the house and senate was sent to president nixon, who vetoed it. he viewed it as most presidents have then and since as an intrusion on his authority. as commander in chief. but the congress decided to pass the war powers resolution over the veto of president nixon, reaffirming the constitutional authority and right of congress when it came to a declaration of war. so now we find ourselves in a situation where congress has voted on going forward with the war in iraq, and as i mentioned earlier, i was one of those who voted against it, going forward with the war in afghanistan. i was one who voted for it. all senators did, i might add, of both political parties. and now a question of libya. several months ago, the situation in libya became so grave that the president of the united states met with our leaders in the military and leaders of other nations to ask what should be done.

moammar qadhafi, the rogue leader of libya, was literally attacking and killing his own people in the streets of his country, and there was a widespread public reaction against it from the arab league of which libya was a member as well as the european union, the united nations and others. president obama made the decision then to consult with members of congress about what we should do. i was fortunate enough, being a member of leadership, to be part of the conference call when the president was on the line with leaders, democrats and republicans in the house and senate, and spelled out what he believed was the grave threat to the innocent people of libya. at that point, there was a question as to whether or not benghazi was going to fall and whether moammar qadhafi would consolidate power and take retribution against those who had been in opposition to his government. he said he was going to take to

the streets with his military and kill them like rats, and we took him at his word. the president felt that the civilized nations of the world had to act. acting in consultation and in concert with the arab league and the united nations and nato, the president spelled out a course of action. he told us in these early consultations that the united states' involvement would be very limited, perhaps more intense at the outset than as any conflict progressed, and that we would not commit land troops to libya and that basically the leadership of this effort would be under the auspices of nato and we would be in a supportive role, a role which would diminish over time. that was the president's promise and that was what was executed. now more than two months later, the question has arisen, well, what is this president's responsibility under the constitution? what is the congress' responsibility under the

constitution? are we engaged in a war? i might say that i sat down before coming to the floor and carefully reread the war powers resolution, and although we characterize it in many different ways, the language of this war powers resolution is in some areas difficult to apply with every situation. it makes reference throughout the introduction of the united states armed forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. we translate that in our debates, and i have been party to many over the course of the time that i have served in the house and the senate, as to whether we are talking about a defensive military action or an offensive military action. i don't think there is any question, not in my mind, that a

president as commander in chief has the authority, without seeking congressional approval, to defend the people of the united states and its territory. certainly, we wouldn't expect the president to wait for congress to convene, debate and vote if the united states and its citizens are under attack, but what of those other circumstances where we are initiating military action that is not strictly in defense of the united states? are those so-called offensive military actions who hostilitie? do they require a president to come forward and to ask of congress authority to go forward with those -- the u.s. involvement in those military hostilities, and that is where we find ourselves today. more than 60 days after the initiation of our involvement in libya, the debate is still on in the united states senate as to whether or not we need to authorize the president to continue our efforts in libya and whether that authorization should be under the war powers

resolution. i think it should, and that's why i have come to the floor today. i joined with senator ben cardin in introducing a proposal that that -- senate joint resolution which we have circulate chd would give the president the authority, if passed, to continue the hostilities in libya under the war powers resolution, expressing stating that it would not involve land forces, ground troops, and that it would have a time certain to end, in our case by the end of this calendar year, subject to another decision by congress as to whether or not it should go forward. now, i believe that that is still the right course of action, and i am hopeful that before the end of the day, there will be action taken by some of my colleagues here in congress to come forward with a bipartisan resolution which parallels what i have just described. i might add that there is some controversy and it is worthy of at least debate as to our

current situation in libya and whether it fits squarely within the war powers resolution. bob bauer, who is general counsel to the president of the united states, argues it does not. yesterday, in a conference call, mr. bauer was asked specifically whether he thought the war powers resolution was applicable to the current situation in libya. and here is what he said, and i quote, when he was asked could you explain. he says, "certainly. as i mentioned, when my colleague was going through the nature of the mission and how it changed, we're now in a position where we're operating in a support role. we're not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis is considered to constitute hostilities within the meaning of the statute. we're not engaged in sustained fighting. there has been no exchange of fire with hostile forces.

we don't have troops on the ground. we don't risk casualties to those troops. none of the factors, frankly speaking more broadly, has risked the sort of escalation that congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power. so within the precedence of a war powers analysis, all of which typically are very fact dependent, we are confident that we're operating consistent with the resolution. that doesn't mean that we don't want the full ongoing consultation with congress or authorization as we move forward, but that doesn't go to our legal position under the statute itself, and we're confident of that." i respect mr. bauer but i respectfully disagree with him. i believe that what we are engaged in with libya is a matter that should come under the war powers resolution. i believe that we should, as a congress, consider it under the war powers resolution. now, i think that is the right course of action. it will give the president clear authority and will also

establish the clear authority of congress in this -- in this particular situation. let me add quickly, i think the president was right in what he did initially. i believe that the use of american military technology, which was primarily our initial investment, was certainly warranted. working with nato, we created an atmosphere where the nato forces could not be in harm's way, would be safe in their early efforts to stop moammar qadhafi in his efforts to kill the civilians in his country. i also believe the president was right from a foreign policy viewpoint by not doing this unilaterally but working with the arab league, the european union and the united nations. the fact that we have for the first time in history nato forces working in concert with the arab league is, i think, a very positive thing, and i salute the president for doing

it. i think his goal and motives were good in this effort, and i would vote, if asked, to continue this effort under the war powers act affirmatively, based upon all the briefings that i have received. having said that, i believe that we should pursue the course that senator cardin and i suggested in our resolution, that we should, in fact, deal with this matter under the war powers resolution. we should debate and take action on it here in the united states senate, and i am hopeful that soon, perhaps before the end of the day, there will be some effort under way on a bipartisan fashion to do just that. mr. president, at the end of the day, we will be asked by future generations if we kept true to our oath under the constitution, which requires us to face difficult debates and decisions, and there are none more difficult than this. we are also going to be asked by the people we represent in terms of the cost in human life, in

the cost to american taxpayers whether we engaged in the debate and determine that it was the appropriate thing to do. i have, like so many members of the senate and congress, had the sad duty to attend the funerals of those who have fallen in combat in service of our country. it is sad to face their families and realize that they have paid the ultimate sacrifice to our nation. i think that requires us, even in circumstances where the facts are debatable to err on the side of exercising our constitutional authority. i hope before the end of the day that this bipartisan resolution will come to the floor, and certainly before the end of the week and that we debate it and act on it before the end of this work period. again, let me make it clear, i think the president is right in what he is doing, but i think we have a responsibility that goes beyond mr. bauer's conclusion, a responsibility to decide that this offensive use of military

force, even for good purpose, good humanitarian purpose is one that requires the authorization of the american people through their members of congress. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

leader. mr. reid: i ask consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that we have a period of

morning business, and that in fact it be closed. i ask consent that the period of morning business be closed and the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to numbers 75, s. 679. the presiding officer: without objection, morning business is closed. mr. reid: mr. president, i have a cloture motion -- the presiding officer: the motion to proceed is resumed. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk and ask the clerk to report the same. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 75, s. 679, the presidential appoint efficiency and streamlining act of 2011, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask consent that the names not be read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm disappointed that we had to file

cloture again. i would hope, though, in the ensuing days that the republicans on the other side will just let us get on this bill. this is a bill that senator mcconnell and i started working on when we were both whips many years ago. the purpose of the bill is to eliminate the need to have all these nominations, these relatively minor posts confirmed by the senate. and the work done by the chairman and ranking member of the budget committee, senator schumer and senator alexander has been exemplary. we now will have, when this legislation passes -- and i really think it will pass, even if we have to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed and on the bill itself. i hope that's not necessary, but if we do, that's what we'll have to do. it would take away the necessary necessary -- need for having to do 200 nominations for some of these minor posts i talked about. i would hope that we can get on

this bill when we come back necessary week. it would be the right thing to do. there's so much to do. this would set the tone of this work period that hasn't been so good to this point. i ask unanimous consent that at 11:00 a.m. on tuesday, june 21, 2011, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar numbers 34, the nomination of michael simon to be united states district judge for the district of oregon, an hour of debate divided in the usual form, upon the use or yielding back of that time the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on calendar number 34. following this vote the senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to meet for party conferences. at 2:15 p.m. the senate consider calendar number 183, leon e. panetta, to be secretary of defense for our country, two hours of debate divided upon the

two leaders or designees. upon the use or yielding back of that time the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on calendar number 183. the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, no intervening action or debate, and no further motions be in order to the nominations, any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative. further, that following this vote the senate resume consideration of the e.d.a. bill and vote on the motion to invoke cloture on that bill. if cloture is not invoked, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 679, the presidential appointment efficiency and streamlining act, and that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived on both cloture motions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without

objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for up to 17 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. whitehouse: i rise today to speak about a serious issue that touches on our national security, our economic well-being, the safety of our families, and our privacy. and that is america's cybersecurity. i look forward to conducting an in-depth examination of the aspects of this issue that fall within the senate judiciary committee's jurisdiction during the subcommittee on crime and terrorism june hearing cybersecurity, evaluating the administration's proposals.

because of the importance of improving our cybersecurity as demonstrated by the recent g mail spear phishing attacks at sony, lockheed martin and the senate here itself, i rise to make initial remarks today. american technological innovation ushered in the internet age, bringing with it facebook, youtube and the rest of the worldwide web. it set off an explosion of new commerce, freedom of expression even in the details of our lives, allowing a car company to help you remotely if you lock yourself out of your car. however this allows terrorists and hostile nations to exploit cyberspace, to attack america, to invade our privacy, to loot our intellectual property and to expose america's core critical infrastructure to cybersabotage.

entire online communities are dedicated to stealing and selling american credit card numbers. consider the disturbing fact that the price of your credit card number stolen on line actually goes up if the criminal also is selling your mother's maiden name. some criminals have learned how to spy on americans, hacking into our home computers and looking at through the video camera attached to the screen. others run web sites selling stolen entertainment without paying the american companies who created it. and millions of american computers -- millions of american computers have been compromised by mal ware, slaved to botnets that can record your every keynote and send it instantaneously across the world to a criminal's latop. i firmly believe that cybercrime has put our country on the losing end of the largest

illicit transfer of wealth in world history. whether by copying source code, by industrial espionage of military product designs, by identity theft, by online piracy, or by outright old-fashioned stealing from banks, just doing it the electronic way, cybercrime cripples american innovation, kills jobs here at home and undermines our economic and national security. congress must act to protect americans from these internet dangers and to protect our civil liberties. let me say at the outset, the government must not be allowed to snoop indiscriminately into our online activity, to read our e-mail, or watch us online. there simply is no need for such an invasion of privacy, and we must move forward with that firmly in mind. the majority leader has introduced a leadership bill that will be a vehicle for our work.

