing a true revolution in domestic energy output. now,, this is a little bit inside baseball but a few years ago, people were talking about peak oil as if all of the oil that could be discovered had been discovered in the world. we were running out. obviously that has proven not to be true. but as i said, all you need to do is to visit the permian basin in west texas, the eagleford shale region in south texas, or the barnett shale region in

north texas, and see what happens when america is a good steward of the natural resources that we have been provided in this country. the numbers in my state are really amazing, in the great state of texas. during the month of february, our state's average daily oil production hit a 28-year high. 28-year high. as we produced more than two million barrels of oil a day. now, what does that mean? if you don't come from an oil-producing state, an energy-producing state, that means at minimum that's two million barrels a day less that we have to import from opec, the organization of petroleum exporting countries from the middle east. that's two million barrels less a day that we are held hostage to that volatile region of the world.

in carbons county, texas, alone, which is part of the eagleford shale region, total monthly oil production was nearly 4.9 million barrels. how did this happen? wlg, it happened because of the energy sector. it's made it cleaner, safer, much more productive than it has been at any other time in the past. in midland, texas, part of the incredibly productive permian basin which has been producing oil and gas for many decades now, monthly oil production grew from about 842,000 barrels in february 2008 to 1.9 million in february 2014, for a total increase from 2008 to 2014 of

128% -- 128%. incredible. as i said, i.t. not surprising that this -- it's not surprising that this area of our state and our country has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the entire nation. there's a relationship between affordable energy and a strong economy and strong job growth. it's a place, for example, that a person with a high school diploma or a general equivalency agree -- a g.e.d. -- request make $75,000 a year driving trucks. so if you can get a commercial drivers license in midland, texas, and you've got a g.e.d. or a high school degree, you can make $75,000 a year. i was told yesterday that at the mcdonald's restaurant in the area, people are being paid $15 an hour. i.t. noit's not because the fedl

government has demanded it. it's because the market has dmeended it, because the economy is booming. as i said, people in my state have long understood because we've been an energy-producing state that u.s. energy policy is a critical part of u.s. economic policy. and thanks to this innovation that i alluded to a moment ago, you're seeing other parts of the country experience this for the first time. but we're all learning that marks micing domestic energy production will create american jobs and will make america safer. they're also beginning to understand better that misguided government policies can destroy those same jobs and perpetuate our dependence on foreign energy sources. for example, many people in my state are very concerned about the regulatory process at the federal level and particularly a

proposal that will, in essence, enact a backdoor energy tax in the form of new greenhouse gas rules. the proposed rule would have a major economic cost in return for meager or nonexistent benefits. the obama environmental protection agency itself admitted that it's greenhouse gas rule would not have a notable impact on u.s. carbon dioxide emissions by 2022. speaking of which i hope my friends across the aisle, who frequently argue that we must have government-imposed co2 reductions, even if it kills jobs and raises the price of energy for consumers, i hope they appreciate that this same natural gas and energy revolution that we've talked about has itself, all by itself, resulted in a significant

decline in co2 emissions. so that's by virtue of this same innovation that's created all this natural gas, cheaper, more affordable energy, helped drive our economy and helped create more jobs, at the same time it's reduces co2 emissions. between 2005 and 2012, u.s. emissions dropped by more than 10%. indeed, emissions dropped more in the united states than in europe, that already has in place some draconian measures like a cap-and-trade rule, carbon tavment, and -- carbon tax, and those sorts of things. it's dropped more than america. i add nate this natural gas boom wasn't the only reason that our emissions went down, but many experts bheeive that iexperts -e that it was the most important. despite this progress, the

majority leader insists that we're still not doing enough to curb co2 emissions. but he refuses to bring a bill to the floor which would actually, according to his scenario, actually do something about it, the so-called cap-and-trade bill. now, i don't support that because i think it would raise energy costs, it would have negligible benefits, and it's really just throwing a bone to some of the most radical people in america when it comes to our environment and exploring and producing american energy. but cap and trade failed to command sufficient senate approval even when our democratic friends controlled 60 seats, which in the senate is unassailable in the sense that you can do that purely 0en a party-line vote. but the reason it didn't pass was pretty simple. our democratic friends understand this as well. the costs of cap and trade

