the threshold for this bill is $1 million in gross online sales. now, that's not profit. that's $1 million in total sales, gross sales. $1 million for a starting business is not a terribly high threshold for their gross, not their profits. that has to cover the cost, all expenses of the business. it has to cover any salary, any rent, any web costs, any communications, travel, accounting, legal services plus the cost of goods sold. and these small and medium sized businesses would suddenly find themselves subject to 46 different states and 9,600 local jurisdictions. they would find themselves having to pay tax filingings attentionly in all 46 states monthly or quarterly and to be subjected potentially to audits from each of those local

counties, each of these local municipalities. you know, i have with me here today a listing of all of the tax rates in these 9,600 different jurors diksz and it is -- jurisdiction and it is truly indecipherable, you can pick any state and see the county and get the different tax rate and in a lot of counties, for example, i just opened this up at random, and -- all right so in colorado which i happened to open it up to, if you look in taylor park, if it happens to come from the 81210 zip code, the tax rate is 4.5% but if it's in the same county but comes from the 8123 zip code the tax rate is 8.25%. now, small businesses, a small mom and pop just getting started on the internet would be required to comply with all of these taxing jurisdictions, to send the taxes to all of these taxing jurisdictions and to be

subject potentially to audits from 9,600 taxing jurisdictions. that makes no sense. i'd like to point out also that this is not i think fundamentally about fairness. the proponents of this act point to small mom-and-pop stores, they're prime minister retailers but those are not the main proponents of these bills. a small brick-and-mortar retailer is losing sales to two different sources. number one, big-box brick-and-mortar retailers. a lot of sales to big box large retailers. this bill does nothing about that. number two, they're losing substantial sales to large online retailers, the giant corporations but here's an interesting statistic -- nine of the ten largest internet retailers are already paying sales taxes in all 46 states that have sales taxes. why? because they have physical presenceness the state.

what the supreme court has said if you're physically in a state, a the state can foafers to you collect its tax. if you're not physically there, the constitution doesn't let you haul someone in from a disassistant state and force them to collect your taxes because you don't have any accountability to those individuals in a disassistant state. now, -- disassistant state. in terms of the mom and mop retailers, they're losing to the big box all of whom are already paying these taxes. what do we have here? we have a bipartisan coalition, unfortunately, that it appears is going to pass this senate but the coalition i think is driven by the fact that you've got big business united. you've got the big business brick-and-mortar companies and the big business online retailers all together because the impact of this bill is to hammer the small business online retailers to make it harder for the little guys to compete. and so you see a strange

alliance here in washington, but one that i think is exactly backwards. what we ought to be doing. you know, i think it is fundamentally unfair to ask a texas business to collect taxes for california governor jerry brown or for new york mayor bloomberg and in any state. in particular because they can't hold those politicians accountable. though don't have a presence there, they don't vote there, they don't have influence there yet they are bragooned into collecting taxes. that's fundamentally not right. let me give you an example. there's a bottom in texas named ann whitley wood. she lives in dallas and has created an online consignment store. even though it's largely a one person operation, she may be close to doing $1 million in gross sales.

not profits, gross sales. her letter said "legislators must understand it is possible for a small seller like me to reach the $1 million in sales with a near one-person operation. she estimates it could take her six weeks a year to comply with the sales tax procedures for all of the collecting states. that impact on a small business is crushing. a giant corporation has accountants, has lawyers, has people designed to deal with that. a small business, it hits them in particular. and i point out even more fundamentally, the internet has been this incredible haven of entrepreneurial freedom. it has enabled people to start businesses with nothing out of their garage and sell all over the world. it has transformed the ability for single moms and hispanics and african-americans and people with nothing to go and start a business because it used to be

that you needed this big distribution network, you needed warehouses, you needed trucks, you needed all of this and so it was difficult for someone to start a small business. the internet has transformed all of that. there are 2.3 million hispanic small business owners. the internet has been critical to they're being --,this are being able to open those small businesses because it lets them communicate with the world and get their products out. i believe the senate should treat the internet as a safe haven, that it should be treated as free from taxes and regulations that would hamper the entrepreneurial spirit, that would make it harder for the bill guy for small businesses to be created, to grow and thrive. when they become giantic corporations they'll have physical presenceness the state and thane they're subject to the taxes but don't hit them when they're getting started on the internet. i think it would be absolutely foolish to do anything to impinge on the pren your rf

entrepreneurial freedom of the internet. in conclusion, i want to say three very simple things. number one, in my judgment, we should not be taxing the internet. period. number two, we should not be increasing the burdens on small businesses, particularly at a time of economic challenge, period. and number three, mr. president, we should not be favoring politicians and big business at the expense of the little guy, at the expense of the single mom trying to start a small business, to feed her kids, at the expense of the hispanic immigrants trying to start a small business and work towards the american dream. we should not be standing with politicians looking for more tax revenue and big businesses looking to make it harder for their competitors to survive. instead, we should stand up with the little guy, the small business, with the american people. i would urge the senate to reject this bill and if the

senate does pass it i would urge the house to listen to the american people on this and reject the bill as well. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i think we only have two or three minutes before the 20-minute period reserved equally for both sides. i'd like to use those three minutes to respond directly to my colleague from the state of texas. first he says don't tax the internet. good news, i just went through the entire bill, there is no tax on the internet in this bill, none. we've taken care of point number one. in fact, we wanted to add the internet freedom act which would have said spreetdly we'll continue the prohibition on the tax on the internet, it was objected to by one of the opponents of this bill. don't put a burden on small businesses. i would say what about the small business that doesn't have internet sales? you've put a burden on them because they can't compete with retailers who don't collect

sales tax. i'd say when it comes to small business exemptions we exempt those with sales of a million dollars or less this in the previous year. that exempts 99% of all internet reiterates. the small businesses, the hispanic and nonhispanic businesses collect taxes in texas on the first dollar of sales. we exempt a million dollars in sales for their competitors in internet retail. and the final thing, don't favor large businesses. the coamtion supporting this bill includes the smallest businesses, the mom-and-pop businesses. of course it includes the big box stores and big chains but goes all the way down the line. they're all in competition. we have have put in with this exemption exempts 99% of all online retailers. and when the gentleman says he looks at 9,600 different taxing jurisdictions and can't figure out how in the world we're going to figure this out i refer him to page 3 of the bill, please start reading at line of scrimmageline 14 through 24