the commerce committee led by chairman rockefeller and ranking member snowe, pwoefgt whom i had the privilege -- both of whom i had the privilege to serve with on the intelligence committee, and the homeland security committee led by chairman lieberman and ranking member collins, reported key bills last year. chairman leahy and the judiciary committee have reported important legislation on data breach and other issues central to cybersecurity. the armed services, energy, and other committees have studied the issue from the perspective of their particular jurisdictions and expertise. and under the leadership of chairman feinstein, the intelligence committee cybersecurity task force completed its classified report last july, authored by me, senator mikulski and senator snowe. so, we've been ready in congress. the administration has now weighed in with its own proposal, recognizing that we need cybersecurity legislation to make our nation safer and launching in earnest our

legislative process. we have hard work ahead to find the best possible solution to this complex and grave challenge to our national and economic security. as we begin, i'd like to flag five issues that i believe must be addressed as this legislation goes forward. first, we need to build greater public awareness of cybersecurity threats going forward. what's the problem? the problem is the threat information affecting the dot gov and dot mil dough mains, the government domains is largely classified. and in the dot-com, dot-net and dot org domains, information is often kept proprietary by the victim business so as not to worry shareholders, customers and regulators or give ammunition to competitors. the result is that americans are

left in the dark about the level of danger that is actually out there on the internets. the administration's proposal would required covered business to notify customers if their personal information is stolen, expand reporting of cybersecurity threats and require some public assessments of cyberreadiness. i believe more can still be done on these fronts. i've had the pleasure of working with senator kyl to introduce s. 931, the cybersecurity public awareness tph-bgt, and i would like to urge interested colleagues to review it and consider including it as part of our larger cybersecurity legislation. that's the first. second, the senate needs to ensure that we give private industry the tools necessary for self-defense against cyberattacks. proper sharing among and within industries of cyber security threat information is vital. the administration took an important step by recommending

subject to various safeguards enhanced sharing of cyber security threat information by the government with private industry. but we may also need to remove legal impediments that unnecessarily limit the sharing of threat information within industries. and we should be prepared to listen here to the private sector's needs as they set up those areas for safe communication about the cyber threats that they share. third, our nation does not have basic rules of the road for end users, i.s.p.'s and software and hardware suppliers. the administration proposal includes important provisions that would move us in the right direction. assuming that i.s.p.'s, verizon and comcast and the companies that are actually providing the service, assuming that these

companies qualify as critical infrastructure, which is an assumption we should clarify before getting too far down this path, the administration proposal would require them to develop a standardized framework to address cyber security. sensible laws and regulations have made our highways safe and we need similarly to make our information highways safe. federal procurement can encourage effective cyber security standards with appropriate supply chain security so as to improve cyber security across the hardware and software industries. these improvements will benefit the government directly, but it will also improve the security of all products on which businesses and consumers rely. americans are too often unaware of dangerous malware that has been surreptitiously inserted into our own computers, and we don't take readily available

measures to protect ourselves and those who we link with. one leading i.s.p., comcast, deserves great credit for developing a new mechanism to notify and assist its customers when their computers have been compromised by malicious software or bot nets. all of the i.s.p.'s should work together to join, strengthen and standardize this program. in australia the i.s.p.'s have developed a code of conduct that may be a model for their american counterparts in this regard. the fourth point, it is vital that the government have an incident response plan that clearly allocates responsibilities for responding to a major cyber attack or breach. the administration proposal puts the responsibility for such incident response with the department of homeland security, cybersecurity center envisioned by the proposal. i look forward to working with

the administration and my colleagues on that aspect of the proposal. more generally, the administration proposal, like bills that have been reported in the senate, gives the department of homeland security a leadership role in our nation's cyber security. we have to remember that this is a relatively new role for the department of haourpt. homeland security it is one of the responsibilities that the homeland department bears. it is a role that much of the government's expertise resides in other agencies than the department of homeland security. so the department of homeland security's role must be con figured to attract sufficiently high caliber cybersecurity professionals, to ensure that d.h.s. properly leverages the cybersecurity expert cease at those other agencies and tone

sure sufficient independence and credibility of the cybersecurity center to perform this vital mission even as administrations change and attention to cybersecurity waxes and wanes. cybersecurity is a real and present danger so we must also plan for and minimize the interim period in which d.h.s. builds up its cybersecurity expertise, promulgates necessary regulations, and otherwise grows into any new role with which it is tasked. cyberattacks happen at the speed of light. so the best defense requires that we preposition some of our defensive capabilities. many of our nation's leading experts who have seen the dark heart of the internet's dangers and understand the cyberthreat

in all its dimensions recommend rapidly creating secure domains for our most critical infrastructure, our electric grid being the most obvious example. these would be domains in which our nation's best cybersecurity defenses could be both lawful and effective. obviously this would need to be done in a very transparent mearn and subject to -- manner and subject to strict oversight. but we, as a country, have impressive capabilities in this area and we need to make sure that those impressive capabilities protect our critical infrastructure as soon as possible. they are not deployed to protect critical infrastructure now. fifth, countries around the world, including countries that dedicate significant resources to exploiting our

cybervulnerabilities are working hard to build their cyber workforces. this means enabling our colleges and universities in partnership with private companies, agencies to research the next great cybersecurity technology and to build these cyber human capital our nation needs to defend itself and continue to flourish on the internet. academic and technological leaders in my home state, such as, the university of rhode island and brown university have been hard at work developing new cybersecurity technologies and strength epg our nation's -- strengthening our nation's cyber expertise. there are other vital issues we must address. many of which i've spoken about previously on this floor. we must work, for example, to scale up our nation's

cybersecurity and law enforcement resources to match the seriousness of the threat posed by cyber criminals, by terrorist organizations, and by hostile nation states using cyberspace to attack our nation. the bottom line is that we have a lot of important work to do. i am glad that there is every indication that it will be bipartisan work undertake wen the country's best -- undertaken with the country's best interests in mind. i look forward to undertaking this task with my colleagues in the months ahead and i yield the floor.

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 209, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 209, congratulating the cal as mavricks for winning the 2011 national association basketball championship. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. whitehouse: 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. whitehouse: i now ask unanimous consent with considerable happiness and pride that the senate now proceed to

the consideration of senate resolution 210 celebrating the boston bruins' victory which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 210, congratulating the boston bruins for winning the 2011 stanley cup championship. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceedin proceedie measure? without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, it would be unimaginable there could be objection to such good news. i now 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. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it recess until 2:00 p.m. on monday, june 20th. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date,

the time for the two leaders be reserved until later in the day, following any leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted therein for up to 10 minutes each and that the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to s. 782, the economic development act, be 3:30 p.m. on monday, june 20th. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i am advised that there will be no roll call votes on monday. the next roll call vote will begin at approximately noon on tuesday, june 21st, on confirmation of the simon nomination. mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess until senate stands in recess until

>> earlier the senate voted to kill tax credits and end tariffs on imported ethanol. a similar amendment was blocked tuesday. but today, diane feinstein joined oklahoma's tom c oburn in offering the amendment and passed 23-27 after falling 23 votes the first go around. it's an development bill heading to the house after final passage. this debate on the passage runs 45 minutes. >> thank you, mr. president. i rise in support of the ethanol subsidy and tariff repeal act that senator coburn and i are offering. the other co-sponsors on this amendment are senator webb and

senator collins. this is identical to a bill that we have submitted, and on that bill, there are many co-sponsors. they are cardin, webb, lee, collins, and tuomy, and so i wanted to have the record straight that this amendment is in response to a bill which we have crafted. on tuesday, the senate voted on the proposals, but unfortunately, we saw a process battle which i spoke to on the floor which i think overwhelmed in some respects the debate. if that is not the case today, there are ongoing negotiations to see if it's possible to put together a solution which can bring all sides together on this amendment that we will be voting

on at two o'clock. thus far, we do not have an agreement, however, at least one of our co-sponsors of this said to me, senator webb, that he would appreciate a straight up or down vote on coburn-feinstein so we know where the senate stands. it is still possible even after that cloture vote that if we can reach a successful conclusion to the negotiation, that we could have another vote and change that. today, this is really the first vote that the senate has taken based on the merits of repealing the ethanol and testify riffs. in a nutshell, i'll give you the reasons. i know of no other product in the united states of america that has a triple crown of benefits. there is a mandate oil companies

must buy this ethanol. there is a subsidy. oil companies are paid for buying this substance, and this substance known as corn ethanol is protected by a protective tariff which prevents other nations like brazil from importing ethanol which actually has more beneficial environmental effects. as a matter of fact, corn ethanol is the least environmentally proficient ethanol. everything else is better than corn? algae is better, sugar is better, and all kinds of new types of ethanol are being tasted -- being tested, so the bottom line is that we have a triple crown of subsidy, mandate, and protective tariffs

on the least effective environmentally sound ethanol there is. now, more importantly, this is now used to such an extent that it is having a major impact on food commodity prices, and in particular, on feed prices, and this is particularly true in the poultry industry, and i'll get to that in a few minutes. i do want to thank senators klobuchar and thune for good faith efforts on reaching a compromise. this compromise must save substantial revenue for the debt and deficit, for the treasury, and eliminate wasteful ethanol subsidies and tariffs so these negotiations have been ongoing sense tuesday. we have not yet reached an agreement, and so a vote at two

o'clock will not end these talks. i'm willing to continue to talk, but i do think that it is important that we have a clean up or down vote on the coburn-fine stein amendment. the issue at hand is a simple issue. the subsidy given to the oil companies costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year, and the tariffs actually has the effect of making us more dependent, not less dependent, but more dependent on foreign oil. let me explain. in 2005, the ethanol subsidy cost taxpayers $1.5 billion. this year, that number is nearly $6 billion, so it's gone in six years from a cost of $1.5 billion to nearly $6 billion. there is reasons for it, and i'll get to that in a moment.

since 2005, the total costs of this subsidy is $22.6 billion. here's the increase every year, $1.5 billion. 2006, $#.6. 2007, 3.3 billion. 2008, $4.4 billion. 2009, $5.2 billion. 2010, $5.7 billion, and the all-time high, these last two years, however, it continues to rise, and the proposals that have been made for an extension to 2015 by some would cost another $31 billion so, ladies and gentlemen of the senate, this is a very, very costly trifecta of benefits. now, let me be clear.

the subsidy is wasteful and due publictive doing very little to promote the use of ethanol which oil companies already must use under current law. the renewable fuels standard dictates oil companies to use 14 billion gallons of biofuels this year, 20.5 billion by 2015, and 36 billion by 2022, so you see, this is by law now increasing every year, and it goes from 14 this year, and it more than doubles by 2022, and that's doweling is what's -- doubling is what's going to cost the $36 billion at the cost i indicated, and yet we pay oil companies to follow the law. now, let me speak briefly about

the tariff. the 54 cent per gallon tariff on ethanol imports makes our nation more dependent on foreign oil. the tariff agents as a trade barrier placing clean suregan kane ethanol imports from friendly nations at a competitive disadvantage to oil imports from opec. this discouraging imports of low cor bon ethanol from our allies and leads to more oil and gasoline imports from opec countries which enter the united states tariff free, so you've got a high tariff on ethanol coming in, and you have a very low tariff on oil. sugar cane ethanol that suffers from this tariff is the lowest carbon fuel that is widely available. the tariffs make no sense, and

it should be repealed, and i believe that that is a one thing where there is very strong consensus in this body. the ethanol subsidy and tariff repeal act repeals the 45 cent per gallon ethanol use subsidy known as the volume metric ethanol excise tax credit. people say vetc, and everybody is supposed to know what vetc is. well, it's the volume metric excise tax credit, and the tariff is effective july 1 so there are really two in there, two tariffs. those are two parts of the three-part triple crown of government support. refineries are required to use ethanol under the renewable fuel standard. the subsidy pays them to use

that mandated ethanol, and ethanol, again, is protected by a very high tariff. now, i think we need to address this quickly because the effects of harmful and the costs are great, and at highest risks are increased costs for feed, corn, and other food. today, 39% of the united states' corn crop is used to produce ethanol. that's according to the congressional research service, well over one-third of the corn crop is used to produce ethanol. corn futures reached a record $7.99 a bushel last week so corn future prices are up 140% over 12 months. here you can see the rise from

$2 in 2005 to 2006 going up over 2007, 2008, beginning to come down slightly in 2009, continues down in 2010, and then boom, 2010-11 and 2011-2012, it has shot up. this is devastating particularly to poultry farms all over the country and i'll explain why in a moment. this is devastating to cattle. this is devastating to food commodity prices as well. it will continue to go up if we let this continue. the annual average price of corn has risen 225% since 2006 so from here to here there is a

225% increase in corn prices. now, does anybody think that's good for the nation? is it good for farmers who depend on corn feed? i don't think so. let me give you some examples. the annual feed costs for foster farms tripled over the next year increasing costs by more than $200. that's greater than the firm's largest ever annual profit. zachy farms, a large farm, lost $35 million over the last three years due to increased corn costs. i want to read to you for a moment a summary of the impacts on the farms.

here's the background. zachy farms is a family owned vertically integrated producer of quality turkey products for consumers in the retail and food service markets. the company is 55 years old, but has roots in supplying poultry products to consumers that reach back all the way to 1928 representing three generations of commitment to the business. they employee over 1,000 employees, 1,000 employees, and supplies approximately 2% of the turkey consumed in the united states. during the past three-plus years, the growing use of corn and ethanol have been nothing less than devastating to these farms. why? turkey feed costs represent about 60% of the cost of getting

turkey products to the stars for consumers to buy. corn is roughly 50% of the turkey feed formulation making corn one-third of the cost of a turkey. soybean meal, usually the second largest ingredient in turkey feed, competes for the same acreage as corn, and consequently, the pricing of soybean meal often moves somewhat in tandem with corn. the government is sitting on acres and paying farmers not to plant them. they are encouraging the rise in cost. unite know that -- i didn't know that that we are paying farmers not to plant soybeans. recent reports show that since 1990, there are essentially no new acres available. ethanol use of corn is therefore

driving up other turkey feed up ingredient prices also. the increasing use of corn in ethanol, now nearly 40% of the nation's corn supply has been a major factor in driving the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $4 to $6 and currently $7.75 cents a bushel. that's what zachy is currently paying. this dramatic increase all occurred since the 4th quarter of 2006, that's just what i've been saying. the turkey industry has been unable to past these cost increases along fast enough to maintain profitability. now, mr. president, we were in the caucus on tuesday, and we heard one senator talk about how a farm has actually collapsed because of the prices in his state, and a second senator

reiterated his deep concern about what's happening to the poultry interest in his state, so this just is not foster farms and zachy farms that happen to be in california. it is all over, and then they go into the impacts for corn on ethanol for employees, suppliers, customers, consumers, and family ownership, and they say they have suffered significant losses during the past three years, and it is estimated that that's 35 million in losses from 2008, 2009, and 2010, and the banking relationships have been shattered after 60 years of banking. the bank of america told the company to find another bank. in 2008, the company was forced to implement across the board salary freezes and other

measures to help control these costs. turkey prices jumped dramatically and will continue to increase. in other words, so that the market is becoming such that turkey is going to become an endangered species, particularly in a downed market. that they've stopped promotions such as the thanksgiving free turkey with a purchase of a certain dollar amount, and it goes on and on. it's a very serious issue. let me give you another one. paul cameron is a commercial cattle feeder from the valley. he said my company employees 32 hard working men and women. many of the employees are second and third generation to the livestock business. our cattle rely primarily on mid western grown corn as their primary source of grain. this is the conflict here.

this year, 41% of our nation's corn crop will be used by a heavily subsidized ethanol industry. this a year, where nationally our grain inventories have already been reduced by adverse weather, corn has risen in price by 140%. because of this, any chance of probability in all -- profit the in all -- profitability in all protein industries have vanished. the cattle industry, the inventory in our own operation is being reduced, and we have begun the process of laying off many of our employees. coming from a county with 27.9% unemployment, that's april edd figures, these good hard working people will be relegated to trying to find jobs where there are none. these are the very people that

take great pride in the fact that they not only feed a nation, but they also feed the world. this is what this is doing. this is actual testimony read verbatim. then we have a letter from the american meat industry, california dairies, the national beef association, national meat association, national pork producers counsel, national turkey federation. essentially saying the same thing. corn-based ethanol has distorted the corn market and stretched corn supplies to the point production costs have increased significantly. additionally, the current import tariffs on foreign sources of ethanol harms united states consumers by retarding the development of a robust and

sustainable biofuel market. that's a direct quote, and i ask unanimous consent to put this testimony in the record. >> without objection. >> following my remarks, thank you. and then there is a whole list, a very long list in a letter to senators reid and mcconnell from a couple dozen agencies, both agricultural and environmental, and i would put those in as well. >> without objection. >> thank you. and from the national cattlemen's beef association. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: now, i do this, not because i want to run through it all but because i think it's evidentiary testimony of what is happening out there because of what is very bad and egregious public policy, and at a time of debt and deficit where

we are looking to find a bipartisan solution which is going to be very, very difficult, and if we reach one have a dramatic impact on this nation. ofion. enzus billions of dollars makes no sense to me at all. this summer experts are predicting a mass slaughter hogs. the usda projects with u.s. reserves will sink to their lowest level since the mid nineties this summer and rising global poverty and instability.e so, we are faced with a votey today that is very simple. the vote says in this trifectap, of subsidy mandate and

protective terror, and it says don't wait for it to expire at the end of the year, but do it o as of july 1st. and if we do it as of july 1st,t we produce approximately $2.7 billion to the treasury to ameliorate the debt and deficit. so this is i think an easy $2.7i $2.7 million to save. w now someone might say well, what are you doing to all of the producers of all? shouldn't we protect them? this has been going on for a very long time. from 2005 to have an industry developed that becomes dependent on fenster affect the and mandate and protect the tariff

is only going to increase cost.y i understand beginning an leg industry with some help, givingm them a leg up, giving them a toehold and then they go onnheir their own. indus but what the ethanol industry a wants is a continuation of the oi subsidy. the all the companies, the most profitable industry in the subsidy to it, continue the i mandate and continue to protecte it. and you can i be sure if we dont do this now and we wait for it to end och at the end of 2012, there will be a fight to continue it.sa well, we are all talking about g saying no. we are talking about the timeave

has come we have to do businesss differently and we have majore problems out there. we have a lot of people that ral needp help. what i read your help those people or what i read your helpo big oil deutsch essentially what they are mandated to do any waye the trace is easy.s the choice is clear. to what i want to continue, a highn protective tariff on the least environmentally friendly. it's not even algae or n cellulosic it's not sugarcane. l friendly production of ethanol. so mr. president i opposed this i'm not that precedent to be honest with you, but i just knet that once we started this ishat wasn't going to end. that once we started it it was

going to be more, more, more and that's the grounding. that's the sound beat. and if we can sell it in the it next few hours with a proposal that meets the scriptures off ti both sides of the great do institutions we are trying to do that their people the strongly believe it should beickl ended quickly and that is what thishis vote, this cloture vote this afternoon will show. we recognize it, we recognize it can be ruthless. however it will be the first consequential vote of the united states senate to say that majoro subsidies to oil companies to do what you are mandated to do hasa come ton an end and protective tariffs of the least come environmentally friendly will come to an end and there will wt

come to an end in a timely wayue which is what the government should be doing. y so i would like to yield theflot floor athi this time the big surprise to me that has been how emotional our caucus on the othr democratic side and i and send the other side's caucus, theemoo republican side as emotionalna s well this appears to be muchegin more major cause than the sigl legislation itself might send ay signal of, but i am very hopefus that we have 60 votes which the united states senate.loor. thank you, mr. president.g offie i yield the floor.recogn >> the center from indiana. want >> mr. president, thank you. i also want to say from the senator from california many

valid points i came back heref for the purpose of addressing our overspending and that involves all kind of tax kds expenditures and all kind of subsidies ha. it's necessary because of our current debt situation. get we've got to get control over it t this. the only reason i ran and thek only reason i am back here with a commitment from the people off india who supported me that this is what needs to be done in washington. as senator feinstein and others efforts to begin to address these subsidies and that is exactly what we need to do. the center's to of the centers for is what we are doing in a timely way we a have the essence

weso subsidized for valid reasos early on. said the production of ethanol because we don't -- we are not independent in terms of ourand energy production and dependenco on oil and particularly middle eastern oil is not only costly d to us from the standpoint of o opec setting the price of oil we worldwide based on their outpute but also the fact we spend a lot of money in blood and treasureht ro continue the dependence on t that oil by the placing of troops in the middle east and the engagement would anyone think that we would pay nearlyao as much attention to the middlen east as we are now were it notha for the fact the oil supply is absolutely necessary to theco economy of the world economy?veo

we all recognize, and i think d sim everyone in the chamber would say yes, we want less dependence on foreign sources and more independence and so, of coproduction of holguin energy out of corn or other products that fun to go in the soil and can be converted to a form of energy loaded with oil so thates we use less of middle eastern o, oil, more of our own resourceset to drive trucks and cars and a v fuel our plans is a valid goal. to get that started, i wasn't sure what the congress passed a set of subsidies in order to the encourage the industry. and on the basis of that, states, private entities, private public partnerships

committed to going forward with production of ethanol. we are at a point now where poit there is essentially an that agreement that this subsidy hasd the question is taken away andtl we producers of some of agreefr maybe it is political reality to ethanol producers across myoe speech, i basically said went cannot continue the subsidy under our current situation of debt and it's always been fsibl designed to become a comically feasible related to the price of oil. the price of oil g has gone up d i think gives a ethanol level playing field. many of us from corn growing and ethanol producing states, and

indianan by the way is one ofe the leaders, n the leading stats in the nation we produce significant percentage ethanol is this amendment basically says it's over now. we've come together around a transition proposal that t senam soon thune has proposed.on whici i am all for an up or down votes on which is the best way to rid ourselves or decrease the the dependence on the subsidy and ts phase it out completely. a i can't imagine that anybody here would say that as we address the tax code there w expenditures. in there would be a transitionor process in place for e individul eliminating that expenditure

cash in the united states., in a senator wyden a democrat and aax bipartisan effort for comprehensivem. tax reform and s proposal basically eliminates the tax expenditures with special provisions totaling tmost a trillion dollars.way we eliminate that in a way that reduces reads comics companies more competitive, lowering th tax individual rates, simplify the tax code. t but we know that in doing so there has to be a transition aom period.vate sector you cannot yank away from the private sector or the public private-sector hist an economict basis on which they look forward and committed to that particular entity and product. tnsition on the transition process andu there's talk about well we might give you a vote next week for ferc.ator

>> i don't blame senator coburn or feinstein won bid for using d procedural rule. senator feinstein did not do that and did not support that.t. and i think deserves a second vote.l i don't fault senator coburn for using procedural methods which would mean not necessarilypo something pessin that it is t possible that there are procedures to do what he did to get his vote on the floor. he's been asking for that fort weeks if not months. it is an issue we ought to be debating that there ought to bea an honest debate between this issue both of which agree the subsidy ought to be removede one of which says we wouldthe remove it today on this vote ant the other says over a perk of time three years or so when we ran pat-down and that we take the money that is immediately

save and donate it to reducingme that deficit but we take some of the money in order to transitioy away from the subsidy and thatns is what senator phil and isting to all the details which i don'a need to do.o really what i am here to do is o plead for an opportunity to base both sides of this, to have twoe votes winner-take-all. that's the way it works here. ty and the chips fall where they may but at least we will have had an honest debate about two alternatives to try to reach the same galoal. one takes a longer period of time than the other and then tha senate will vote and the yays will be ya and the nays will be ny to read all we have now is a promise maybe we will give you an oppgiortunity to bring something up next week so that we can vote on the phase out. hy some members will say this, is.

say yes we need to eliminate ths subsidy that'ubs why i voted for senator coburn. then they can also say i could e for senator thune one of theseet should work we've got it both w. ways. sho we should make auld distinction between what we want to go and what we want to do. i hap i hpeappen to choose for i thini valid reasons that we ought to inansition out of this because f the enormous financial been commitment that has been made oo the part of ethanol producers ia my state the enormous benefit that yes has come to our agriculture sector that has a lt grown a lot of corn and and has benefited from it and has paid a lot lot of taxes and it's one of the few industriess in america thas is prospering urning revenue and paying taxes on that revenue and helping the economy grow as thet ethanol industry but to just awy yank it away from them right rit away because we sit this has to be done right now without awitht transition i don't think it's fair for all of those who have e

made that commitment. thes e does ethanol need to be economically viable to compete with other forms of energy?d -- yes. here i wasn't here again but this body of congress in putting thet administration said it needed a head start sweet and reduceour dependence on foreign oil and them that in the gave them reform of the subsidies and tariffs in the form of some whew credits have to come to theok white financially we need to as look at this as well as hundred, of others subsidies and taxy n expenditures that recently no longer can afford and the answer of that is yes we've come to pot that point and in this instancen when there is interest for one t company or to companies here wh code. a but where there's a national security interest in this and

continued dependence on foreigna sources of oil and naturalffecti security effecting the troops, affecting the expenditures, affecting the keep the liens open and the oil flowing and so forth, and so there is a national basis oneedo which we need to have competing forms of energy that can lessen dependence and ethanol is one ob those but does it need to be vi? economically viable?here? absolutely. how do we get there? the bye pulling the rug out of the it mouth shutting it down and precipitous drops in the amountp of ethanol production because ir is no longer viable or we can have put in place senator fallid tas tried to do in the coalitioa of the support we can put a place a sensible way to reducedy the subsidy to zero. p to bring at all to a point ofnoc

economic viability on its own ouat can immediately send aam significant amount of moneyion t llion dollars to reduce theanr deficit and can be part of the w transition to allow ethanol toit be an economically viable part of our ability to provide energy transportation energy without having to call the police ande say keep sending it and by the way we will send our troops and senday the money and the treasud over because we absolutely have economy so there's a compelling reason to allow the amendment to be here on the floor debate it and to give members an opportunity to make their case on each side take the food and let the chips fall where they may but we will at least have had the courage to stand up and honestly say this is where ithii

come down and voters can decide whether they like that or not like that. that. but it makes sense i think from an economic standpoint and an energy independence standpointst and just common sense to anybody who has been encouraged by this body to invest in this product to reduce dependence on oil and at least give them the chance to phase this down so that they don't necessarily put a padlocka on the refining plants and basically say we are out ofbasis business. that doesn't achieve the goal,l the very reason that this body put these enhancements and subsidies in place in the firste conclusion, we need to phase oub the subsidy. there there are other subsidies and nw expenditures we can eliminate o now without having this kind of without adverse h economic effect and ec without having a negative affect on the national security. but this is not one of them and

i urge my colleagues and the leadership to allow the pleas oe senator soon and others to be an heard so that we have an honest debate and honest choice and then accept the results. mr. president, with that of high yields a floor, and i believe i : ggest thesu absence of a quorr >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]ing offic: the >> mr. president? >> the senator from california e is recognized.presidin officer: >> mr. president, i would like >> the center is notified we :ae in a quorum call. witho >> i ask the quorum call be askt vitiated.efly i ask i could briefly respond to the senator's comments. senator coats and i worked

together on intelligence and i e have great respect for and regio understand the regional issues involved in this. sali understanding you're thinking. thinking that my thinking is the we get as strong vote on this today. this is simply a cloture vote. we have 60 votes and sometimesmo to see if we can work somethinge out. if you give your word, keep it.p the only thing you have really is your integrity and that we can continue to try with of theh participants to see if we can bring both sides together. long i know this is a long journey,pd and i know that we will be blue slipped and have got to come back and have to have a bill that we can put a tax matter on and that is for later date.s,

i thi ank we are into this and o many people want kind of a cleay vote and i am prepared to givery you my t word to continue to try to discuss this. my own view of this is to do th, very best you can to try to reach a compromise when issues are really a like this and marcd onto the next thing. this has become harder than i i anticipated, and i think, you know, we are relatively close to a solution, to a compromise. now whether senator coburn will accept it or not, i don't know. but i know these discussions are going on, and all i can do is pledge you my best effort to trf to get to something that youome

satisfies a tree betty. i understand if you come from a large ethanol producing state i understand what this means. on the other hand, i also that s understand that this is going to be the first of many coming dowy the line that we have to change, the way we do business. but if we are going to carry oue the mandate of a prudent a government, we have to make a ae lot of changes and none of it io going to be easy so we might aso thll get used to it now. wor for wherever it is worth to hav. my word we will continue to try to be the . coats: >> the senator from indiana.ad >> i accept that having had the opportunity to work with senatoe feinstein on the intelligence committee. i don't cities for its second ta accept.k it's been a pleasure to work on that committee and we spent many hours behind closed doors

discussing issues of greatue importance to this country, anda she's provided great leadership in that effort. with so i will look forward to working with the senator from california and accept her offer. onti hopefully we can find a goodcout solution to this issue and i couldn't agree with you more, senator feinstein, that this is the first of many things, tough decisions that we are going to have to make and if we are not flexible in making these fiscal distress, we are going to market's and by ournding too constituents. they know we are spending too much. we need to make decisions some l of which will be painful. down willingness to sit together and

work this through and as youhe said this will be the first ofds many difficult days ahead but what is interesting about the people intervention to the americans people is there is a bipartisan commitment the understanding ofr the plate wee are in which we were not here but we are and ain bipartisan understanding growinr bipartisanst understanding that working together is the only solution to this because if it e is just stalemate we are doing a great disservice to the future prosperity of the country and its impact on future generatione including the current generatiol and the mae ny people out of wor the need the recovery to takeena place sooner rather than later. i look forward to working with her along with others, and this is the first probably many difficult but important and necessary discussions.

>> seven term democratic congressman anthony wiener announced his resignation from congress. it's just under five minutes. in all conversations [inaudible conversations] [applause] >> good afternoon.

about 20 years ago i stood in the same room at the council center and asked my neighbors for their help to take a chance on me and electing me to the city council. then some seven years later i asked the same people to join people in queens in sending me to congress. there is no high your honor in a democracy than being sent by your neighbors to represent them in the united states house of representatives. it is particularly humbling to represent this district because the communities and families of the ninth congressional district are hard working, patriotic, opinionated, they are authentic. i have never forgotten my neighbors because they represent the same middleclass story as mine. i went to public school my whole

life, my mother as a schoolteacher for 32 years, my father went to law school on the g.i. bill. the middle class story of new york is my story and i'm very proud of that. i'm here today to again apologize for the personal mistakes that i have made and the embarrassment but i have caused. i make this apology to my neighbors and my constituents, but i make it particularly to my wife, huma. i took to people to continue the work that the citizens of my district elected me to do. to fight for the middle class and those struggling to make it. unfortunately, the distractions that i have created has made that impossible. so today i am announcing my resignation from congress. so my colleagues can get back to work, my neighbors can choose a new representative, and most

importantly my wife and i continue to heal from damage that i have caused. >> [inaudible conversations] to repeat, most importantly, most importantly so i can continue to heal from the damage that i caused. i want to thank my colleagues in the house of representatives, democrats and republicans alike. they come from different places around the country but fundamentally, we all agreed they are all patriots and i will miss them all. thank you. i also want to express my gratitude to the members of my staff, young people who are not paid very much, there are people who work very hard and very long hours. a ultimately those people to find the notion of service.

i want to think of course the many people that have helped me. the people who have volunteered and have given me advice, many of my constituents who offered me good ideas. and of course i want to express my gratitude to my family. to my mother and father who instilled in me the values that carried me this far, to my brother, jason and of course my wife who stood with me through this entire difficult period and i owe so much. i got into politics to help give a voice to those who simply didn't have one. malae will be looking for other ways to contribute my talent to make sure that we live up to that most new york and american of ideals. the idea of leaving a family of a community and ultimately a country is the one thing that unites us. the one thing that we are focused on. with god's help and hard work we will all be successful. thank you. good afternoon.

>> congressman weiner served the ninth district covering parts of queens and brooklyn since 1999. just ahead of congressman weiner's announcement, a briefing was held at the white house covering a number of issues and this runs about 45 minutes. >> increase the anchor and criticism of the members of congress and the speaker said that he still wants an additional legal rationale. are you planning on sending or satisfied with the response? >> two things. first of all, we have from the beginning consulted regularly with congress. more than 40 times, and 41 at least you added yesterday is substantial report we provided to the congress which included the legal reasoning with regard to the powers resolution so i do not anticipate further

elucidation of the legal reasoning because i think was clear, and i can go through that with you if you like. i think -- let me say we absolutely respect the congress' interest in this issue and desire for consultation and answers to the questions and that's why we have been so responsive, including the substantial report we provided yesterday. i think it is noteworthy the views expressed in the letter stand up in contrast to the views expressed in 1999 when he called the war power act constitutionally suspect and warned the congress to resist the temptation to take any action that would do further damage to the institution of the presidency. i make an observation about that because i think it is worth noting in the current context. >> do you think that he's playing politics now? >> it's important to know what his views are then and that this is 1999 and he was -- he had concerns about the actions than

president clinton was taking in the balkans, and yet, despite those concerns, urged congress to resist invoking the war manpower because of the power it can do to the institution of the presidency. so i think the context here is worth noting. that is all. and i think our legal reasoning which we provided to the congress is quite complete and stands alone and doesn't need any addition. >> do you have any updates on whether the president has met with general petraeus or plans to do so today or tomorrow on the afghan withdrawal? >> thanks for the question. general petraeus was here yesterday. the president met with the team including a general petraeus to discuss afghanistan to review the broad array of issues surrounding the drawdown of will begin in july of 2011 next month and he will consult further with his national security team and

of course including general petraeus in the day is coming forward. >> and his recommendation for options? >> they discussed a range of options as i think the general said in the past publicly this is a question of options plural and that will continue. >> when does the president hoped to make a decision? >> i will cite the president who said soon so i don't have a specific date for you. i'm not going to -- and get more specific than soon. the operative delete to delete your date is july 2011. so the policy he began to implement december of 2009 calls for the beginning of the drawdown of the surge in july of 2011 obviously it will be in time for that to happen. >> what is the process if there will be a series of meetings to

reflect -- >> let's step back a little bit. he meets regularly with the national security team in afghanistan for important reasons including 100,000 u.s. military personnel is on the agenda when he meets with the national security team so these are conversations that occurred with regularity. he has an answer to julie's question he met with 15 including general petraeus. those will continue. there is no process similar to the one the president undertook in the fall of december, 2009 to defeat the preview of our strategy in afghanistan because that process was designed to produce the policy and the strategy the president forged and announced in december, 2009, and he has been implementing ever since. the discussion in the meetings and the result that will come with his announcement on our

part of that implementation process. >> what implications might be from the american economy? >> we are monitoring this regularly and consider it a headwind if you will in terms of the global economy, and therefore, the domestic economy. so, we are monitoring the situation, different closely, and we are in regular communication with our european counterparts. we continue to believe they have the capacity to deal with it and we believe it is completely within their capacity to do that and that they will. so far greece has made sycophant progress in terms of reform but it's important that the greek and government carry on with the fiscal measures and reforms that are under discussion to the discussion. >> anthony weiner as expected to resign the next hour or so.

does this allow you to focus back on jobs? >> we never stopped focusing on jobs. when the president was asked about this, he expressed his opinion, but he also made it clear that this is not an issue that he has been focused on because he has obviously much more significant player, and i don't really have anything to add to that. >> jester de congressman braley wasserman schultz said that democratic now on the economy. do you agree? >> we all on the economy and work together in washington to devise policies and to improve economic situation to reviving what the congresswoman was referring to is the fact the turnaround that we have seen and the change in the direction reflected in the fact when the president was sworn into office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month and for the last just six months we gained a million jobs and i think 17 months or 15

months spent 2.1 million reflects a change in direction for the better, the fact we were contacting severely as an economy by something like 6.4% when he took office has been reversed and we have grown for seven straight quarters. we believe the actions that we took in the early 2009, some of them controversial, some of them very difficult. have been responsible or have certainly helped produce that change in direction. a change in direction doesn't mean an arrival at a destination. we are not where we want to be in terms of the economy, in terms of job creation. that's why the president is so focused had spent so much of his time devoted to discussing the economy with advisers and talking to outside folks about their ideas including his jobs

and competitiveness council and other leaders in the economy for their ideas of what we need to do to continue to grow the economy and create jobs. estimate in the six years since president obama came to washington has there been any number of politicians who've undergone scandal? i can only recall president obama saying or suggesting that if he were that person he would resign and congressman anthony weiner who as far as i can tell hasn't committed any lawbreaking s. res has been disclosed yet. why would president obama choose to speak out on this issue and not say congressman rangel or senator vitter? >> i'm not sure i can make the comparison for you. he was asked about it. he wasn't looking to comment on the situation as he made clear in the follow-up question that was asked why anne curry in the interview. he has been focused on other issues, the economy, national

security, afghanistan, etc.. however, i think that he made it clear that he agreed with congressman weiner the behavior that he exhibited was inappropriate and he had embarrassed himself and obviously his family and ask the question he responded but i don't think that he was looking to make a particular point beyond that in responding to the question is to begin attacking president obama for their view seeming to be out of touch in the economic woes of americans. >> vote in the to joking of the stimulus that would get jobs in the competitive council defense and north carolina where he

talked about shuffle ready isn't. is there any response, does the white house has a response to this charge? >> i think that it is obvious that the president is focused on the economy, that he takes an enormously seriously the hardship yet americans continue to endure as we emerge from the worst recession most have ever seen in our lifetimes. one of the reasons why he asked his office to call ten letters a day for him from the 40,000 received by the white house addressed to him every day because he wanted to in their own words read about the travails that some americans are going through and especially she initiated this practice back in the early part of his administration when we were in an economic free fall and obviously that harsh continues.

the president feels that very keenly and it is why it is the primary focus of his administration and of his waking hours what he can do we and we can do as an administration and we can do as americans and republicans and democrats together to continue to grow the economy, continued the positive progress we have made and importantly continue to create jobs. >> president obama was under 50% for the first time i can remember when voters were asked whether or not he understands the problems of people like them. are you concerned at all the president is conveying the opposite of what you just said? >> what he does every day is focus on his job and what he can do to help the american people. polls say a lot of different things. i feel that the reality is when you are worried about losing your job or you've lost your job or worry about losing your house

or your mortgage is under water, that anxiety is real and understandable and affects how you view your own prospect and the overall economy, and it affects how you view your leaders in washington and understandably. what this president believes is she came here for a reason which is to help america, to help change the direction of the country and specifically given the circumstances, the dire circumstances when he took office to reverse a catastrophic economic collapse that was unfolding as he moved in. that work continues. we have changed direction. we are growing. the economy is growing. we've created more than 2.1 private-sector jobs, 2.1 million private sector jobs, but that continues. this recession caused the loss

of 8 million jobs, 8 million americans lost their job in this recession and that is a deep hole. and there is no other task that he has been more dedicated to since he took office in digging us out of that whole or climbing out of that whole. the work continues and we are not done, we are a long way from done and that's why we have to make the right decision as we get our deficit under control and address our long-term debt. but do we do these things, these important things in ways that further potential for economic growth and increase potential to increase jobs and do not in any way reverse the progress we have made. >> yes? >> i would ask you to respond specifically to the remarks on libya where he said we are spending $10 million of a part of the effort to drop bombs on the compound's doesn't pass test in my opinion limited to the possibilities. >> i think that you have thus 30

plus pages that we provided to congress. in answer to the specific question is the congress asked and we simply disagree and think that the u.s. forces are planning a constrained supporting role in a multinational coalition whose operations are both legitimized by and limited to the terms of a u.n. security council resolution and as we made clear yesterday the u.s. forces are not engaged in a kind of hostilities and vision by the war powers resolution to the u.s. operations do not involve a number of elements traditionally associated with hostilities including sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces. the presence of u.s. ground troops, let me reiterate what a single u.s. ground troops in the libya now or ever come u.s. casualties also lack of u.s.

casualties are a serious threat thereof or any chance of escalation to conflict characterized by the factors. our conclusion, therefore, that these constraints and limit the operations to not amount to hostilities under the war power resolution is consistent with the war power resolution put forward by the administrations of both political parties dating back to the statutes of 1973 enactment. i think that that is a comprehensive and thorough legal analysis. obviously, as a lawyer yourself, you noted that there is a long history of legal debate about the war power resolution. we do not expect every person to agree with this. we believe that it's accurate and sound legal analysis. estimate was the president involved in formulating -- >> it is certainly his position and he worked with white house counsel and his team and as a constitutional lawyer himself he

is obviously he owns this document. >> he also called on the american people is there any speech given on this? >> not that i'm aware of. well, i wouldn't speculate too far into the future but there are no plans to give a speech on libya. >> and on ultimately be options for the media concern of congress to cut off funding -- >> in the past we don't think it's helpful for congress to send mixed messages because i think we all agree with the vast majority of members of congress as well as this administration as president the mission undertaken by this broad coalition by nato and other allies to enforce u.n. security council resolution 1973 has been important and protect civilians and saved thousands of lives and helped put create space for the

libyan opposition to organize itself and helped put pressure to see the writing on the wall and ultimately step away from power. i think that success is something the members of congress even those who have concerned would acknowledge and the importance of continuing that mission is something the majority of congress supports. >> he personally believes the powers resolution is constitutional and you said you couldn't say because you hadn't spoken to the president. >> let me just make clear what we are not saying. first of all what we are saying is this -- our current actions in libya for this mission do not fall under the war power resolution because they do not meet the threshold envisioned. what this reasoning is not saying is that not addressing the constitutionality of the resolution. it is not -- it is a limited

assessment based on what we are doing in libya and how and relates to the war power resolution is not an overall analysis to the likes of which we have seen much of the past years since the resolution became law. >> on libya the attorney is advising the executive branch. do they all agreed this was on the president's authority? >> there was a robust debate as you might expect in this situation, and that led the president to his view the power resolution determination provision did not apply. but conduct a recipe for the resolution has been, it would be impossible to have a discussion about the war power resolution of the lawyers not have it be a robust debate because it is a highly debated and debatable resolution. so i don't think that is surprising at all.

if that answers your question. estimate on the definition of hostilities if the country were to be lobbing missiles at sea new york city, is that hostility? >> i will address the issue here in terms of how it relates to our participation in a multinational coalition and libya and extremely circumscribed to the limited role in that coalition and the activities that we are engaged in. i'm not going to -- not just because i'm not a lawyer and partly because i'm not a lawyer i'm not going to engage in that speculation. >> any reaction to the al-zawahiri taking the lead of al qaeda. >> he was not identified prior to the successful mission against osama bin laden and al qaeda's number two. neither surprising nor does it change fundamental fact which is al qaeda's ideologies is bankrupt. the fact is the peaceful

movement for change of the future of the region and al qaeda is the past. that was true before osama bin laden's death and it is true today. >> any plan to send a congratulatory roane? >> i have no comment on that. senator not elucidate in any further to put it on fell lydia -- >> not hallucinating. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> you're not elicit the thing your words. does that mean you are aware of the political and legislative dynamic on capitol hill easily locate john boehner as a resolution before you can go ahead and do it it's not going anywhere in the senate which we are talking about. >> welcome a let me answer that which is we will continue to consult with congress and answer the congress's questions as we participate in this mission.

we have made our legal reasoning clear. we can restate but i don't anticipate further legal analysis on this issue from us. but i do anticipate continued consultations with congress about the mission and stepping back to something i haven't mentioned is today is we obviously do support a resolution similar to or like the ones tabled by put forward by the senator and mccain and others the bipartisan resolution we would agree with. you didn't support that line july 1st or 4th to have something concrete put forward. does the president agree that that is a final deadline? >> the vice president is leading the talks with what he says represents where we are in these talks, so i'm not disagreeing with anything he said.

>> finally, yesterday at the congressional picnic the camera caught some video of the speaker [inaudible] i assume the president is still -- will the president asked when they go together to not smoke [inaudible] >> i don't know about the venue. i'm sure that the president will be a fine host. i don't see a problem. >> what is the reaction to the ethanol vote? >> we oppose the full repeal of that subsidy but as you know, we are focused and have been

focused on a broad strategy including increasing domestic development of oil and gas but also aggressive development of alternative fuel including biofuel and also improving the efficiency, fuel efficiency, and has a part of our overall strategy, we would like to see reform bill would reduce cost in terms of the subsidy in question but we did not support the full repeal. >> [inaudible] >> i do. if we haven't put out i'm not going to announce it from here. >> my lips are sealed. >> with speaker boehner yesterday in your chat with him? >> we discussed a lot of things. i've known speaker boehner for a long time since i covered congress in the mid nineties, and consider him a friend and had an enjoyable conversation.

>> of the legal arguments in the libya argument yesterday are was the scene of legal arguments that justice will use in answering of a lawsuit filed yesterday by members of congress? >> i don't want to prescribe how lawyers actions might take place certainly think the legal reasoning we put forward yesterday, the analysis would be the foundation for their response? >> to call on karen's question is the president receiving any special briefings right now? >> he has been briefed specifically on it. all right, not that i'm aware of today although he did get as a part of his overall briefing ensure it included greece but he may have gotten something specific on greece today i'm just not sure. >> any update on the government reorganization? >> yes, i can -- i do have

something on that. as you know the president called for the reorganization of the government in the state of the union address because he believes the government should be to meet the needs of the 21st century. this set of recommendations as part of an overall effort to streamline government, cut waste and duplication and increase effectiveness to create a system to help americans and businesses compete. the analysis recommendations were submitted to the president by lisa brown on june 9th as directed. the president will review the recommendations submitted to him over the summer and discuss them with his team and when he completes the review i suspect he will make a statement. statistics picked it to be completed in the fall? >> i don't want to put a timely and on it. the submission of the recommendation was made on june 9th as directed by the president. the president will review it over the summer, so sometime within the post review period as

he meets with his team to make a public statement about the recommendation. >> what is the rule today between the hill and the vice president and july for? >> i anticipate more meetings. i don't have an announcement. to make on when those meetings will take place, but you know, we continue to look to intensify the process. deliberately we'll stand on specific about the process made, but what has transpired as progress and they are not just us, but other participants will continue to believe they've made important progress in the negotiations and are optimistic about the prospect of an agreement.

>> to acknowledge that. >> after the briefing i was asked yesterday and it hadn't happened. .. so, that's all. i'm not trying to downplay. we think it is very significant teams doing what he said he would do. to some degree it's got to system, back when he announced

his policy, remember the inclusion of the july 2011 date as the beginning of the drawdown of those search forces into afghanistan was viewed by some come in some quarters as not serious. it was deadly serious and the president is doing, as he intends to do, exactly what he said he would do. he is implementing the policy and strategy in december 2009. that is met with some significant success and he is reviewing the situation and will make an announcement relatively soon, as he said, about the slope of the drawdown that will begin next month. >> i've been asked several times of bill cunningham's speech of the particulars of the heated drawdown and the grueling stages. >> he still intends to.

i don't know whoever suggested he would make a formal speech. we haven't decided yet on the venue for the format by which he will make the announcement, that he will address it in his own words. i am confident of that, but i don't have an announcement about the newer forum. >> what is the freezing of the schedule? >> at every meeting the president has is on his public schedule as you might expect. [inaudible] >> not all of them. the monthly meeting site. the weekly meetings with the secretary quinten arce, but this is an additional meeting and we didn't put on the schedule, but when asked, i've answered he did have this meeting. >> on libya, what happens now? you say the president disagreed

with congress. speaker boehner says he wants an answer tomorrow on whether the office of legal counsel agrees with this assessment of the president. you say you're not going to get anywhere legal assessment to congress. what happens in a deadlock but that? who wins? does the president went quite >> the important it is not about who wins in terms of partisan politics. it's about as the -- [inaudible] >> we are continuing the mission and our participation we continue to consult congress on questions than they have them. we've agreed on the legal analysis that was yesterday to congress. and now the process moves forward. again, as i think i answered in a response for my week, we would support a vote on the revolution, looked for by the bipartisan resolution by senator mccain, kerry and others. and so we continue. the important thing is we understand what is happening in

libya come in the tremendous progress we've made, the fact the president has done exactly what we said he would docome again to some degree of skepticism, the very people in looking at now, that he would do what he said he would do, which is that the united states military take the lead in this operation in the initial days because of our unique capabilities and within days, not weeks, the u.s. would step back and other partners would take the lead in this mission. that is what happened in adventure ever since. he said they were not the u.s. ground forces in libya. he meant what he said. and he has said that imation manner as described by an eye resolution council in 1973. this mission continues to be successful, save thousands of lives, presented both likely to be a massacre in benghazi. it is content space to the

opposition to organize, and opposition with the increasingly close with as we have time to know with it until that day. we have worked hard to free up funds that have been frozen, the gadhafi regime funds at the opposition can use those funds for assistance. we believe that the libyan people will have the opportunity to decide their future, their political future. >> on our military policy, the president will latch? >> can, i can't improve upon the substantial report sent to congress yesterday. we are continuing with their supporting role in that mission. yes, abby. >> i think this is the legal justification question, the report says it costs about $700 million at this point in projects by september it will be $1.1 billion. that's a lot of money in the context of the budget cutting and trimming of programs that

are to exist. how do you justify that to the american people, and when the expect money to stop flowing? >> welcome i think the president stressed that clearly in terms of wages and interest of the united states to participate -- other forces participating. it's also important to note the money you mentioned is coming from existing funds. there is no request for supplemental and it is money that would've since been spent on other things like training mission that are being fulfilled by the actual admissions being performed. so this is not new money. and we believe that it continues to be in the u.s. interest to participate in this mission and the limited matter that we are participating in because it is in our interest within this multinational coalition to continue to protect libyan civilians, to continue to enforce the no-fly zone to give the opposition time and space it needs to organize.

>> is the organization going to be we will be operating in the same capacity? >> i can't predict the future. obviously, a lot depends on what is happening on the ground. nato recently in the last couple of weeks extended its mission for 90 days, is that correct? and obviously we are participants in the mission. to anticipate what libya will look like in the tender is something i'm not prepared to do. >> i am back >> anything president obama made the decision about the level of our participation based on the number of fat areas regarding our serving the american people's best interest in our best national security interests. one thing that is factually true is that the limited nature of our participation has reduced the cost of it. more importantly in terms of his success, the multinational

nature of the mission has been sure that this has not been something the united states owns, that it is a broad coalition, including air partners that are responsible for this, that decided collectively to take the action. we believe doing it in that way enhances the prospects of the positive outcome for libya. april. >> two questions. last week the labor department came out with a report, laborforce in the recovery in the secretary said the president and the vice president is seeping into the court. but is the next step is likely before has been for decades in the country? >> this is a matter of significant concern to this administration as is the overall situation. unemployment is too high. we are working every day to

bring it down, to make sure americans are looking for jobs, minorities and nonminorities are looking for jobs can find them. so this is -- there is no higher priority here and we are working hard to address over all our economic growth and job creation. >> also on the war power question, the president wants to keep calm waters between the branches. why doesn't he just have conversations they look, why does they do that to congress? >> the president has consulted with congress on this. members of the team has consulted regularly on the congress. with congress on libya, again, this is now somewhat still come as a number of engagements is how your. more than 40 occasions, this administration has engaged with congress on libya, both enclosed in open session, lurcher and

interact consultations and we will continue to do that. the president has had this discussion of members have had the discussion with congress. >> they quantify more than 40 occasions prior to the action. >> no, no, no, since the action and including prior it. i was in the context of the action. >> what i have seen a slight tic he just stay above the price and keep peace? by tenacious the congress and say look, this is what i'm thinking about doing? >> he did. he did have leaders down here before the mission began, first of all. second welcomed the president's goal is not to keep the peace and stay above the fray. that is not the mission of his presidency. he saw the need to be addressed in imminent mask or comedic set of circumstances that allow for broad, multinational coalition that took a significant resolution passed by u.n. security council and those factors combined to the

president believes the action he took was the right to take an consulted with congress about it. >> twice here said that congress shouldn't sent mixed messages on libya. why not? >> it is important in that first of all congress to share our goals -- bradley articles and libya and that it is important to make it clearer to gadhafi and others that that unity of goal in terms of the shared public space. we are not in any way suggesting congress shouldn't express this position in this consultations regularly. but i think it's just a broad point that we share these goals. we have consulted regularly. revisit these questions, understand concerns and continue to answer questions. >> what is the next message? >> i think they are sending more than one message about how they view would be a about whether or

goals are the right ones and how we achieve them. but again, i don't want to suggest that i'm not, that they are not well within their rights to express concerns or objections raised question. i want to ask you if you noted that josh beckett had a masterful performance yesterday, a one-hitter. a shout out. i just wanted to make sure. i thought maybe their plan this afternoon because i saw your head down. >> imac taking my fantasy team. >> can ask a question? before you refer me to the department of justice, senator gothenburg sent a letter to the congress yesterday about the lack of action on gun policy, not the department of justice leadership. i wonder what the reaction is

and how do you push back against nothings been done? >> can i refer you to the justice department? >> no you cannot. >> i'm not aware of the letters so i don't have the reaction to it, sam. i think the president did have an op-ed about gun policy in the wake of the terrible shooting in arizona. i don't have an update on the actions that we take in. >> can i e-mail you the letter and get a reaction there perhaps? >> you're welcome to do that. >> congressman, last night you separate retail banking from investment banking in response to the global financial crisis. the u.s. as part of the same global financial marketplace. as the administration believe this may affect competition

between the u.s. and the u.k. and financials is archaic? >> that is the question that the treasury department is best suited to answer, especially on the second one. overall, it's important to know that as countries around the globe have till with the crisis that occurred in 2008 from the financial crisis recession ensued. obviously every country is different in the way the he has taken significant action to us financial reforms and we continue to implement those. you can come is country treats these issues differently.