vastly outweigh the benefits of cap and trade. it doesn't pass the cost-benefit test. well, the same is true of president obama's backdoor energy tax. over the coming decades, america's contribution to worldwide carbon dioxide emissions growth will be minuscule. moreover, as i mentioned, the e.p.a. itself, the obama administration environmental protection agency doesn't believe the greenhouse gas rule would have a significant impact on u.s. emissions by 2022, eight years from now. so the benefits of this backdoor energy tax would be virtually nonexistent while the costs would be all too real, including higher energy prices and lost jobs. madam president, the shale gas revolution, as its called -- shaicialtion because that'shalek

it's produced from through this phenomenon known as fracking. those who don't really understand it, this is a process that's been used for about 70 years around the country, and it's very safely regulated at the state and local level. if proper drilling is observed, case something submitted in a only in a way that protects drinking water. so it can and has been done on a daily basis for lo these seven decades. but the shale gas revolution has been critical to america's economic growth during a time that the rest of the economy has struggled and it's going to be even more vital in the decades ahead. according to one study, by 2035, unconventional oil and gas resources alone -- that's what comes from shale, shale oil, shale gas -- alone they will

support close to 3.5 million jobs in america. making $475 billion in value-added contributions to america's economy. where would we be this last quarter when the gross domestic product of our economy grew at .1% if it weren't for what i'm talking about here, this energy renaissance in america? we would be in a recession, in my judgment, because it has contributed so much, that it has essentially negated a lot of the other bad policies that have kept american job growth nearly flat-lined otherwise. given all that, it would be my hope that based on this evidence -- not based on my comefntses o- not based on my comment commentt based on evidence that we should be doing everything to support this revolution or some have

called it a renaissance. call it what you will. but it supported american job cometion and lowered energy costs and helped our economy. so why not embrace an energy policy that is pro-growth, pro-jobs, and pro-consumer, an energy policy that is consistent with our environmental interests, but it serves our economic interests as well and our strategic interests? that means, in part, doing what i said earlier, and that is blocking regulations that don't pass the simple cost-benefit analysis. it means streamlining the regulatory process here in washington so that these projects can go forward on a timely basis. it means approving job-creating proposals like the key spoken x.l. pipeline. many of us have seen in horror

some of the disefntses that have occurred -- accidents that have occurred on the railways where tanker trucks have derailed, catching fire, only to learn that in the absence of adequate pipeline capacity, that's the way the oil moves. it moves along the railway lines in tankers and sometimes accidents happen, unfortunately. we need the keystone x.l. pipeline which will create tens of thousands of new jobs. it will mean we have a safe source for additional oil in addition to what we produce here in america from our friends in canada. for the opponents of the pipe lierntion who think that somehow by denying approval of the pipeline this oil won't be produced and sold, wcialtion it's going to be sold somewhere. canada is going to sell that owl abroad. if it can't sell it to the united states. and that oil when it comes down the pipeline will end in

southeast texas in a lot of the large refineries there and be turned into affordable gasoline, fuel oil, and jet fuel, among other things. well, madam president, we have offered amendments that will do that and more. we will accelerate natural gas exports to our allies and trading partners. think what vladimir putin might do if he knew that he didn't have a stranglehold on ukraine and quliewr europe when it cameo energy. think what would happen if they had an alternative from american exports or pipelines from other places that could circumvent russia and could heat homes, keep the lights on, and avoid this stranglehold that vladimir putin and russia has on so much of europe? well, i think would make him

think twice about his invasion of the crimea and the threatening actions taking place in the ukraine today and which could extend even further. but my point is, madam president, we have amendments to this underlying shaheen portman underlying bill which are relevant to the topic of energy production, albeit broader, that would do all these things. and we're trying to offer some of these ideas which i hope any fair-minded observer will say are constructive ideas. i mean, you may not agree with all of it. we may not even win a majority of the vote in the senate today on these amendments, but why in the world would the majority leader insist on denying us an opportunity to have a fulsome debate on american energy policy? not just conservation, but on producing more energy as well.