where you will see that we expressly provide there must be a single entity within the state responsible for all state and local sales. so you're not going to have 9,600. you're going to have at most 45 separate entities, the 45 states with sales taxes as well as audits, one odd it from the state, a single audit. tweent want to put a burden on any businesses, large, small, internet or not but we do want a level playing field. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be 20 minutes of debate equally divided. who yields time? if no one yields time, the time will be charged equally. mr. durbin: parliamentary inquiry. i believe the -- the time was equally divided and the

opponents had the first ten minutes and the proponents the final ten minutes. so i would ask for to you clarify your ruling. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor again this afternoon to continue my opposition and concerns about the internet sales tax legislation that's been submitted. i appreciate we're going to vote on this bill in a few minutes and i appreciate that i'm probably going to lose. but i do think that it's important to raise these concerns again because i think we've got to take a look at the

issues that have been raised and see if there are any ways to address them. there are a number of problems with the bill that in my state of new hampshire which has no sales tax make it anything but fair. in fact, it creates an unfair situation for small businesses in a number of ways. first, it's unfair for businesses in my state of new hampshire and the four other states in this country that don't collect a sales tax. we didn't have an opportunity to address this issue through amendments. i think it's not fair for us to pass a bill out of the senate that is fundamentally -- that fundamentally makes an impact on businesses in states where we have no ability to address the imposition of these taxes. i also think we shouldn't pass a bill that's going to create unnecessary new red tape for intawl small companies across the country. one of the real benefits of the internet has been the innovation

that it spawned and the job creation that it spawned, and what this legislation does is put in place red tape that's going to put small companies that sell on line at a severe disadvantage meation it harder for them to compete with large online retailers. as a former small business owner myself i know how time consuming regulations and compliance can be and make no mistake about it, we are creating a bureaucratic morass for small businesses under this legislation. small companies will be looking at complying with 46 different state laws, they are going to face audits or lawsuits and potentially in some of these states and the small business owners who are working hard to grow their companies don't need agicial -- additional paperwork to dissphract them from running their companies. i fear that's what this bill will create and i urge my colleagues to take another look

and see how we can address those concerns. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

'

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to calendar number 44, s. 601, with be withdrawn. further, that at 2:15 p.m. on tuesday, may 7, the motion to proceed be agreed to, the senate begin consideration of the bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, in the closing ten minutes, the four proponents will be speak will be senator heitkamp of north dakota followed by senator alexander of tennessee, myself and then senator enzi of wyoming, who has for 11 years been waiting for this vote. and i want him to have the last

word. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: mr. president, this is a day that has been 20 years in the making. you have heard argument after argument here about how this bill has been rushed, how it's not ready, it's we have not yet had enough debate or deliberation. and i tell you, on behalf of the small business owners in my state who have told me it's about darned time that we do something about this, on behalf of them, i stand today and congratulate this body for taking this issue and taking a system that has been grossly unjust and incredibly unfair to main street businesses in our country and in our states and said, yes, the united states senate will not stand back and wait any longer before we give you marketplace fairness. this bill could not be and could not have a better name than

marketplace fairness. i got involved in this issue as a very young person. i like to say that because it was 20 years ago. litigating a case before the united states supreme court. i was moved to take that case to the court by a woman who approached me and said, look, i'm just trying to survive. i'm trying to participate as a good business person in -- in north dakota, trying to support my community, trying to do everything right, collect my sales tax, but i am getting killed in the marketplace because people are sending catalogs, people come into my store, they look at my products and they order this stuff through a mail-order business. please help me. and those pleas have for the last 20 years gone unheard by this body and by the house of representatives. but yet today we have a chance. we have a chance to stay to all those business people throughout our country who have been unfairly treated by a tax system

that does not recognize today's modern-day method of -- of marketing, this modern-day way that we do business and commerce in our country has not been recognized and they -- they continue to struggle, continue to thrive. i congratulate the senate. i congratulate all of the other senators who have pursued this with such vigor and such -- such hope. and i say, today is the day that we say "yes" to america's small businessmen. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, let me know when i've consumed 2 1/2 minutes. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. alexander: mr. president, i congratulate the senator from north dakota on 20 years of advocacy, senator enzi for his 11 years of tireless work here and senator durbin for his effective advocacy, and i'd make four quick points. the senator from texas said reinvigorating the economy should be the number-one priority for federal and state leaders. that is precisely the first sentence of art laugher art lafe

columnist in the "wall street journal," where he says states can cut their income tax rates if web vendors collect the sales taxes that are legally due. in other words, if you want economic growth, vote for the marketplace fairness act. number two, the idea this is too complex to do, mr. president, more than half of the sales now made on the internet are by retailers who collect the tax when it's sold. it's a tax that's already owed so how could it be too complex for anybody else to do? it's already being done. so that's specious. number three, it has been said this should have gone to committee. it did. it just would never come out of committee because the chairman -- and i say that with great respect -- did not want it to. should have had amendments. yes, it should have had amendments. why didn't it have amendments? because the opponents to the bill resorted to objecting to every single amendment. and finally, mr. president --

and i say this to my republican colleagues -- this is a conservative bill. i just mentioned mr. laffer. and i read this earlier but i want to read it again. the comments of the chairman of the american conservative union, lad cardenis. "dear senators, as you continue work next week on the marketplace fairness act, i'd like to call your attention to what conservatives are saying about the issue. they recognize, as i do, it is not the role of government to pick winners and losers in the marketplace by requiring brick-and-mortar stores to charge a sales tax while exempting internet sales." he then lists the comments of charles krauthammer favoring the idea, representative paul ryan favoring the idea, and, of course, we know william f. buckley did before he died. many governors do. mr. president, this is an idea for conservatives and for our country. i thank the president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin durbin: my thanks toy colleagues who are on the floor, especially to senator alexander.

senator enzi and i owe you a great debt of gratitude for your work on this bill, in helping us craft bill and bringing the support today. i ask consent the following four editorials be placed in the record at this point. from "the new york times," the "idaho state journal" the green bay press gazette" and the northwest herald illinois." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, what is happening with internet sales? they're growing dramatically. listen to these numbers. in 2012, on-line sales accounted for $225 billion in sales in america. in the next five years, it will double to $435 billion. it is a -- an endeavor that has become part of our lives. and ma w what we are asking in s bill is that those selling on the internet be treated just as same as those selling on the corners of our streets, to make sure that the bricks-and-mortar businesses have a level playing field, that's all we're asking. this bill contains no new federal tax, no new state and local tax. what it does is collect taxes already owed.

it simplifies the system by saying there will only be one taxing entity that identifies the taxes to be charged in every single state, one audit from each state. it tries to provide for the retailers the basic software that they need to get the job done. this is a fascinating bill. for those who follow the senate, it's a rare opportunity for us to have republicans and democrats together on the floor supporting a bill that is -- has the endorsement of business and labor and local officials all across the united states. it is clearly an idea whose time has come. and i hope that we can pass it with a good, strong vote and i encourage our friends in the house to take it up quickly. i want to close by thanking my colleague from wyoming. he's been a great partner in this effort. he came to it before i did. i replaced senator dorgan after senator dorgan's retirement and tried to keep this moving forward. today's our day for a vote. i thank him for all of his hard work on his side of the aisle. i yield the floor to my colleague from wyoming.

the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i want to thank all the people that have participated in this, particularly senator durbin, who's helped to coalesce things, senator alexander, who came up with the idea for having a shorter bill, only 11 pages. never see it in the united states senate. written in plain english. and it states -- it's states' rights. this doesn't cause the federal government to do anything. what it allows is for the states to do what they have already passed laws on. and i can see this from the standpoint of an individual. i know that in wyoming, if you buy something on the internet and you're not charged a tax, you're supposed to fill out a form and send it n. that's a difficult thing to do, hard to even keep track of. and this will eliminate that -- that problem of individuals wanting to pay their tax but not knowing exactly how to do it. i know it from the stand pointed of a small business -- standpoint a small businessman. they have the experience of someone coming in, trying on the

goods, finding exactly what they want, the size, the color, the feel, everybody, everything, ann ordering it on the internet. and the even more ironic thing is when they have a problem with it, they bring it back to the local retailer to fix it. and i've ten season it from a standpoint of a mayor. i know in wyoming at least 30% and up to 70% of the revenue of the municipalities comes from the sales tax and that's on a declining basis at the moment. that's not only what they run the city's streets and snow removal and -- and a lot of the police, the fire protection, even education gets affected by the -- by the sales tax. but i've seen it from the standpoint of a legislator as well. and i know when we passed those taxes, we didn't say, okay, we just want to discriminate against the local business that pays a property tax, hires people locally and participates in all the community stuff. and if you're out of state, we're going to let you off the hook. no legislator ever passed a bill like that. so this is one that corrects all of those things and brings

fairness to the marketplace and i think will make a significant difference particularly in communities where they'll still be able to help out some of the charitable organizations and -- and activities that will have to go by the wayside if this bill were not to pass. and i look forward to working with the people on the house side. i want to thank senator durbin, senator alexander and senator heitkamp particularly for all of their effort on this and senator heitkamp for her persistence over 22 years and knowing the intricacies of how it works being on the canadian border as well as having been involved in the original case where the supreme court challenged us to fix this problem. and today we have a chance to fix this problem. i ask people to vote for the bill. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of s. 743, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 41, s. 743, a bill to restore

state's sovereign rights to enforce state and local sales and use tax laws, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is considered expired. under the previous order, amendment number 745 is withdrawn. the question is on amendment number 741 offered by the senator from nevada, mr. reid. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 70, the nays are 24. the amendment is agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: could we have order? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. mr. reid: mr. president, this afternoon, i offered a consent agreement dealing with the budget. i withdrew that because we didn't have anyone here to object, and i had an inkling that there would be an objection if a republican were here. mr. president, we have been asked to move with regular

order. we've done that. we've done our very best to do that. people wanted amendments. we've done our best to have bills with amendments. we have asked -- we have been asked let's do as much work as we can with committees, and we've done that. we had bills reported out of the committee. those are the bills we have handled here with rare exception. so now we have had our republican friends saying for months and months let's do things with regular order. we know how hard it was to get a budget passed. we had over a hundred amendments we actually voted on here. we were here until 5:00 in the morning. and we got a budget, even though we -- we have been through this before, we don't need to go into more detail. we have had a law signed by the president of the united states that gave us our budget allocations for several years. but we decided to do a resolution and have it be signed by the president. i'm glad we did it.

it was hard. senator murray, senator sessions did a good job allowing us to move forward on that. so now it's time we go forward. we have a budget resolution we passed here in the house -- in the senate. we want to meet with the house, work out our differences. that's what we have done here for two centuries. we should do it on this bill. so i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 33, h. con. res., the amendment which is at the desk, the text of s. con. res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the senate inserted in lieu thereof that h. con. res. 25 as amended, the vote be considered, made and laid on the table, that the senate insist on its amendment and request a conference of the house of the disagreeing votes between the two bodies and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the senate all with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, one of my concerns is

that this conference report could be used to pass a reconciliation bill that would increase the debt ceiling without sufficient input from the minority party, and without addressing the fundamental structural spending problems we have at the federal government that are -- that are leading to our unsustainable debt. this concern, i believe, is well-founded in history in that reconciliation bills have been used to increase the debt ceiling at least three times, in 1986 and 1990 and in 1993. and so for that reason, reserving the right to object, i would ask consent that the leader modify his request so that it not be in order for the senate to consider a conference report that includes tax increases or reconciliation instructions to increase taxes or to raise the debt limit. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection to the modified request? mr. reid: i would make a comment before making a decision on that. the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. reid: the senate considered the budget, and that's an understatement. we voted on more than 100 amendments, as i mentioned just a few minutes ago. it was hard. the votes were hard. the senate passed its budget. it should now go to a conference that the senate passed. it's our budget. the senator from texas was on the loosing side. he had his view and it lost, but now he wants us to agree by consent to adopt the losing side's view or else he is not going to allow us to go to conference. for more than two centuries, i repeat, the two bodies are able to go work out their differences. the senate passes something, the house passes something. you talk about regular order, that's it. we are able at that time to sit down and talk about the differences. the debt ceiling, he wants to

talk about that, he wants to talk about taxes, we're happy to do that, but let's do it in the context of regular order. that's what we should be doing around here. my friend from texas, -- from texas is like the school yard bully. he pushes everybody around and is losing, and instead of playing the game according to the rules, he not only takes the ball home with him but changes the rules. that way no one wins except the bully who tries who indicate to people he has won. we're asking republicans to play by the rules and let us go to conference. i don't think it takes a lot of wizardry to figure out that we know how the american people feel about what they want done with this country. they want us to get on a pathway of growth and economic vitality that has been hindered. now, the republicans have one -- they have things they want to do, we have things we want to do.

