something i have studied and worked in for 25 years. i have done many lectures, workshops on this subject. i will say that one of the reasons conservative values are not articulated in the mainstream media today is because if you go back historic plea to hollywood, there was a time, a juncture in this country, where hollywood actually did put forth conservative, timeless values of patriotism, commitment to family. there is a critical error in history that conservatives and people of faith made. that was that they abandon hollywood because they felt was becoming evil. what happened was a bailout for people who do not share our values to then on and run everything. that is the entertainment media. energy media is the shaper of agriculture.

really, the way that people behave and how come she behaves is how the media is treating them. >> we're going to break away from this program to take you live to the floor of the u.s. house as members come in for morning hour. this is time set aside for short speeches brief list of words begins today at 2:00 p.m. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 15, 2009. i hereby appoint the honorable donna f. edwards to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour

debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to 30 minutes and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, for five minutes. mr. lungren: madam speaker, among the most important issues facing us today are the twin issues of the economy and energy. and unfortunately in this body and across the other chamber we often discuss those two issues separately as if they had no connection with one another. and yet they have a very, very important link with one another. when the economy is down it has an impact on the energy, and when energy prices go up or down it has an immediate impact on the economy. the strange thing is that as we look at an energy policy that's

going to be presented to us by way of a bill from the majority shortly, there appears to be a lack of appreciation for changes in energy policy and their impact on our economy. there seems to be some sort of question as to whether or not we ought to exercise our responsibilities to utilize those energy sources that are most abundant in these united states. coal appears to be one of those things that we're going to wrap up, close up, put off the -- put on the shelf and not allow ourselves to use it. rather than a real effort for clean coal energy, there appears to be an effort to try and demonize coal and not allow it to be utilized. that makes about as much sense as saudi arabia making an announcement tomorrow that they are going to close off all of

their production of petroleum. why do i say it makes about as ch sense? because we are the saudi arabia of coal. similarly, with tar sands, shale oil, those sorts of things that we have in abundance in north america we appear to be saying we ought not to take a look at those. similarly, we have abundant sources of petroleum offshore. offshore my state of california, offshore some of our states in this union, and yet we have a policy which basically says we ought not to utilize american technology which is being utilized around the world to safely extract petroleum. if you look at my state in california and you go to santa barbara you see historically there have been leaked from the bottom of the ocean there because of the pressure,

because of the petroleum that lies under the ocean floor. we can actually take some of that pressure off by drilling and producing there. lastly, i would say it would be -- someone would have to be a hermit somewhere stuck in a cave to not understand that we have a terrible economic problem in california, a terrible problem with our budget, terrible deficits, and one of the ways that we could achieve some sort of stability with our budget in california, our state budget would be to allow offshore drilling and take those royalties that would come to the state as a result of having that offshore drilling, bringing those moneys into the state treasury. we would do two things. we would help increase the security of this nation with respect to energy, on the one hand, because this would be u.s. energy production. and secondly, we would have

royalties going to the state of california in the billions of dollars helping take off some of the pressure that we have currently as to whether -- well, not whether but which services we're going to cut. classroom size is going up in the state of california. there are the suggestions that a lot of services will be cut, some severely. and yet we continue to turn a blind eye to the possibility of environmentally safe extraction of petroleum probable conducts offshore. as one who basically was born just a stone's throw from the ocean, who lived the first half of my life -- actually more than that, the first 42 years as a resident of long beach, california, as someone who enjoys the beauty of my home state and the beauty of the coastline, i also understa that american technology,

american ingenuity, american creativity that's applied elsewhere in the world could be produced here in the united states. why would we have an energy policy brought forward on this floor that ignores some of the most abundant sources of energy for this nation? makes no sense to me. surely i support alternative sources of energy, wind and solar. the traditional ones of hydroelect trick, thermal power -- hydroelectric, thermal power. but we cannot forget the abundant northerly resources we have in this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m.