unfortunately, though, he's given every indication that he will allow no votes on bipartisan amendments that each of these amendments that i mentioned have bipartisan support. as a matter of fact, he has indicated he won't allow votes on any amendments on this bill. the distinguished republican leader from kentucky has pointed out that since july, this side of the aisle has only been allowed eight -- and i think now that we've gone back and looked at it, maybe nine votes on amendments that came from the republican side of the aisle. you know, forget me. forget the prerogatives of an individual senator. but think about the fact i represent 26 million people. what a tremendous honor and privilege it is. but how unfair to my constituents and how unfair it is to constituents, american citizens all, that everyone on

this side of the aisle represents to shut them out of the process. someone called this the harry reid gag rule. that pretty well describes it. when the majority is deprived of any right to offer constructive proposals and to have votes and debates on these policies here in the united states senate. we used to category -- well, you look in your, i see the pages down here and i know they go to school while they're pages. i bet you go back and look in some of your history or civic books, and it will tell you that the senate is called the world's greatest deliberative body. no more. that's history. if the minority can't offer constructive proposals that would actually improve the availability of american-produced energy, would help grow the economy, and would

create jobs, no more is the senate the world's greatest deliberative body. and unfortunately, it's the as a result of the decisions made by the majority leader. well, when it comes to energy policy, i hope my friends across the aisle will remember what i said about this back door energy taxes hurting lower income americans as well as seniors who are on fixed income because they are the people who can least afford paying higher energy bills. or they are the ones least able to afford losing their job. we want to adopt on a bipartisan basis energy policies that are progrowth, projobs, proenvironment, and proconsumer. but we'll never get there as long as majority leader reid

decides to deny us an opportunity for a vote on relevant legislation. this isn't just about inside, inside the senate baseball. this is about one of the nation's most important governing institutions being able to function. this is about consent of the government. that is the very premise upon the legitimacy of the federal government exists. that is that the people -- we, the people, all 300-some-ol million of us have an opportunity to participate in the government process by voting, by petitions our elected representatives, by advocating certain policies we embrace here in washington. you're not promised that you will win every time, but you are guaranteed a right as an american citizen to participate in the process.

if that's being denied at its most fundamental level, when the majority leader decides to run this as an autocracy or dictatorship or decides to impose his own gag rule on the proper functioning of what used to be called the world's greatest deliberative body, but is no more. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 433 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 433, condemning the abduction of female students by armed militants from the government girls secondary school in the northeastern province of borno in the federal republic of nigeria. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed and the committee will dispense. mrs. boxer: i'm sorry, mr. president. i ask the senate now proceed to

oo voice vote on the resolution -- to a voice vote on the resolution. the presiding officer: all in favor say aye. opposed. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i further ask that the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered mrs. boxer: mr. president, am i correct in assuming that we have now passed this resolution? the presiding officer: yes, ma'am. mrs. boxer: well, i want to say thank you to my friends. it looks like it's empty here, but every one had to sign off on this. i want to explain what we just did. we passed a very important resolution expressing our support for the young girls that were kidnapped in nigeria. and as i think the world is learning, this is a horrific

situation. kidnapping certainly has no place in any village or in any region or any country. not in our country. we know how we feel. we have seen kidnappings recently of women held in captivity. there should be no room anywhere for kidnapping, and today we heard new reports that suspected boko haram gunmen kidnapped eight more girls from the nigerian village overnight. so clearly the voices of the civilized world must rise up and be lownder than the terrorists who are -- louder than the terrorists who are taking away basic human rights. so the resolution we passed with senator landrieu -- senator landrieu's resolution that has many supporters on this including myself and i am also pleased to hear today that the administration has committed to helping the nigerian government actively. so as a mother and a grower,

my -- and a grandmother, my heart is with all those mothers and grandmothers and dads and grandfathers who want their daughters to come home safely. we cannot stay silent in the face of these unspeakable crimes. we're not silent today as the united states senate. i'm so proud we have passed this. i want to commend my friend, senator mikulski. she and senator collins have worked on a letter that we are sending to the administration. i'm about to go outside as part of a vigil that has been organized by the congressional african staff association as well as the congressional hispanic staff association and the congressional black associates for organizing -- who organized this event today, but i'm so proud of the senate for standing for these girls, and we'll do everything we possibly can to get them home to their families. i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland.

ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise in support of the boxer resolution calling for international action and aggressive action from our own government in terms of the rescue of 276 nigerian girls who were kidnapped from a boarding school that their parents paid for them to be able to go so that they could learn. 276 girls that have been captured by a terrorist group, the boko haram group. this is an outrage, an outrage against these girls and an outrage in the international community and we need to speak up as a nation, women and men together, saying, what is this, where a girl can't go to school simply because she's a girl. and now there is strong evidence that these girls are being sold into, as we speak, into forced

marriages and sexual slavery. we, the women of the senate, have written a letter on a bipartisan basis calling for the president to have the group, the boko haram group be placed on the international al qaeda terrorist list and calling upon sanctions to be imposed against them. we are heartened by the fact that the president is sending a team to nigeria to help the government of nigeria to find these girls, bring them home safely to their mother and father and get the bad guys and send an international message, leave girls and boys alone. there are additional rumors coming out that schools where boys have been attending simply because they're western-based

education, that those schools are being burned down and that the boys' lives are in danger. what kind of world is it that a parent, based on parental choice -- parental choice -- can't send a child to school without thinking that they could be kidnapped and abused, sold into sexual slavery and so on? so we encourage the efforts by the united states government to support the capacity of the government of nigeria to provide security for these schools and to hold these organizations accountable. we urge timely civilian assistance from the united states and allied nations in rescuing these girls. we believe that there should be a regional -- many of us -- a regional african coalition to go in who know the terrain to find these girls. but our president is sending military and law enforcement people to advise the government of nigeria, that's been slow to

respond. i must say, it is not my place to criticize another president, but i wish that they would have been more aggressive in a more timely way. but now we are where we are so i hope that we pass the boxer resolution calling for international help. but i believe that we in the senate on a bipartisan basis should join the international voice calling for the rescue of these girls, the return of them home safely to their mother and father, to capture and punish the bad guys, and that there be an international effort to let children of the world be able to go to a school that their parents choose them to go to. so, mr. president, i thank senator boxer. we're going to be working together, the women of the senate are going to be meeting with secretary kerry and i believe that this is an issue

worthy of our attention, worthy of our time and worthy of our vote. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak about one of the great crises facing our country and that is the high cost of college and the fact that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of young people who are bright, who would like to get a higher education have now decided, because they do not want to leave school deeply in debt, that they are not going to go to college. and what a loss that is not only to the individuals and the enhancement of their own lives but it is a loss to our nation, because in a high he willy compe

global economy, we need the best educated work force possible. and the fact that college is becoming a distant gree dream, n unreachable dream for millions of families is a horrendous situation that this congress must addressmen address. mr. president, over the last 10 years, the costs of attending a public four-year college has increased by nearly 35% at a time when middle-class incomes have remained flat and, in fact, many families have seen a decline in their incomes. of the students who do go to college, hundreds of thousands graduate with significant debt, on average over $27,000. on average. mr. president, just this morning i was talking to a staffer of mine who is $119,000 in debt.

and what was her crime? how did she accrue that debt? did she go on a spending spree? did she lose her money in a gambling casino? her crime was that she wanted to go to law school and she came out of law school 150,000 in debt. today that is down to $119,000. i have talked to doctors and dentists who are now several hundred thousand dollars in de debt. mr. president, the important point to make is that there was once a time in the united states when that kind of college and graduate school indebtedness did not exist. only a few decades ago this country made a commitment to our

students that if you worked hard, if you studied hard and if you wanted to pursue a higher education, you can do so at little or no cost. that was what we used to do. and, unfortunately, in that very, very important area we have regressed and regressed significantly. mr. president, until the 1970's, the city university of new york, one of the important and best educational systems in the country, the cost was completely free. it was free. the university of california system, one of the largest and best university systems in the world, did not begin charging tuition until the 1980's. in fact, in 1965, average

tuition at a four-year public university was $243. now, mr. president, you know as well as i do that we are living in a highly competitive global economy. and if our nation is to succeed, we need to have the best educated work force in the entire world. but the sad truth is that we are now competing against other nations around the world who make it much easier for their young people to go to college and to go to graduate school than is the case in the united states of america. according to a report released last year by the oecd, the organization for economic cooperation and development, the united states was one of the few