why can't we sit down as reasonable men and women and work out our differences? that's what a conference is all about. so i object to what my friend suggests. it's actually fairly ridiculous, if you want the truth. before we go to conference to determine what you are or not going to do in the conference. that's not how we do things around here. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i wasn't aware we were in a school yard. mr. reid: there is either an objection or no objection. let's hear a -- we have had enough. reserving the right to object. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object. mr. reid: mr. president, there is no such thing, okay? mr. cruz: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: yes, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the clerk will read the bill for a third time. the clerk: calendar number 41, s. 743, a bill to restore

states' sovereign rights to enforce state and local sales and use tax laws, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on passage of s. 43 as amended. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 69. the nays are 27. the bill as amended is agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, may 7, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the leaders be reserved for use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. further, following morning business the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 242, medine nomination as provided under previous order and the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be a roll call vote on medine amendment -- i'm sorry -- nomination at noon tomorrow, at 2:15 we'll begin consideration of s. 601, water resourceopme del act. i've spoken to the two managers

of the bill, chairman boxer, ranking member vitter, and they're going to meaning this bill to the best of their ability. they have experience. they know the issue and people should be ready to work with them to see if we can move this bill as fast as possible. if there will be no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

the agency will face an existential dilemma. you have the internet order but you also have the death of the social contract that builds the industry in the cable and strand that is to say both of those were fundamentally built on it premise that if we give you a monopoly you serve everybody and we have other requirements. as we move to an all day the world, the economic foundations of his contracts are crumbling. see a thing for me 2017 and we look back assuming it's probably one term of the presidency i think whether it's success or failure will probably be determined by whether or not those auctions are a success or failure. they are going to be very complicated. there are a lot of landmines. there are a lot of different thorny issues to figure out and they clearly have the skills and the relationship of the know-how to get that done.

>> navy secretary ray mabus to participate in a recent military exercise known as ram pack operated with a 50/50 blend of while in traditional fuels. speaking at an event hosted by the truman national security project, secretary mabus spoke about the navy school and getting half of its energy from alternative fuels by 2020. this is 40 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon.

dominant women of united states navy are incredibly well prepared. incredibly well-informed, mission driven bunch and they know how to execute many operations with perfect planning and precision-guided by intelligence so it's a complete menace mystery to me how they allowed an army veteran teacher in today's their boss. it's in all seriousness it's a great honor to walk on the 73rd secretary of the navy -- navy ray mabus. his career in government and public service is incredible. from his own service as a seaman of the navy and his service to the government of mississippi to his incredible work in the reconstruction of the gulf coast following the horizon oil spill. now to his eye would say it's fair to say his visionary leadership of secretary for native states navy. that leadership is manifested

itself in many ways but we are especially excited by his leadership in energy security and the navy's energy initiatives. about four years ago the treman project started a campaign called operation free. a coalition of veterans and national security experts many of whom had served on the ground in iraq and afghanistan and other conflicts who were committed to energy security and to embracing new technologies in order to secure our future. and we hoped for a leader like secretary mabus to take the stage. and so we have been proud to support his work as the navy has embraced visionary new technologies flying f-18 hornet fighter aircraft on what has got to be the most high-powered chicken in the history of the world. powering battle groups airing major naval exercises on new fuels and technologies and so we are proud to stand with him and inspired by his leadership.

so please join me in welcoming secretary mabus and secretary all the veterans of operation free across the country and often members of the truman project, we are proud to stand behind to. finally, go army. [applause] >> mike breen thank you and again my apologies that you were turned down at annapolis. [applause] [laughter] i am just going to quit. you know, i have gotten to be friends with mike and i

appreciate deeply the opportunity to come and speak to the german project and operation free but also on a personal note thank mike for his service in iraq and afghanistan, the united states and to thank all the veterans who are here today for what you have done for this country and what you are continuing to do. and thanks to the truman national security project and operation free for bringing such needed attention to some of these crucial issues that we are facing. as the secretary i am responsible for recruiting, training and equipping the almost 900,000 sailors, marines, civilians who spend every day working to defend the american people and our national

interest. every day, navy ships, submarines, aircraft and marine units are deployed worldwide to protect and defend america around-the-clock or from our shores or from home and far from their loved ones. they are in every sense of the word of america's team. in this job i also oversee the purchase and maintenance of our ships and our bases. as i look at how to carry out those responsibilities, the kind of fuel we buy and how to use power is a strategic and a tactical question and vulnerability. our ability to get it, our ability to pay for it impacts our national security and their ability to be there to provide our national defense. so being there matters.

in military. >> that a lot of you recognize, being there translates into presence. in the business world american companies are around the world in overseas markets because being there matters. the state department has embassies in nearly every country on the globe because being there matters and that is why your navy and marine corps are always there. when north korea threatened a missile launch our ships with ballistic missile defense capabilities are there. when the earthquake hit haiti in 2010 and the tsunami hit japan in 2011 we had navy ships delivering relief within hours because they were already there. but being there requires the right people with the right tools in the right place at the

right time. to accomplish those things, i focus on four priorities. people, platforms, power and partnerships. now some folks keep asking why his power in there? why is energy in there? without energy to power our platforms, we might not be there when it matters. dod, the department of defense, is the largest single consumer of fossil fuels on the face of the earth. the vast majority of our power in the navy comes from fossil fuels. oil is the ultimate global commodity. it is traded sometimes on speculation and rumor.

supply shocks like america experienced in the 1970s are not very frequent but they remain a really strategic concern. but price shocks, price shocks have been way too often. they are caused by everything from -- hardliners and national and transnational instability are threats to disrupt supplies. because we purchased our fuel on the open market, the impact of these -- of this price for oil has a major impact on our budget. every time the cost of a barrel of oil goes up a dollar because the navy and marine corps $30 million in additional fuel costs. in fiscal years 11 and 12, just those two years, our fuel bill

was almost a billion dollars higher than we had budgeted because the price of oil went up quicker than anyone had anticipated. now these extra funds are mainly paid out of the operational accounts, which means less time flying and ships spend less time at sea and paris and spend less time in the field. you see it a lot today. about the renaissance of oil and gas production in the united states. which is great. but, once again, oil is the ultimate global commodity, even if we could produce every single drop that america needs inside america we could not control the price. those price shocks would be there regardless.

because even in peacetime, the threat of some unstable regime, and i use the term unstable regime because my public affairs officer told me i had to quit using the term yahoo!. [laughter] and here she is. so the threat of some yahoo! in some unfavored regime. [applause] i'm going to pay for this in a way that you all can't even imagine. they drive prices up it may affect our budget and our

readiness. and there are more dramatic cost. in wartime, it threatens our energy supplies and vulnerabilities that can and do cost lives. during the height of operations in afghanistan, we were losing, killed or wounded one marine for every 50 convoys of fuel that came into the theater. that's absolutely unacceptable. now to help address these fiscal threats, military weaknesses and combat effectiveness in 2009 and as mike pointed out i establish some energy goals through the department of the navy. these goals drive the navy and marketing corp. strengthen our combat capability by using energy more efficiently but also by diversifying our sources of power. one of the big goals is that by no later than 2020 at least half of all energy used by the navy and marine corps afloat and

ashore, will come from alternative fuel. to help us achieve that, we are trying in the department to develop the next generation of energy innovation and that is dropping advanced biofuels. exploring new ways to empower our ships and that is absolutely nothing new for the navy. we have got a long history and those of you who've heard me speak before have heard this but coal to oil and pioneer to nuclear so from the 1840s and 50's until today, the u.s. navy has lead in changing energies and we haven't done this because it's been the latest fad and we sure haven't done it because the new supply was cheaper.

it's hard to be cheaper than free which is what the wind is. and just look today if the cost differences between a conventionally powered suband a nuclear-powered one. at the end of world war ii, the u.s. navy and praised the then revolutionary idea that nuclear power could be used to drive ships and submarines. there were folks everywhere that skeptical would be an improvement on their few. they challenged everything. safety, size, practicality, cost but the navy did it because of its impact on the warfighting capabilities. those critics it turned out were wrong, absolutely wrong then and

now more than six decades later nuclear power is still giving the edge to carriers and submarines. today we are on a similar course with things like i'll fuels. at the direction of the president, the department of the navy has teamed up with the department of agriculture and energy to fund the advance drop in biofuel initiative to help the development of multiple geographically dispersed priorities. last fall dod issued a multiphase procurement solicitation under title iii of the defense production act. the dpa has been around since 1950. it says that if national security and the department of defense needs something that america does not produce insufficient quantity, we can invest in it. energy is specifically called out.

and what we are trying to do is construct or retrofit through public-private partnerships multiple commercial scale next-generation biorefineries, geographically dispersed and capable of producing cost competitive drop in biofuels that meets military specs. d.o.t. negotiated with several companies that can do just that and i have made a commitment and dod has a policy that we will not buy operational quantities until they are cost competitive. but having said that, i am absolutely confident that it will be cost effective. when we begin buying those operational quantities. as mike referenced last summer in 2012, the biggest naval exercise in the world the rim of

the pacific, ram pack, the entire carrier striker everything from surface ships to every type of aircraft that took off for flying on a 50/50 blend of biofuels and aviation gas or marine diesel. the big news out of that exercise was that there was no news. we didn't change a thing. we bought these biofuels and yet had some unused cooking oil. we put it in our normal logistics chain and got it to hawaii and put it on there now misnamed -- and to get to see. we didn't change a single engine

and a single aircraft. we didn't stay in just single setting on anything. it was absolutely since seamless, absolutely transparent the engines, the aircraft, couldn't tell the difference. and that is one of the keys. only the source of fuel should change because we have got almost all the fleet, either at sea or being built today that we are going to have in 2020. we have got most of the aircraft that we will have in 2020. to change her engines, to accommodate other fuels like liquid natural gas, would be incredibly and prohibitively expensive and would cost a whole lot more than pursuing this drop-in solution.

now, we are pursuing alternative fuels. we are pursuing them in this biofuel initiative than pursuing them on shore with things like geothermal and hydrothermal wind and all of that is critical. all of that is incredibly important but being better at how we use fuel is important too doing the same missions, the same things but just using less fuel. our newest amphibious ship, the uss back in habla is a good example. these big deck amphibian ships, 3000 sailors and marines on board, they carry helicopters and naval landing craft and marine expeditionary unit. megan eiland is unique in that it has a hybrid propulsion system. it's got an electric power plant

for. >> under 12 knots. last summer the island went on its port and it had a 33 million-dollar fuel budget. it only spent 18 million. it came back with $15 million in fuel savings from one deployment. so plans for next to big amphibians the uss america and the uss tripoli include the same hybrid system and we are working on a similar system to retrofit into our ddg-51's. now, the marine corps, and i have to say when you think of marines you generally don't think of ardent environmentalists.

[laughter] but i will tell you, they are so far ahead in proving that renewable energy increases combat effectiveness particularly in actual combat in afghanistan. using their experimental forward-operating base program they developed an alternative energy source from the private commercial sector that helped reduce their dependence on these fuel convoys and nontraditional sources of fuel like fossil fuels and like batteries. in the fall of 2010, the third battalion fifth marines deployed. they deployed to helmand province where some of the hardest fighting in afghanistan

was going on. and they went with things identified by the process and they saw dramatic impact. what it allowed a foot patrol to do is operate in three weeks using solar blankets to power their radios and gps's and not batteries. so they could go for three weeks without a battery resupplied in a very few days. they shed 700 pounds of batteries, so those 200 marines did not have to go -- hall that extra 700 pounds. the equipment once they tested it, and they tested it in combat, it got turned around and put into production and it's a standard part today of the marine corps. entire battalions in afghanistan are equipped now with these

energy technologies like the solar blankets or l.e.d. lights for tents tensor solar generators for forward operating bases. because of this new equipment, in afghanistan, the marines are putting 208 fewer trucks on the road, saving 5.4 million gallons a year and that means fewer convoys, fewer marines that we need to protect. we are not the only ones working on the assembly are not the only ones who realize how important developing alternative fuels and being more efficient in how we use them. our friends and allies around the world are exploring similar programs to increase their combat effectiveness and their strategic flexibility. the australian navy who participated in rimpac and the australian wheat commander flew one of his helicopters and

landed on biofuels. we signed an agreement to cooperate on the development of biofuels. when he was asked about what he committed to this program he said i'm about to get on the helicopter. [laughter] so, yes. the british army partnering with marines in afghanistan are using alternative energy equipment developed by the marines that they now operate. now all the technology involved the engineering and all the chemistry is great but i think the best part of all this initiative is watching how quickly sailors and marines have understood and embraced this change. it's a cultural change and it's

going on across the navy and the marine corps. it's happening on the deck flights. sailors and marines have come to grips with the fact that these programs help them become more effective warfighters and help them do their jobs better. getting locked into things because it there it's the way we have always done things or we have never done things that way in the rationale, it's an excuse. if you joined the navy or the marine corps, it usually means you have already got some of that adventuresome spirit and you want to see what's over the horizon. you want to see what comes next. you want to be a part of that change. and that same spirit creates sailors, marines delivering new

and innovative solutions and you want to find better ways to do things. i went and visited makin island during the deployment and one of the places i always tried to go on in the ship is engineering department. number one because nobody ever goes where the engineers are. it's usually hot and you can talk to a third class petty officer, a jg standing watch down there and you can find out a lot about how that ship operates. while i was there, i talked to the engineering officer who was on watch. he was a lieutenant commander but he was a mustang, enlisted service person where he became an officer.

one of the things he said was that he was proud of the new hardware and he was proud of how well makin island was doing but he said the reason is not just the hardware. the reason is that we are now competing to see who can save the most fuel. we are competing to come up with ideas that the third class petty officer's, the most junior folks live and work in that engine room every day understand that ship better than anybody and they were the ones coming to him and saying loss, i have got away i think we can do this better. the sailors were taking it on themselves to get better and make their platform a better warfighting plot form. now to encourage efficiency and

energy-saving ideas every year the secretary secretary of the navy energy and water management awards and all sorts of people ship to shore installations around the world last year makin island one in the picture category but the ships like the -- in the medium and small sized ship combined to save 40,000 barrels of fuel just through better planning and conservation efforts. so, as we in this country transition from two land wars in central asia to the very maritime defense strategy, it was announced by the president in january of 2012 hour naval forces are going to be even more critical in the years ahead.

that strategy folks on the western pacific arabian gulf in building partnerships requires a forward-deployed flexible multimission force. that is the description of the navy and marine corps. and we are here in congress and we have got some complicated fiscal realities. and it requires us to balance our missions with our resources. we are going to have to make some tough decisions and we are going to have to be strategic in our thinking and our planning. one of the things i get asked some times in hearings defending the budget is, is this the right time to be investing in stuff like alternative energy? my response is, we can't afford not to now. if we don't do it now, with the

spikes that come with these price shocks, we are not going to have the money to do the operations that we need. we are not going to have the money or the buildings big enough to build the platforms that we need. it's absolutely an imperative now. and so those four priorities i talked about, people ,-com,-com ma platforms, power and partnerships are being used as a guide in how we make those decisions. and energy to fuel our ships to fuel our bases is the central challenge for our future just as it has been for a pass. it helps guarantee our presence and it helps guarantee our ability to respond and gives the president flexibility and

options to any crisis that may arise. and that spirit, that willingness and wanting to know what's over the horizon is the reason that our navy and marine corps remains on the cutting-edge of innovative ideas. and those are the characters, character traits and characteristics that will help ensure that the navy and marine corps continue to protect the american people, continue to do the work of this country around the world. president george washington, not a navy man, mike. [laughter] said at the end of the american

revolution, it follows that certain as the night exceeds day that without a decisive naval force, we can do nothing definitive but with one, everything honorable -- thank you all very much. [applause] [applause] who has got a question? >> appreciate you taking the time to call talk to us today.

the question i have is that there are times that an article describing china as maritime power and bring the erosion of our maritime powers. the context of my question is when i joined the navy some years ago we were talking about 600 ships to provide the presidency are described and now we are talking numbers less than half. given our current maritime strategy what number do you think we currently need to provide that required presence and do you have the resources to do so? >> is very fair and a great question. we did a force structure assessments that says we need a fleet of about 306 ships to do everything, to do all of our missions. the good news is that after years of decline, we are on track to have a 300 ship fleet at least by 2019.

and i will give you a couple of numbers. on 9/11, 2001 the u.s. navy had 316 ships. we have 377,000 sailors. i 2008, that number had declined to 278 ships and 49,000 fewer sailors said during one of the great military build ups of american history the navy got significantly smaller. in 2008 we put three ships on contract. not enough to keep the fleet size from declining and not enough to support the industrial base. we have put 43 ships under contract. we have the ships under contract today, being built, that with eight more ships, we will get to 300. i mean, it's there. we are doing it.

and these ships, one of the reasons that these numbers of the fleet's bounce up and down is that as you pointed out in the 80s, the goal was a 600 ship navy to make the soviet fleet. they are retiring now and so we are retiring a whole lot of ships and we are not replacing them one-to-one but we are replacing them with greater capabilities. now quantity becomes quality all of its own but is a 300 round fleet we can have a -- on the rise and by using ships. we are putting forward ddg and the cno is fond of pointing out that every ddg going forward takes the place of four back home. we are putting for lt's's in

singapore. in fact i'm meeting on tuesday to go meet the first one that just got there. not homeported, but forward-deployed there and we are going to have the crew fallen on the ship. the ship will stay there for a good while and we have the blue crew and a gold crew. three crews for every two ships so the ships are always manned and one crew is back home doing training. so i am very confident that we have the fleet and we will have the fleet to do the missions that we need to do. now, as i said during my talk, one of the things we have got to do that was make sure that we do have the money and making sure that we are not spending a billion dollars extra because of some unstable regime threatening

to close the straits of hormuz. and it's with that in mind that we are pursuing these energy goals but i am, as secretary, as confident in platforms and people in the navy as a think and the secretary has ever been. >> to follow up on john's question actually and talk soft side with the intellectual rebalancing and the rebalancing strategy. you mentioned saying that we have been rebalancing with east asia but we don't have the intellectual capital for the operators or intel officers,

understanding the area regional knowledge logistics and culture. is there more we could be doing in the upcoming years in order to rebalance the regent? thank you. >> it's one of the things that cno and i have been working the most on. the fornatale's officer. it's a growing community and we are getting people coming in earlier. we are getting people who are incredibly capable in terms of language, in terms of cultural awareness, to go into this crucial bank. it is part of how navy innovates and grows and learns that we have been involved in central asia and we were innovative

there. the first trip i made to afghanistan and next week i'm going back for my 11th trip, i visited pacheco province near the pakistan border way up in the mountains. the provincial reconstruction team there was commanded by a navy submarine commander. his two top enlisted were submarine sheets here that i'm pretty sure when they joined the navy they did not expect to be on the side of the mountain in afghanistan, but they were and they did it. they did it great. and so as we do the read dellums dellums -- rebalance i am confident whether it's the war college or the navy pros -- postgraduate school, the academy's, the communities, our special forces who each one gives language and training

coming out that we will have intellectual underpinnings and we will have the intellectual capability and finally, one of the things this allows me to point out is the partnership building that is so important under the strategy and the fact that many times sailors and marines are the only americans, they have to be great warriors but they also have to be great diplomats. yes. okay. >> good afternoon. my question is on the arctic and i'm wondering politics aside on the science and the treaties that just in terms of having the correct platforms and power. this is probably one of the newest locations where the navy has to go so i'm just wondering your thoughts on the

partnerships and of course as well with things going on there. thank you. >> absolutely. we have got an arctic roadmap that was produced by your task force climate change three or four years ago. we are taking another look at that to make sure that we have got the right platforms as the arctic icecap shrank -- shrinks particularly in the summer. you are beginning to see the northwest passage opening up so all those streams of four, five, 600 years ago are all there but it's going to take the navy, it's going to have new responsibilities for the navy. it's going to have, it's going to make partnerships with those arctic nations and with nations that are going to sail through the art tick. to make sure that whatever

frictions, whatever disputes arise over resources or sea lanes are managed and managed in a peaceful way and in a way that keeps free commerce, freedom of movement, freedom of the city spared. i will put in a plug here. politics, we need to pass the law of the sea and ratify the law of the sea convention. we are the only world power that has done it. it keeps us from having a seat at the table and it harms our national interest and it's way past time that we did that. that will help us in the arctic. mike tells me this is my last, that was the last question and i just want to -- i always listen to what the army says. [laughter] >> agency will face an existential dilemma. you have an open internet order but you also have what you might think of as the death of the

social contract that built the california industry and the cable industry. that is to say both of those were fundamentally built on the premise that if we give you a monopoly you serve everybody. we have universal service and other requirements. as we move to an all day the world the economic foundations of those contracts. >> i think when we get into 2017 we look back on tom's tenure assuming it's probably one term of presidency, i think whether it's success or failure will be determined by whether or not those auctions are a success or failure. they're very complicated and they're going to be very complicated. there are a lot of land mines. there are a lot of different thorny issues to figure out and tom has clearly got the skills and the relationship and the know-how to get that done. >> mrs. grant was interesting.

they had this extraordinary rollercoaster existence. for most of their lives, she regarded him as an abject failure unable to provide for his family and an an in almost no time at all suddenly he was the most popular man in the country, the man who has saved the union on the battlefield and then president of the united states. >> junior loved her time in the white house. she said in her memoirs that it was like a bright and beautiful dream, white, the most wonderful time of my life so i think that gives you some idea of how much he enjoyed being first lady and how she felt that her husband had finally achieved the recognition he deserved.

white house press secretary jay carney said it's highly likely that syrian president assad's regime bought the rebel opposition was behind any chemical weapons used in syria. he took questions on several topics at today's white house briefing. you can see his remarks in their entirety on our web site, c-span.org and here is some of what he said. >> it is very important that we establish conclusively the evidence about chemical weapons use in syria and that includes who used it and under what circumstances and where. having said that it is also our position and that is why the investigation continues and that is why we are working we are working with both the united nations and through other means to gather evidence.

separate from math or related to that is the fact that we are highly skeptical of any suggestions or accusations by the opposition to use chemical weapons. we find it highly likely that chemical weapons if they were in fact used in syria and there is certainly evidence that they were, that the assad regime was responsible. but to the point of your question about why we need to be thorough and gather facts that can be corroborated and reviewed and resented, you know, we have to be sure about the case that we are making and the president has made clear from here and from his statements and the answers he gave in press conferences of rod that is what he intends. >> when the president made his comment about the red line the first time in august in his conference almost a year ago did he go further than he had

intended, that he and the staff had discussed? >> the red line was deliberate and based on u.s. policy. the world knew that the syrian government possessed chemical weapons and might use chemical weapons against the syrian people and desperation. the message the president delivered that day was the same message that he was delivering in private. it was one that he and others of of the ministries never enforce on multiple occasions ever since and as i said it was consistent with what we were saying both to the oz -- assad regime and others. >> was he concerned that they had policy? >> it is by definition a game-changer when chemical weapons are used. there are international conventions that prohibit the use of chemical weapons and their international laws that are violated when chemical weapons argues. it is by definition a game-changer when the president talked the other day about the fact that the use of chemical

weapons enhances the prospector increases the prospect of proliferation of those weapons getting into the hands of terrorists or other nonstate actors, and that by extension that creates further threats to the united states and our allies, that is why it is such a significant event and that is why it is the red line. the president made clear when he said that from here and he reiterated on numerous occasions thereafter. >> doubling down on the red line comment, is there no concern that by doing this you are raising expectations for some kind of actions because you are now being criticized. see what the president made clear was that it was a red line and that it was unacceptable and that it would change his calculus if he viewed the situation in syria because the use of chemical weapons escalates this thread i just described. what he never did and it is

simplistic to do so is to say that if x happens y what happened. he never said what reaction he would take at a policy level to the proved crossing approved crossing of the red line in syria. simply that he would consider it a red line that have been crossed and that he would take appropriate action and as the investigation continues and as we have said all along, looking at a range of options and he is not removing any option from the table if you will. and he will take action that he thinks is in the interest of the united states and our national security as well as in the interest of the syrian people. >> willie take action if and when but he will take action? >> you have heard the president make clear that he consisted --

considers it a serious transgression and that is why we need to assemble all of the evidence to ensure that we have a case that chemical weapons have been used and that he will look at an array of options that are available to him in response to that great. >> yesterday's "new york times" helped to take some of the burden off by raising all these things and suggesting that the need to have all the evidence before he acts? >> the fact is and i think as i mentioned earlier, there is a breeze and enough example of why we need to make sure we have our backs in matters like these and the dangers are inherent of not having those facts in corroborating and corroborating the evidence so we don't need stories like this one to make that case. the president i think is very clear about how serious he

considers the use of chemical weapons and very clear about the fact that we need to make sure we have all the evidence before you make pelosi decisions based on the use of chemical weapons. >> how is it a red line if it has crossed the so-called red line and there is nothing specific tied to its? >> i think we have had this discussion several times already >> you tell someone you cross a red line you are in trouble, they're supposed to be something at the end of it. >> we have made clear that do we were concerned in our international partners were concerned that assad as he became beleaguered would resort to the use of chemical weapons. it was essential that we made clear both in private communications to the assad regime as well as in public and the president did how seriously we would view the use of chemical weapons and that is what the president did. we are now in the process of gathering the facts, not rushing to conclusions and not acting

precipitously based on an incomplete case but gathering the facts in order to make a judgment about what policy actions the president might take in reaction to the crossing of the red line. and i think that is entirely the right way to go and certainly with the american people would support rather than say a precipitous action based on strong but limited evidence. >> last week he said on this podium that putting the departments of state and defense had told you and had told congressman issa that they were not aware of anyone else in the department who want to come forward and say anything about this. now that their art looks like at least two or three witnesses who are going to be speaking to darryl issa speaking publicly at his hearing on wednesday, do you think they told the whole story last week? >> i don't understand. these witnesses are going to talk to congress and we have said that we are not aware of anyone who has been blocked from speaking to congress if they so choose or want to speak to

congress. we are unaware of anyone being locked from talking to congress if they chose to or wanted to speak to congress and i would point you to the fact that there was an accountability review board shared by two of the most distinguished experts in our national security establishment, nonpartisan actors, admiral mullen and ambassador pickering who oversaw this review and it was unsparing. it was critical and it held people accountable and it made a series of recommendations for actions that could be taken to improve security to reduce the potential of these types of events from happening in the future and every single one of those recommendations has been or is being implemented by the state department. >> by his greg hicks who was the number two to ambassador stevens now going to tell congress and the american people that there were a u.s. special forces who are in tripoli getting ready to

board a plane come to benghazi to help these americans and they were told to stand down? >> i think the department defense has addressed this. i don't have access to the interviews that i think you refer to and some of the news reports. in terms of that issue, the response the department of defense took in the actions that the department of defense took in response to what was happening in benghazi it would refer you to them. they address this very issue and i would refer you to the content of the aarp. again admiral mullen, ambassador pickering former chairman of the joint cheats one of the most respected diplomats, living diplomats in our country who served under the presidents of both parties oversaw a very rigorous investigation that reached another of conclusions including the fact that action was taken immediately and appropriately and that action saved american lives. >> they said greg hicks --

he is challenging the credibility of the white house. you don't care for what he says? you think he is lying? >> again you are citing an interview that i know nothing about. i'm saying that there was an accountability review board led by two men of unimpeachable expertise and credibility who oversaw the process that was rigorous and unsparing, that was highly critical in some areas and that produced a series of recommendations that have all been acted on by the state department as the president insisted be the case. what he made clear from the very outset in the wake of benghazi was that he wanted action taken to ensure that we found out who was responsible and that they were brought to justice and that

action be taken to ensure that we implement the steps necessary to improve the security of our diplomats and diplomatic capabilities around the country so that this kind of thing can happen again. >> there's another gentleman from the state department or thompson who is going to testify at the hearing and former secretary clinton tried to cut the counterterror -- out of the initial hours after the attack. have you checked on that? do you have any concerns about that, why it was cut out? >> well, i have heard of that charge and i would refer you to a statement put out by the former head of that euro, the counterterrorism daniel benjamin and he says quote has been alleged that the state department counterterrorism bureau would cut out of the discussion in the decision in the aftermath of the benghazi attack. i ran the up and in i can say now with certainty that the former coordinator of counterterrorism that this

charge is simply untrue. at no time did i feel the bureau was in any way left out of deliberations that they should have been part of. so i would refer you to that paper. >> mrs. grant was also, you know they have this extraordinary rollercoaster existence. for most of their lives, she regarded him as an abject failure unable to provide for his own family and then almost no time at all, suddenly he was the most popular man in the country, the man who saved the union on the battlefield and then president of the united states. >> june loved her time at the white house. she said in her memoirs that it was like a bright and beautiful dream. ..

>> coming up tonight, the communicators, features a discussion on issues facing president obama's choice to be the next fcc chair. then

>> president obama has nominated tom wheeler to be the next chair of federal communications commission. tom wheeleres managing director of core carpol partners, his venture capital firm, and has been the ceo of two industry groups based here in washington. the cable association and the wireless association as well. joining us to discuss this, justin hille, a and blair levin, who served several stints at the fcc. blair, if we can start with you, do now know tom wheeler, and what should people who follow these issues