>> cardillo where we work and any sense of the private dinner -- how would the government -- where the government provide -- or would not provide anything? >> i believe it is private to your initiative we support. the radish works on monday could've told you so many things about that and now it's been displaced by libya and other things. my bandwidth is being limited. you are correct it is the private sector initiatives. we are looking for ways -- actions the government can take on the private sector can take and not hands on deck as it has been since he came to the white house. the president was very encouraged the jets council meeting and the ideas that were generated that are, 2000 ideas

come in many very promising and that was just one of them. george. >> you just mentioned your personal friendship with the speaker. in this week of golf games opaqueness -- >> i have no plans to play golf with them. >> talk about the value of building personal relationships from the president and leaders from the other party in congress. >> i think he and i have addressed this before. he thinks it's a very useful thing to do and i know the vice president whom i also work for and work more directly for in the past feels very strongly about this, too. part of what has happened in washington has been the normal human interactions you have with people you might disagree with on policy. they have come far and fear between. that is not particularly helpful for constructive dialogue.

we have big issues in the nature we need to soften the nature of our system is that for better or worse, and weeping for better because we think it's enough for a good system, the american system. it requires bipartisan cooperation. that is almost always the case and it is certainly the case when you have one party in the white house and the other party in control of one of those houses. so these kinds of meetings, this kind of communication are very helpful. they don't necessarily produce tangible progress on legislation, but they do put the potential for a better atmosphere in the room when important things are discussed and negotiated. that's why the president has encouraged the kind of encounters that he has had with numbers of congress, speaker boehner as well as democrats, why he asked parties that each has to come to the white house earlier this year and by what he

was invited to play golf this weekend. >> to cut through stuff and just pick up the phone and call somebody like the speaker? >> yes, no question. thanks very much. i know you guys have somewhere to go at 2:00, right? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> white house chief of staff, william daley today attacked about the economy and jobs at the 20 leving manufacturing summit. nearly 400 manufacturers from across the country met in washington to discuss tax regulatory and trade issues. this is 40 minutes. >> let me first thank jay, not only for giving me the

opportunity to come and meet with you and listen to you after a make some brief remarks, but for the leadership he has given him. jay is respect that, obviously, not only because the organization he represents and the people who are part of that organization really to play such an important part in the economy of our country. but as an individual who is respect it across the political divide, democrat or republican, but also both ends of the street. the street being pennsylvania avenue on the hill and the executive branch and as agencies of the executive ranch type deal with me and do with him. so i appreciate very much your leadership and the encouragement which you have given the administration and the direction and the price at which you have given us. i appreciate very much. i'd also like to acknowledge mary and drink a former present

not only here today, but also on the president's export council and the leadership she provides for that. i also had the pleasure as was mentioned by cheney that as the commerce secretary to do with him a while back. the economy was a little better. we are all feeling much better about things. maybe it was because we do different commerce secretary. i don't know. maybe that's the reason. at least in my opinion it might be. let me make a few comments. i've had the pleasure of being chief of staff to president obama now for a little over 150 days. about six hours and 12 minutes or something like that. i called jim baker who was at least conservative washington is viewed as kind of a typical purpose compound chief of staff but everybody looks to me because he went from there to

treasury and secretary of state can have a very successful career. i caught him for advice as i call many of the other chiefs of staff for different questions than he was chief of staff for ronald reagan quite a while ago, mostly successful. and he said -- congratulations, you've got the worst linking job in america. acg, somebody tell me it was a good shot. last night they said the advice i give you the times are different in another. the real price or give your sister never the most important job of your title and staff, not cheese. there is only when she promised 18 acres. stress may remember that now for 156 days. but it is a great job and it's a great job to not only work for this president. it's a great job to serve in government, often maligned government employees. but it is an honor to be a part of the demonstration is fighting every day for the american dream

and at the same time with men and women fighting around the world on behalf of our values and to protect this great country. it truly is an honor and the desired historic times than i am honored to represent president obama at gatherings like this, to meet real people who don't live in washington. as i call you, normal people that i don't do it every day and that's great. let me just make one very simple statement. our president believes strongly in american manufacturing. he believes that manufacturing is hoped obviously build our middle class and has kept us strong and able to defend ourselves, both economically to the changing world and defend ourselves in real terms in battles around the world. manufacturing jobs have helped make the american dream a reality for millions of families around the country. we also, and you know better than anyone how the world is

change. our son who say america doesn't need to make things anymore. but our president subscribes to the opposite view. in the 21st century, american manufacturing in the growth of it is vital and essential to us. if we build products here, we obviously create jobs here and innovation therefore will continue to happen here. and that's how we keep our economy strong in the 21st century. over the last two years, we face unprecedented challenges. a financial crisis of 2000 that was unlike anything most of us have ever experienced. we heard about it from our parents, maybe your grandparents. i'm sure you all remember our economy and what it was like in 2008. many of our great american companies, names that have been around for years were on the verge of collapse or did collapse. president obama worked with manufacturers across america to help you weather the storm and put our economy back on track.

gdp has now grown for seven consecutive quarters. they've created over 2 million jobs in the last 15 months. obviously these are difficult times. there is some growing confidence that are coming out of times much lower than anyone that. i think we're moving in the right direction. there are serious questions about how fast we're moving. and are there ways to get us to move faster? these questions are being asked with deep urgency by u.s. business people, their leaders and government, leaders of government around the world. every day the president hears from people, citizens who want to find a good job with some job security for tokyo to get their kids the education which they need and the opportunities which they dream of for their kids and grandkids. and he hears her businesses who want to know as the world changes will be low to stay

competitive. the challenges we faced and develop overnight and therefore a full recovery will not happen overnight. there are steps we can take to speed the recovery and put people back to work and ensure that america remains the best place in the world to do business. i am happy to say the u.s. and a powerful advocate for taking these steps. you've supported new trade agreements with korea or columbia or panama. he supported trade adjustment assistance and the transpacific editorship. thanks so much purge your leadership, we finalize many of these agreements and as soon as congress approves will open markets abroad and therefore have opportunities to create jobs here at home. he had supported measures tuesday in immediate growth and job creation. for example, with your support enacted 100% expensing for a business is the seer will provide about $150 billion in tax relief to 2 million businesses this year and next.

we have called attention to fixing the tax code to promote long-term growth. during this year's state of union address, the president said by reforming the corporate tax code we can help our companies compete globally. he called on congress to get out of the loop holes, level the playing field and use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years without adding to the enormous debt to say. and you've pointed out there are other ways we can remove barriers to your success. thanks in part to the suggestions for the business community. president obama directed his staff to go through regulations which are on the books and find the ones out of date, unnecessary, excessive or in conflict with other rules. he directed each agency to come up they plan to make sure that regulations are doing what they are supposed to do. at the lowest possible cost, the american businesses, states and citizens.

this review were in the senate the obstacles which face manufacturers. for example, every year americans spend almost 1.9 million hours a year filing redundant requirements for osha alone. from an employer's perspective, that if i given about 200,000 extra days off each year, something i'm sure no one in this room would find a track days. we are going to eliminate those redundancies so workers spend less time filling out paperwork and more time being productive on behalf of view. these are just a few of the many steps were taken to strengthen the economy. president obama supports investment 21st investment 21st century infrastructure, passing patent reform, reauthorizing manufacturing tax credit as well as expanding the r&d tax credit and making it permanent. we chose these priorities because companies like yours has had these tools you need to come meet in the global marketplace and therefore have an opportunity to have more of our fellow citizens back to work.

of course the guy to take a moment to recognize about these programs require support of congress and we do hope congress acts quickly. we simply do not have time for more political games or for what we see here as business as usual in washington. we can afford to miss the opportunities which are before us good as business leaders, you understand this better than anyone. when you're industries and companies faced many challenges over the last two years, you didn't accept the status quo or resign yourselves to failures. instead, you laid out and then implemented plans for success and that's exactly what the president has said, that when it comes to getting our economy back on track, the answer is to place airbags on entre nous were some workers. in the beginning of june, president obama toured a factory that those jeep wranglers. united as in 2009, detroit

should've been allowed to sail. instead, the obama administration helped rescue the car companies said today the auto industry supporting manufacturing jobs all lines of supply chain. last week the president went to alexandria campus of northern virginia community college, where i know many featuring 10. now is the partnership with too many colleges and to make it possible for 500,000 americans to get credentials for manufacturing jobs. ..

and programs like the better buildings and michigan which will save businesses up to $40 billion a year when by supporting companies that manufacture energy-efficient products. as you'll every moment of the president's time is rather precious. i think it says something. this president is visiting manufacturers all over the country to speak to them and listen to them. he wants to highlight the success stories that are happening at companies like yours because manufacturing is leading and recovering and he also wants to hear what we can do to make easier for you to succeed because you are the ones who have made it through this financial crisis since the great depression. you are the ones who made it through this, you are the ones growing your companies and the ones building products and

creating jobs right here in america. as the president put it into you know better than anyone, americans do not put it. the community college or ceo finding new innovative ways to keep building products here in the u.s. americans aren't doing everything they can to tackle the challenges before us. that's why the president believes our future is bright. it's why he worked to pull the economy back from the brink and help rescue industries like the auto industry and why he is investing in education and promoting our exports and committed to cutting taxes for working families and helping small businesses to try to find access to capital and of removing the unnecessary burdens that stand in your way of growth. i'd like to close by asking each of you to continue to be an ambassador to those here in washington. you do this once a year it is an important event because again,

the people here in washington to hear from normal americans when you come to town and talk about your business that affect you that are not being done or how are maybe being done to you in washington but at the same time we need you to be an investor back to your community. we've created a wide variety of tools to manufacture and succeed and we rely on you to spread the word so companies can take advantage of those opportunities this recovery continues step by step we are going to have some good days but also have some setbacks and bad days. but i believe that ultimately if we work together we will emerge from this experience stronger and competitive and win the future and keep manufacturing strong today, tomorrow and decades to come in this new century. with that in mind, once again, thank you for inviting me and

for the outreach and given to us and other agencies within the federal government, and i would like to open up now if i can to take some questions, hear some comments, not many criticisms, but i will take them as i solve the world problems, and really do appreciate what you do to strengthen this economy during a difficult time. thank you very much. [applause] >> yes, way in the back. >> my name is eric martin with bloomberg news. >> okay. that's a company. [laughter] >> we are going to take some questions and come back to it later but could try. [laughter] >> yes, ma'am.

that's why i ask people to identify themselves. [laughter] >> thank you. we are a manufacturer in north america and the present the various states. one of the reasons a lot of us are here talking about the regulations coming out and they are just going to dramatically affect the locations to the point we may have to close the devotees and we might close three in the last -- estimate is there a specific rule or regulation coming out -- >> to give you a great example around the border of west virginia and maryland -- to meet the regulations at that time and potentially another investment in that facility so those are

the kind of things we are talking about with members of congress and affecting the people for our accountability. >> i do appreciate it and as i said in my remarks and since i got here it seems as though the number of regulations and rules that come out of agencies are overwhelmingly and to be very frank with you a member of the epa rules are a result of a lot of litigation and that of a partisan comment but some people's mind there was little action of epa implementing the legislation passed by congress to make this stuff up. during the previous eight years before this administration, so numerous lawsuits over the losses on certain regulations

that a lot of what is being implemented right now is the result of a backlog of cases, judicial cases that are now requiring the epa to move forward on certain things. i'm not saying that as an excuse. just a fact of life. and a lot of the issues, there was a lot of scientific evidence that in our opinion was ignored. we can debate scientific evidence that a lot of it may have been ignored of research and period. that is at the heart of a lot of these. but i hear the message and regulation overall the president has been a very strong we require each of the departments -- there are some independent agencies there's a debate going on right now with their we have the authority to order them and the cabinet agencies to do and they presented plans to the omb to do this sort of review that i mentioned that we saw in one

agency and try to get rid of the redundancy and the overlap. but there is an enormous number of rules and regulations in the pipeline that come out and we are trying to bring some rationality to them especially at a time of economic crisis and the impact they can have. we have been very strong. cat some steam who runs the group at omb who refuse all of these, we looked at the cost benefits and analyze that heavily. there's some rules that can't be looked at the cost model was only the benefit side by legislation but our attempt to get control over this and to try to make sure each of these rules being proposed half there's cost-benefit analysis that is rigorous and i appreciate your time. yes, sir.

>> the [inaudible] established in 1902 and while we were producing now we are [inaudible] one of the issues right now is the agreement and the president said he announce to double exports in the next few years but with all these trade barriers we can't do that and there's a lot of finger-pointing going on. as a businessman we need somebody that is going to get the job done.

competitors as devotion to agreement all round the world in emerging markets and in south america and if they are being left in the dust and we are beginning to see that as well almost as we are intentionally presenting ourselves from getting at the case. in your opinion or as you see will the fingerpointing stop anytime soon? >> finger-pointing will never stop in this town. the trade agreements will get done. there is -- and as was mentioned, in 1993i came in with to the white house special counsel to pass american free trade agreement. those two things for the most economic things that happened in

that demonstration. yes there's controversy around trade, no doubt about it. tremendous controversy, and as you have difficult times that have been around the world with the support for free trade or fair trade diminishes no protection action increases exponentially with the crisis so we've seen a lot of that. we've been aggressive this administration and the two and a half years we've been here in enforcing our trade law and the consensus for trade, the difficulty is, and the comment about your workers beginning to grow and understand this is an incredibly important and let me take a couple of minutes i don't want to sound like a longwinded washington person but it's a subject of serious about because

i think it plays in this. we lost the sort of colish and and no politician loses an election because they voted against trade, okay? most people do the easy thing. it is a no-brainer if you are looking at the raw politics to vote against the trade deal. people who do vote for trade deals, there's often in - result of that. the wall street parnell to the cultural had like almost 70% of the american people had a negative attitude about trade. i do believe that is the result of the tough economic times, people pulled back. we have to broaden the understanding of trade. it is not a win-win situation. there's no doubt about it. temporarily companies get challenged those of those who

believe in free trade there are challenges as a result and one of the things we are fighting for heavily with of these free trade deals, panama, korea and columbia, is a retreat adjusted to the assistance package. we think it's important whether it is too big, too small, effective or not but we think it's important to say to the american people when there is an impact of the deals we've got to be there to help temporarily and encourage them to move forward. in trying to build this consensus and we do appreciate the fact that supportive of that, that that's got to build a coalition that is not just trying to figure out how to get the minimum number of politicians to vote for these things but and then move on but companies have to say to the employees and this isn't just a

non-union, yes they have had trouble forever, but workers have to understand that, you know, there is a challenge. we have to do a better job that we've been aggressive on in enforcing the trade law that are on the books, highlighting the fact other countries are very protectionist. look the fact is people complain about the u.s. being protectionist, look at the amount of imports we have in the country. we've been the most open-ended in the economy over the 50 for 60 years since the war. it's a very controversial difficult thing. i'm very confident these trade deals will pass as well taa and then transpacific to try to do. doha is out there is a heavy lift for the world right now at least china, brazil and india, but i'm confident it will pass.

i think it's important to all as you visit the hill and talk to members or your community you talk to the politicians and workers. there are negatives and we have to protect the put the positives outweigh the overall economy. yes, sir. i've only got a couple more. i will probably regret saying that but that's okay. [laughter] >> [inaudible] presidents courageous move in the previous administration [inaudible] >> we are the comments i kind of mentioned, we've done a deep dive to try to come up with a

corporate tax reform package. there are winners and losers in that. there are some especially smaller businesses that may have taxes go up by virtue of that and media budget more taxes out of the jeeps for the big loans also but you also have whenever you do all of these there are winners and losers and it's a balance to try to get their right and be deficit neutral. so i'm confident that out of this budget negotiation and deal that i think is coming in order not only to extend the debt ceiling, which i think -- i know there's some people that think that's not a big deal if we default generally i know bankers think it's a big deal if you default. so i think out of that will come a serious intent of the corporate tax reform and personal tax reform.

the president has been cleared he believes we need in spite of the fact extending the tax cuts enacted in 2001 under the previous administration believing that was better for the middle class that at some point those of us who have done quite well over the last number of years have to pay more for all the expense of the country it's pretty simple when you look at why we went ten years from a budget surplus to a budget deficit but at some point we have to face up to the fact yes we have expenditures and we have been doing that substantially to the point where it's unprecedented in some of the spending not on the entitlement yet, but on her of that which is called non-defense discretionary which is about 12% of the budget

that's been cut rather substantially and there are people who feel the impact of that but we have been solid in the need to do that and in a wise way so it's not just about cutting. no business that gets in trouble can just cut its way to help. you have to take some of that money as you cut and invest in whether it is people or investments in technology is there are going to hopefully bring the return back. as a, it's a difficult balance, but i think under this budget to discussion and resolution in the debt ceiling and the deficit both corporate and individual tax reform has got to be looked at seriously. yes, sir? >> thank you very much for coming. i'm president and ceo of a

130-year-old company with five manufacturing facilities in the u.s.. with all due respect, actions speak louder than words. [inaudible] played out around the country. i've been trying to install and this is a good thing, reduces the if carbon footprint energy costs, -- de meckler are you located? >> massachusetts. >> we've been generating power. we haven't been on the jurisdiction since the get go

[inaudible] about two years because the fishery issues the fish and wildlife. we started making deals with the state and [inaudible] oct 2010. we just appealed that. i went to court last night after the celebration on my blackberry i had the ruling of the court. i'm going to read you this. given the state of the law we are required to affirm and exercise the first and jurisdiction in question we do

so without much enthusiasm to. [inaudible] referring to the fish and wildlife, and, they have something held up to this law it's good for the country, good for my business you have the president and the governor the and the one hand the government is telling what you to invest in this and the government agency -- this cantelon. this is just one small vignette. there's going to be thousands like this happening and what and the government continues to throw sands into the congress. we've got to change. >> i can't comment on the individual case. [applause]

>> , it is your typical sort of bureaucratic part to defend sometimes you can't defend indefensible. all i can see to do is first of all guilaume will look into it and see if there is any way to bring some reason to what has happened at this point and what's the logic of the delay and the impact that has had on your decision making and see what i can do. >> [inaudible] the fact of the matter is based on what last night is the [inaudible]

and the supreme court is not going to hear this. >> we have to look at some other ideas we can do but i'm not going to lay down. this is an example to be put a million, tobacco over the last 20 years one. [laughter] the [inaudible] new can't continue to fund the special agencies that are not spending taxpayers' money wisely. [applause] >> thank you.

yes, sir? [laughter] >> yes server. >> jim baker notwithstanding how would say it's been encouraging over the last 150 or 130 days. the administration has at least [inaudible] here's some of the offing when there's talk about on the certainty and i think it is a feeling of unprecedented business and the administration. and i think the administration may feel differently and it

would help us if the president would say look, i put manufacturing and jobs as my highest priority and i will do nothing but promote anything in terms of policy or regulation or acts that will make it hard to manufacture in the united states. it will make things more certain and i wonder what we can do to help do that. >> i appreciate that and any version of that he has said that to be frank with you, when you have a system and a government that this is probably a complaint that the last administration what has that to get control over this government at times is difficult in things that either as the result of a lawsuit, a result of legislation

that we have been past five years ago that called for a million fish to be put in the river and the effects of that happening years later. this president has been -- >> there is a balance right now you can't try to solve pollyanna things even though personally i'm an optimist i do believe this economy of ours is better than the perception right now. we did have three good months of creation that seem to react to the negative news much quicker than positive news. we don't want to believe the good to whatever reason we call psychoanalyze others but i think your observations are beginning

the president said but it didn't matter he didn't go to washington to rent a car company to come to take over and then be part of the t.a.r.p. program even though it had been done in the last administration that basically have the involvement banks that he had, but it was by virtue of the financial crisis that the american taxpayers stepped up and are still paying the price for basically financially driven recession deeper than anything but the great depression. it wasn't a result of manufacturing getting in trouble, and i had been -- i have been in a financial service sector. it was much excess in that industry and change and lack of regulation. there is another chain of the pendulum swings too far. in some people's mind if you are a client of bernie madoff you

probably felt the regulators didn't to a good job of overseeing that situation, and in the financial world many people believe that of the ability of regulators to understand this very complex and difficult change most financial regulations were enacted closer to the civil war than this period in the financial crisis so it got out of whack. how to get the balance right between the sound regulation and overbearing regulation i do think right now what you have also a situation everybody covers their behind and it's easy to say no if he were a regulator of care if you are a regulator in other industries to say no and cover your but so you don't end up on the front pages of bloomberg and that's bad because risk-taking by you and others is what drives this economy, and those in government

have to be able to respond to that and give you a little more wiggle room and not do stupid things like some i have heard today. >> let me again thank you as an organization for your being here. it's important that you come in here and people on the hill and i think you for the support of those things you have been helpful to us bringing to light and your questions today. thank you for a much. [applause]