advanced countries in the world that did not increase its public investment in education over the last decade. from 2008-2010, most advanced countries experienced significant economic decline as a result of the wall street collapse. despite that, the vast majority of countries increased educational spending by 5% or more. the united states was one of the few nations to decrease overall education spendingmening. mr. president, i live about an hour away from canada in northern vermont, and in canada, average annual tuition fees were $4,200 in 2010, roughly half of what they were in the united states, and yet the oecd says canada is one of the most

expensive countries for a student to go to school. mr. president, germany, an international competitor of ours, is in the process of phasing out all tuition fees. germany is in the process of phasing out all tuition fees even when german universities -- fees. even when german universities did charge tuition, it was roughly $1,300 per student. according to the european commission in 2012, the following countries do not charge their students any tuition and these are countries that we are competing against. these are countries where young people go to college without any out-of-pocket expense. those countries are austria, denmark, finland, norway, scotland, and sweden. in europe, university systems enjoy a very high level of

public funding. the e.u. average is 77%. in other words, in countries throughout europe, austria, belgium, denmark and all of the rest, where governments understand -- what governments understand is that investing in higher education is terribly important for the individual students and her families, but in addition, it is enormously important for the competitive capabilities of those countries. so you have countries like austria, belgium, denmark each putting in more than 88% of public funding into their universities. in the united states, the number is 36%. so countries all over the world, those that don't provide free higher education, pump

significantly more into their university systems than we do. mr. president, the result of all of this are several very significant points. first, we have many working-class and middle-class young people who are looking at the economic picture that we face as a nation, looking at their own lives and they are saying, do i want to go to college and leave school $50,000 or $60,000 in debt and how am i going to pay off of that debt once i leave school. and many of these young people tragically are saying, do you know what? i don't want to take that risk. i don't want to leave school deeply in debt. i will not go to college. and what a tragic situation that is for our entire country,

because we are losing the intellectual potential of all of those young men and women. and second of all, for those who do go to college, they are coming out of school with an incredible chain of indebtedness around their necks which impacts every aspect of their lives. it determines what kind of jobs they will get. will they do the job that they had hoped to do their whole lives, their life's dream, the work that they were looking forward to do? or are they going to gravitate to those jobs which simply pay them a lot of money and enable them to pay off their debt? mr. president, for the first time in our country's history, american families have more

student debt than college debt and that just is an extraordinary reality. all over this country families are struggling with debt in a way -- in a way they never have before. the average loan balance for american graduates has increased by 70% since 2004. average student debt is now near $27,000. in vermont, it is even higher at $28,000. one in eight borrowers are carrying more than $50,000 in student debt. the percentage of families in the united states with outstanding student debt increased from 33% in 2005 to

45% in 2010. so, mr. president, the bottom line here is that we have a huge crisis which is impacting millions of individual families and individual young people. but from a national perspective, it is a crisis which is impacting our competitiveness in the global economy. there was once a time not so many years ago when we had the best educated work force in the world, when we had a higher percentage of college graduates than any other country on earth. that is not the case today. so i think we have got to do some very, very, very hard thinking about the crisis regarding college affordability and the crisis it's arding

student debt. and if this country is to remain internationally competitive in the global economy, we need some bold ideas in terms of how we address these crises. and i can tell you that in vermont, as i speak, the young people around my state, this is the issue foremost on their minds. the young people in high school are wondering about how they can afford to go to college, the students in college are worried about how they're going to pay off their college debt. our job must be to say that -- to every young person in this country that if you are a serious student, if you study hard, you are going to be able to get a higher education regardless of the income of your family. that you are going to be able to get the best education our

nation can provide you based on your ability and not on the income of your family. and this is an issue of enormous importance to individuals around the country, but, again, it is an issue of huge consequence for the economic future of this country. so, mr. president, in the coming weeks i will be introducing legislation, i know there's a lot of other good legislation that is going to be coming to the floor. but this is an issue of huge consequence, it is an issue that must be addressed. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: