complete the force field in afghanistan and continue our kandahar.nkain i will meet with military and civilian leaders and spend time with our troops. my message will be clear, nothing changes about our strategy, nothing changes about the mission. nothing changes about the resources we are dedicating or the commitment we are making to defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies in the region. we cannot lose the momentum we have together with our partners, allies, and france. i look forward to working with general petraeus, a man already well-heeled in leading this war. it begins to the nomination progress. thank you. >> if you has responsibility for

the conduct of a civilian military relations. general mcchrystal was or hand- picks the choice. is what happened here in any way a failure of oversight on your part? >> i do not feel so. first of all, i would say that in the 3.5 years i have been in this position, i have not felt any attention or issues with respect to my relationship with our uniformed leaders or people in the ranks. this was the first time, in this kind of way, we have seen this kind of problem. there were concerns about general mcchrystal's comments

last fall in london. that was discussed with him at the time. i think that, from my standpoint, this is an anomaly, not a systemic problem. >> i strongly recommended general mcchrystal to the secretary defense and the president to assume this job, so certainly from my vantage point i feel some responsibility here. with that said, general mcchrystal has been given guidance from here, from centcom , and certainly from the president. i had the expectation that somebody with four-stars in this responsibility should follow that guidance. as i said i in my statement, he

really committed a significant error in judgment. the president, rightfully so, relieved him for that. i am, not just now, but part of what i have been focused on since i have been the chairman is to make sure that there is no question about neutrality in the military, the apolitical aspect of the military, and the need to keep that in mind in absolutely everything that we do. he is a friend. he is an extraordinary officer. he made a severe mistake, and i think the actions that were taken were appropriate. >> was general mcchrystal able to explain to any of you what he was thinking? what was this purpose in

allowing a reporter that access and making this kind of comments in front of him? >> we can both address that. itt but that the same answer. in my meeting with him, he did not try to explain it, he just demolished that he had made a terrible decision. >> can you explain why a four- star general would make comments like that? both know him so well, that people keep asking what was he thinking? >> i would limit my comments to what the secretary said. i have spoken to general mcchrystal many times is that article hit the street. it really is in the category of someone who knows that he made a grave mistake. there is nobody that feels

worse and understands the gravity and the responsibility and the accountability better than stanley mcchrystal. in terms of the details of its, it is not something i went through in detail. the president held them accountable and we need to move on. the most important part of this whole issue is the mission. >> did it baffle you? can i follow up on her question? you have both suggested two officers that had to be relieved. are you thinking of relegating the way you choose officers for command? >> pursed the ball, and this is brought -- -- first of all, i

made these recommendations to the president. i think the decision that i made a year ago, or two years ago, to recommend general mckinnon -- it may have been lower than two years ago -- frankly, was at a time when the seriousness of the situation in afghanistan -- seriousness of the situation in afghanistan was not clear. by last summer, it was clear that we were in a very difficult fight. i came to have concerns that we did not have the right strategy for going forward. therefore, the decision to recommend general mckinnon be relieved was made.

between the general mcchrystal's background and particularly in special operations, a counter- terrorist operations, and his familiarity with counter- insurgency doctrine made him a logical choice in terms of the kind of fight that we are in in afghanistan. personally, i believe that had it not been for this article and this serious lapse in judgment, general mcchrystal would still be there and executing the strategy and the campaign plan that he developed to implement it. i think that this unfortunate

circumstance this week has virtually nothing to do with the conduct of the campaign in afghanistan on general mcchrystal's part, but rather the reasons the president articulated and that we both talked about today. >> one of the most difficult things i do -- and i am fairly comfortable in including the secretary -- is not anything we take lightly. we spend an extraordinary amount of time on it. it is not our personal opinion. obviously, i knew stanley mcchrystal very well because he worked for me for a year. i have known him in combat in iraq. i know his background and what his focus was. that is the reason i recommended him -- strongly recommended him. certainly, as i said earlier, i

have responsibility in that regard and understand that. there is also part of this that, when selected, there is an expectation in terms of next -- expectation in terms of execution. i think general mcchrystal stirred -- general because -- general mcchrystal certainly understands that. it was a significant error in judgment. as far as i am concerned, it was the appropriate action and outcome. >> what does it say about defense strength of the general officer corps now that you can only turn to general petraeus because he is the only one capable of doing this job? you have to generals, mcchrystal and petraeus, who have been out in the field continuously more than anyone else.

do you need to strengthen your bench? does a general petraeus have any flexibility in your mind to make any changes in the strategy on the ground, if you will? >> first of all, i would add another general to those who have served a long time. i go back to my opening statement in terms of what general petraeus was asked to do this. my greatest concern was that somebody that came new to this fight in a leadership role who did not have a personal relationship with key afghan

figures, not just president karzai, but the minister of defense and the head of their military and so on, who did not happy relationships with the pakistan the leadership. somebody who did not have familiarity with the campaign plan and the operations going on in afghanistan, who did not know the brigade commanders and the generals who are in charge of training and so on, somebody who did not have those access i worry would take time to get up to speed. of course, there are other generals we could have chosen and we talked about other generals. my concern was that we did not lose time or focus during a transition period. it was evident that there was only one general officer who was in the position to move in with hardly eight missed beat and take on and continue with this

campaign. the president has established the strategy, but from my perspective, general petraeus will have the flexibility to look at the campaign planned and the approach and all manner of things when he gets to afghanistan, assuming senate confirmation. >> the only thing i added this that the bench-strength is something i pay a lot of attention to. when you look at the number of general officers who have now commanded in combat over the course of the last several years, that that dance is much deeper and stronger than it was and it portends positive strength in the future. >> afghanistan is concerned about the roles in engagement.

do you want to see those roles change? does general petraeus had the flexibility to change them? >> any commander, general petraeus included, will assess his command and what it is going to take to achieve the mission. he will certainly have the flexibility to make changes if he thinks are necessary. my expectation is that that is what general petraeus will do widely and make adjustments. specifically, he is very aware of the issue of civilian casualties. he was not involved in approving the tactical measures. he will be on the ground and sea how they are executed. he will make changes that he thinks are appropriate.

that does not necessarily portend changes. i just do not know. >> general petraeus is credited with the successful search operation in iraq. does that strategy in iraq translate at all to the operations in afghanistan? for you admiral, he said this change in leadership signals no change in strategy. given the fact that the operations already under way have bogged down somewhat, should there be a change in strategy? >> i just reiterate what i said, the strategy has not changed in any way nor has the policy. we clearly are at an enormously difficult time in the execution of the strategy. at the same time, a third of the

force the president approved last september is not there yet. we made progress in marja, specifically. it has not been opposed. we recognize that. there are things going on that we're not going on before. schools are open. businesses are open. that does not mean the television is not intimidating. this is classic counter- insurgency. we have not put off the operations in kandahar. it is an enormously complex operation. we understand that. we need to make sure that we get the forces there to execute that, which a significant part of the 10,000 will be included in that. in any operation, you make adjustments. i have felt for many months that it will be the end of the year before we really understood

where we were in canada are -- where we were a inkandahar. it involves the government peaiece. i do not want to understate the challenge. >> i would say this, i do not believe we are bogged down. i believe we are making some progress. it is slower and harder than we anticipated, but for all the reasons the chairman just articulated, i think we are moving forward. the ka thesendah -- the kandahar campaign has been underway for several weeks. what general mcchrystal was talking about was the time to

set the political framework before proceeding. i spent probably 35 minutes alone with the president tuesday afternoon discussing the situation with general mcchrystal and one of the central themes their in that conversation was what i described in my opening statement that my concern with however we proceed that we minimize the impact of any change on the conduct of the war. i will tell you that it was the president's idea -- it was the president who first raised the general petraeus' name. it immediately answered a lot of the concerns i have. the admiral and i talked about it further tuesday night. we talked more about it with the

president yesterday. we are headed in the right direction. i would not underestimate the challenge in front of us. i used the general's on petraeus, "hard but not impossible." peake is to not lose our focus in the further distracted for a number of months. that is why the selection of general petraeus was so important. >> is there an inherent contradiction between the idea of bringing in a commander to make changes? what message does this send to the taliban that there is a major change in command? >> the taliban would be making a very serious mistake if they drew the conclusion from this. what we have had is a decision

that challenged the civilian leadership of the military and the president's decision to address that. we have followed it literally within hours with the selection of a successor commander. the overall strategy stays the same, but obviously a new commander will look to see if there are tactical approaches that he may want to adjust. that does not change the strategy. the president was very clear about that. >> when you first read the piece, both of you, did you immediately conclude that it was insubordination that required relieving the commander? most of these quotes are from aids. there is maybe the one "about eikenberry from general mcchrystal.

what is it that mcchrystal did that was so bad to warrant being relieved of all this? did you immediately conclude that he needed to be relieved? >> honestly, when i first read it i was sick. it made me literally physically -- i could not believe in it. i was stunned. secondly, general mcchrystal is responsible for his people. he has every bit as much responsibility for what was in that and what his people said as the individuals who said it. the accountability that goes along with that -- and general mcchrystal understands that completely -- is tendered by the fact that he offered his resignation. in the absence of its, it was clear that it challenged in its

totality civilian control, which is a fundamental principle for us that is not unchallengeable -- that is not challengealb.e le. >> military media relations, which her usually tenuous, officers will not want to engage. what do you tell that kind of mindset about the need to engage the press? is the press to blame in this case? >> not in my view. general mcchrystal has the responsibility for this. i think to let it impact the relationship that i have with

the press would be a mistake. i have communicated the message ever since i got to this job to both civilian and military leaders that the press is not the enemy and when there is a story that is critical, the first thing to do is to find out if -- the first thing to do is to find out if it is true. if it does not, gather the data to prove it is not true. do not get into a defensive crouch. i hope that people will not do that. i think that people clearly need to make smart decisions about how they engage the circumstances in which they engage, what they talk about. there is a need for greater discipline on our part and a greater understanding that somebody who is giving an interview i in europe may not

understand that something they are saying has an impact in asia. we need to be a little smarter about how we approach this, but i would say those are improvements that are needed on our part. >> some people have suggested that the tension that came out in this episode may have something to do with the fact that the generals on the ground have day -- or under enormous pressure to show progress quickly. we talk about the date for the beginning of withdrawal. what do you say to that? there is an inherent tension in the strategy itself. >> the position that i have taken all along is that what we

want to make sure is that we had the right strategy, but it also requires giving the effort enough time to be able to demonstrate whether or not it is working. we are not asking for a victory by december or by july 2011. we are not asking that afghanistan destabilized 13 months from now. what we are asking is that by december we have enough evidence to demonstrate that the approach we are taking is showing progress and that we are headed in the right direction. i think the expectations of the civilian side or realistic -- civilian side are realistic. the reality is, every step of the way the military was deeply

involved in the development of the president's strategy and signed on to the president's strategy. >> completely. and from the standpoint of july, 2011, the need to make progress by december and that review look at the strategy and it really validate that it is the right strategy. if it is not for the military's this is -- military's perspective, make recommendations for change. we are not there. we are not to july, 2010, yet. there is a lot to do between now in the end of this year. we have to get to a point where we start to return some of those surge troops based on conditions on the ground, numbers, places

-- we are not close to understanding that at this point. it is too early. getting there using this strategy with everything we understand it right now is still the right decision. >> mindful of the chain of command, the president is going to have a conference with russian president medvedev in about 10 minutes. we have tied for two more questions. >> the chief u.s. envoy in afghanistan suggests that he backs the strategy the president is suggesting. was there a discussion about changing the u.s. envoy it there? do you have confidence that the u.s. envoy there can succeed?

>> all of those cables are written about seven months ago. a lot of water has gone under the bridge since that time. with respect to the civilian side, that is out of our plane here. -- that is out of our lane here. it will only come when the momentum of the taliban has been reversed and that they see that the chances of there being successful or diminishing day by day. i think that in that context, i think we are all cognizant of the importance of reintegration and reconciliation as part of the end of this process. my view is the taliban need to

suffer more reverses before that can happen. last question. >> talking about time lines, general petraeus has concerns about the time lines. going forward, do you question his commitment to that? >> first of all, general petraeus absolutely agrees with the president's strategy. he agrees with the december review and he agrees with the timeline to begin a drawdown in july of 200011 that is conditions based. when he gets on the ground, he will assess the situation for

himself and, at some point, he will make recommendations to the president. that is what any military commander should do. the president will rock and those recommendations, but at the end of the day, the president will decide what changes are to be made. i will tell you as a going in proposition, we are all on board for beginning this process of a drawdown in july of 2011. that is the president's decision and that decision stands as far as all of us are concerned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this is a change in personnel, but it is not a

change in policy. general petraeus supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place. >> learn more about the president's choice to head afghanistan forces. general petraeus has been on c- span more than 40 times. what's his appearances online anytime at d.c.'s ban video library. it is washington your way. . .

we aren't looking for answers pretty -- we are looking for answers and what comes of the bayou. >> what happened here during katrina? >> the village was impacted like many places. the water came in. the community was devastated. we are still in recovery right now. we have only managed to get five homes rebuilt. three homes have been renovated. we have three more working, in the works. people want to come home. there have been many problems to their recovery and the effort we have been making. now, with the lack of resources and funding come into the village because it cannot go out

on the water or earn the money to put back into the community, this to e a problem to the return efforts that we have been making. katrina was a natural disaster. we knew it in some way how to deal with that even though it was kind of a norm. storms have always come into the coast. we are here. we are part of it. loss and recovery. we are used to that. we've can prepare and recover from it. we are able to feed ourselves in the aftermath. with the disaster in the gulf with the oil, we cannot do that. our livelihood is threatened to the very point where we cannot even eat. our food source is poison dry

now. we have no idea what to do. >>, and homes were destroyed in katrina? >> all of them, really. we have only managed to have three renovated in place. is your hot out here today. i have to tell you. three homes renovated in place. everything else has been newly built. everything else will have to the new bill. all of the homes or compromise the on the 50% construction. they work -- it was the possible to renovate those homes. it had to be taken out and something else put in its place. good and bad. it is linked and a lessening the time of recovery. now the homes are elevated. the structures are really sound, a lot more than what was there before.

they had been impacted from previous storms. now the ones that we have a are new. the construction is top notch. we are out to the flood waters. >> [inaudible] >> we have approximately 23 families here. we have nine families here now with three more planning to return when the homes are completed in the coming year. less than half. this place was very hard hit. this is where 15 m make land fall. -- where katrina made landfall. all of the surrounding area was devastated. we took a very hard hit. the people are resilient. we are fighters. we are not people that just give up and rollover and say "i am

done." our presence here is a testimony to that. we live in this natural world. we are part of this natural world. how many kids can this environment take before it is no longer able to recover. being a part of this natural world, if this environment dies, then we are part of the suffering. we see our own demise and what is happening to the world around us. some things need to happen to change all of this. we can no longer look at nature and see what we can take from it without minimizing our impact and the occurrence. what to have taken away from it. they need these matter places in order to sustain life.

this is life. they see grass. we know these are nursery's. these are habitat. the mean life. it means life to the industry. you can not to say that is only going to impact grass. it is impacting the entire system of which people are just one component of that environment. lessons are learned from this. this has happened in other places before, this cult disaster. it is sad to say that today -- and look what happened here. when will it be enough? will we stop and say "let's learn from this. let's put in our face guards."

we need to diversify. we cannot allow ourselves to be hostage to one source. we need to diversify. whale is included in that. we should all look only to oil. what is happening in the gulf is a testament to the need for diversification. >> tell us about the gulf restoration network. by we are in nonprofit advocacy organization. we have been around through a number of environmental crises that mexico has been exposed to. five years ago, we saw hurricane katrina come through. we thought it was the worst environmental disaster. we felt we had seen its match.

they were the only advocacy organization that was exclusively focused on the gulf of mexico. we have board members in all five states. we have been doing independent monitoring of the prices of the containment and cleanup efforts and working to see a more effective response. the key is said we are coming out tear and we are going to see elected straight lines and canals and pipelines. things have been done to the coastal ecosystem. they really benefited the nation. this pipeline did not make new orleans rich, they made the nation rich. the oil and gas in back paleocene from the bp crude oil are significant. they are one piece of the larger crisis that is happening.

the oil and gas activity has been happening in the march. >they tried tens of thousands of miles through this ecosystem. saltwater can gain entry into freshwater ecosystems. the other thing that happens is they put it will lend undecided the canal. they put it aside despoil on the side that create a mini levee system. when a storm comes thenin, it ds need the -- it does not leave the march as quickly as it would otherwise.

much of the marsh is planted there. it is a crisis. this is something that should of been addressed in the oil for started being explored. it has been an ongoing crisis. the obama administration is getting hammered right now for their mishandling of the crisis. i will not defend have the resources are being deployed to clean up. i will say this. louisiana for a while now. in march, they unveiled a roadmap for restoration that actually laid out a vision and a plan to start moving. the way you create a sustainable coast is by putting the sediment back into the ecosystem. when we built the levee in 1927, we doomed to the coast.

in the past 4000 years, of the land south of that route was built by floodplains of the mississippi rudy. -- mississippi river. there is no bedrock around south louisiana. it is all sinking sediment. it to be naturally combative by the river. it is action building land. then we hamden the river with the levees. again, and national benefit but a local environmental impact. when the oil countries came in after them, it really set it up. we need to put the river back into the system. we can do it through controls floodgates in divergent. we can do it for seven and piping, and taking of the dread and capping the sediment. it is not cheap.

it is not easy. but it has to be done. >> what is your background? >> i have been an informant organizer for about 15 years. i've worked in d.c. and new orleans. i'm working on environmental policies and issues. >> [inaudible] >> rain now we are in the grand by you community. -- right now we are in the grant by you -- grand bayou territory. >> he can see the heavy air passes here. -- you can see the heavier half to is here. this is compounding the problem. the entire coastline is covered

in oil as far as you can look. . havebooms -- we have booms. i hope you got the sarcasm. >> can explain that? >> how effective was this response to what you see behind it? how effective was that? you make the call. i advocate that ended makes me sick, because i know what this means. there is more to come. it is still going on. they have not stopped the flow. of this time it was falling and allowed to reach here. there is more to come. this is their response. how can we plan the next step when this continues?

>> we are on the coast. [unintelligible] we have 70 something acres. what would this storm and the like? >> all nice and green and now with all this oil on it. >> tell me what you see now. >> i see a lot of disaster. nothing looks good. i think is going to kill all the oysters for one thing. all the oysters are up against the bay. it is just devastating. there is nothing good it does

point to come out of this. -- there is nothing good that is going to come out of this. it is saturating the marshes. the bottom of the seafloor ain't going tt be no good. they are getting the oysters out of there. >> you think they are just dying? >> a way of life for my husband. you are looking at death. no more fishing. nowhere trapping. more -- no more oystering. >> what does your husband do? >> he is a professional oysterman. >> can you tell me about your boat and how long you have had it? >> i had one before this.