the house would said 6:30 p.m. eastern on the bills they will debate this afternoon. we have live coverage when the house returns here on the stand. now, we will take you live to a state department briefing in progress for about the last 15 minutes. we will join this in progress. >> i am referring to what we have seen on fox and cnn, abc, nbc, of some violent responses to peaceful protests. that does give us concern. >> the supreme leader reversed himself after initially issuing a statement that called the elections fair and final by now having issued a statement

declaring that the guardian council in iran conduct a probe into balloting. would you regard any verdict rendered by the guardian council as credible? >> again, -- >> is there any verdict that you would regard as credible? >> as i said before, there have been some things cast on these results that we think iran, the authorities in iran, they need to take these concerns seriously. they need to look into them. i am not going to stand here today and predict how we're going to judge whatever the outcome is. >> of the supreme authority in iran has indicated that an

investigation will be conducted by a specific body in iran. you pleased with that development? >> well, again. >> are those of the concern you're talking about? are they being taken seriously? >> it is difficult for us to assess not having had access as many international monitors have in elections to what exactly happened. i am not going to be able to really say one where another parade >> you have no response to the supreme leader of's announcement that he is convening a probe? >> iran needs to take in these allegations of misconduct or of the election irregularities seriously. >> is the fashion that he called

for an investigation a positive development in taking it seriously? >> let's see how things work out. a lot will depend on the kind of -- kind of investigation. i am not prepared right now to pronounced one way or the other. >> you have no way to trust what they're doing. >> when it happens, we will maybe have something to say. >> there are a lot of reports about ballots lost. based on one specific report, what is the status? has he been fired? >> he has not been fired. he is not being ousted. >> is there an abrupt change? >> he is in the building today. i was in his office today.

he is working very hard on these same issues we have been discussing for the last 15 minutes. if and when there is some kind of personnel announcement, i would be happy to let you know. >> is is being reassigned? >> i could be fired today, too. >> is it true he is being reassigned to another position within the white house? >> i have no personnel announcements. >> so he will continue in his present role? >> absolutely. >> he is going to a continue in his role to the adviser of the secretary on a southwestern bell's affairs? >> -- southwestern gulf affairs. >> he is continuing to do his job today. >> has the book caused any problems for him internally in

this administration? >> no, but it is a very good book by the way. >> was there a concern about this? >> that was inappropriate, but there it is. >> was there any concern about his authorship of this book, of some of the opinions that he and his co-author expressed during the time leading up to his appointment? >> a no, not at all. mr. ross, he is in the administration now. he is a very close adviser to the secretary. he also came out aogf academic community is entitled to his opinion. he wrote the book before he came on board here. >> his opinion and everything notwithstanding, are you saying that he is not being reassigned to another position in the white house?

>> i am saying is working very hard here in the state permit. >> so you are not say no? >> i am not going to predict the future. >> and no one is questioning. yes or no? >> i do not have a crystal ball and i do not predict what is going to happen. he might decide to god knows where tomorrow. i sign something saying that was a worldwide available. any time, i could ship off. >> two questions. do we see in the events and authoritarianism regina revealing itself? >> our concerns about iran and the lack of transparency, accountability is well known and it has been said from this podium, said in our human rights

reports. right now we're focused on what is unfolding in iran and we and a lot of our allies including ministers at the eu have expressed our concerns about the allegations of election irregularities. we're concerned about the treatment of demonstrators and we're calling for the iranian authorities to respect the right of people to express themselves peacefully. we're focused on that, the unfolding events, and we are also continuing to focus on the need to get iran to adhere to its international obligations. >> what message does it send to

pro-democracy with the united states very clearly indicates that, regardless of the election results of iran and how much resources used, the united states will simply pursue its policy of engagement with whatever regime turns up in tehran? >> i do not think i said that. what i said is that we have a very -- we have concerns about what is going on in iran. we have concerns about the rights of the iranian people to some expression really want to see that right, to express themselves peacefully, at being respected. we also have serious concerns

about iranians -- iranian authorities refusal to abide by its international obligations and allow the iaea to verify in a transparent way that they are not working on a nuclear weapons program. >> so, when you're saying you're going to engage with i ran regardless of the outcome -- >> >> i did not separate >> that is what by spasm biden seemed to say yesterday. we have a real security concerns that are pressing and urgent, that that takes a back seat? >> no, i am not saying that at all. i sing we will call things like they are -- i am saying we will call things like they are when we see irregularities and problems with elections. but, we also as we're going forward, we have to look at our

own national interests, too. nonproliferation is a very, very serious, very important priority. >> and to express concerns about this or do you condemn it? the condemned this in iran or are you expressing concern? >> we're consulting with our allies and we're doing basically what we would do in any of these kinds of situations. we consult with them and come up with a multilateral solution request so you are not condemning them? >> well, i have not used that word. we still need -- we need to see how things unfold. we need to have a deeper assessment of what is going on. >> to follow up on one obama said on friday, no matter who

wins, as it is right now, would you say there are fewer opportunities for engagement? >> i think what we need to do is get iran to take seriously the reports of violence and arrests and election irregularities. we also need to get them to take seriously the will of the international community to get them to live up to their responsibilities and obligations. >> and if not? >> used the word had "if." we will make all our decisions based on our national interests. >> i would like to switch gears if there are no further questions on that. the question that two american journalists in north korea, have we had an update. as the swedish envoy seen them? during know anything more? >> know, we continue to ask

for their release on humanitarian grounds. >> is the administration now regarding that north korea has a highly enriched uranium program? >> we have seen north korea's announcement that it will weapon is the go2net -- but denies the plutonium at their nuclear facilities and it is beginning uranium enrichment work. as required by security council , they should abandon all their nuclear programs in a completely verifiable and irreversible manner. >> do you believe they have a highly enriched uranium program? >> i have just seen the reports of that? >> jim kelly wince and said many years ago that we knew they

had eight enrich uranium per every >> i am saying right now is that we have seen reports. i know you guys are responding to the news that came out over the weekend. i do not wish to get into a situation where we're responding to every bellicose and direction statement. >> is not just bellicose. they have been watching missiles, conducting nuclear tests. >> we're very concerned and that is why we work with our colleagues on the un security council with south korea and japan to come up with a real, tough resolution. >> so far, north korea has done everything it said it was going to pre >> and not surprise. >> they said they would launch missiles, they did. now they're saying they're going to weapon is a nuclear weapon

and enrich uranium treated you have any thought that is what their rights to do consider your knowledge --. do you have any thought considering your knowledge that they will follow through? >> they showed incredible unity among the security council of with south korea and japan. we're growing to be focused on implementing that resolution. beyond that, north korea knows what it has to do. north korea needs to give up all of this its rhetoric, a belligerent actions, and return to the six party talks unconditionally. >> with respect to those talks, today the secretary meets with the president of south korea in

the blair palace later this afternoon. if things get dramatic and they keep separate from these nuclear missiles. you're trying to the un to institute sanctions, vessels, airlines, what have you, now it appears over the last two months that both the chinese and the russians are going back and what they have said. would you put north korea under total lock down? back with the cubans five years ago, we call that a quarantine. that is not what necessarily what many people would call a blockade. are other countries willing to go much further? >> we want to work with what we

have, the resolution that we have which is targeted. we do not want to have any kind of resolution that would harm, necessarily, the north korean people. that is what we're focused on right now. it has only been a couple of days since we have this resolution and we need to work out the details of implementation, but we're going to work with what we have. >> the kim family, are they not operating a "thugocracy" >> that is a new one. it is not the most accountable government in the world. >> [unintelligible]

it would to seem to -- you think of a good opportunity to extend this by putting sending down in writing? >> i have not seen the report. if there is a formal proposal, we will look at it, but beyond that i really do not want to say. also north korea? >> the journalists in north korea, the now -- the announced the trial date in a welcoming timeframe. >> i think there have been a number of developments since the secretary made that statement. as i have said before, really do not want to get too deep into

the details of characterization our approach, their approach. this is a sensitive issue. i think i will just leave it at what i said in answer to charlie's question. we continue to call for the immediate release of these two women on humanitarian grounds. >> i wanted to talk israel. are the conditions set yesterday by the prime minister, is it wise to have a palestinian state form and arm as the prime minister was suggesting are demanding? >> nick, you saw the white house statement yesterday. it welcomed the fact that prime minister netanyahu made an

important step. we're committed to two states living side by side in their historic homeland. we believe the solution can and must insure both israel's security and the film of the palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state. we welcome his endorsement of his book. >> with all the conditions, can there be a viable solution? it has to be demilitarized, airspace? >> our policy is clear on this. we want the conditions and the roadmap fulfilled. we want israel's security to be insured. we want the palestinians to have their own homeland. in terms of what prime minister netanyahu said yesterday, we

have our policy. we are involved in and negotiation now and we will see how things go forward in this negotiation. our goal remains the same. two state solution. the two states living side-by- side in security and prosperity. >> the israeli government has its own policy. in the near future -- in the near future, is there a chance? >> we're going to sit down, i hope soon, with all the different stakeholders and work out a solution. but i'm not just going to characterize the prime minister's situation in terms of -- i am not expressing this right.

we're going to have -- is going to be a complicated negotiation. prime minister netanyahu has laid out his point of view as he sees it as the head of the israeli government. we have seen the reaction of the various palestinian officials and leaders. we just want to reiterate that it is in the interest of everyone of everyone in the region to come up with a solution whereby the devastated israel and palestinian state living side-by-side -- were a i -- whereby dithe the state of israel and palestinian state living side by side. >> to the have to recognize israel as a jewish state? >> i know you're focusing on the active there. weo