i sold it to get me a fiberglass one that is small keeping in less maintenance. >> what is life like before the oil spill with the thing? >> every year when the season opens, it is like a kid with a new toy. i'd love it. it is in the blood. i can see myself not doing it. it is this wonderful to go out there and compete with other boats. it is just enjoyment. it is something you could forward to doing every year. >> and the money pretty good when you are kidding a lot? >> well, it is pretty good with

the price appeal right now. well, the price of the shoreham just went up. -- of the shrimp just went up. he can make a decent living doing it. >> when did you have to stop sure thing? >> to three weeks ago. [unintelligible] we do not know the season is over or not. a lot of the area out of business that we go to. >> how do they tell you to stop? they set it up on the internet. they shady areas that close in the areas that open.

>> have you been getting any help from bp? >> i've got one to predict i got one check. >> is it helping? >> a little bit. not a whole lot. the way we was working with the shrimp, we was doing away better. when normally made and a couple of days. >> what would you expect the federal government to do to help? >> i would expect them to pick up where bp left off, where they are not doing. i expect the federal government to pick up the pace. >> this is his way of life ever since he was little and grew up.

it is gone. what is he going to do next? he cannot continue to do this. he is got to have an income coming in at some point, you know? how simple and to provide? . how is he going to provide? everything he worked for is jeopardized. now he is the name of raising the grandson, the next generation learning how to do these things. eating familiar with the water in the boats. now he might as well they are a fishing rod with no hook on it. the future will be contaminated or nonexistent.

his little generation are not going to be able to join the waters as we did. -- enjoy the waters as we did. >> we have a special web page with our coverage of the oil spill. all the features and links to related web pages. live also set up a twitter at our session. you will find it all at c- span.org/oilspill. >> in a moment, and a confirmation hearing for two ranking officials. in two hours, president obama

and russian president medvedev. after that, of the house campaign exposure go. -- exposure bill. the national press foundation is hosting a form tomorrow morning on the gulf oil spill and climate change legislation. live coverage on c-span3 and 9:00 eastern. >> our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online. he can also connect with this on twitter, facebook, and you ttube. >> now the confirmation hearing for to high-ranking military officers. ray odierno has been nominated to lead the u.s. to a forces

command. lloyd austin has been nominated to succeed him. this is two hours. let me thank you both for your devotion, your commitment to the service of our country, your willingness to continue to be in positions of extreme responsibility. we know the nominees are not alone in making these sacrifices. in advance, we thank you and your family members for the support which they will need to continue to provide to you.

we have a longstanding tradition of asking our nominees to introduce family members. but they do that at this time. general odierno, if your team members, will be delighted for you to introduce them. >> i do have my wife with me here today. my wife of 34 years has been with me and my timinentire army career. we cannot do it of the great support. i thank her for this support. >> thank you. >> thank you for the support of your husband and all that he does for the nation. >> howard asked my wife charlene to stand up, please. before i entered do charlene, of a bite to applaud the efforts of all of the family members that

support day in and day out. the maker sacrifices for our nation. they give a lot each and every day. she is been my bride for 29 years. she is a trained counselor by profession. she is been the service of our soldiers and family members for the entire time the we have been together. i am grateful for her sacrifices and continued support. >> thank you. this committee spent a lot of time supporting the men and women in uniform. each of our nominees as celebrated for more than 30 years.

they have been here nearly continuously since december 2006. during that time, in general odierno has had only one small seven month break in the last 47 months. your service and sacrifice and that of a family are well known to all of this. we are deeply appreciated. we have tremendous respect and confidence in me. he will have the important responsibility of providing the joint cable forccs to our combatant commanders around the world. with respect to join doctor in

the development, training, experimentation, and acquisition,. blix in afghanistan continued the readiness of our armed forces. joe enforce commend it did a joint force command is the department of defence. it is essential. we are interested in hearing his views on u.s. joint force command contributions to the development of capabilities in the generation of forces to meet the requirements of the combatant commanders as well. we would be interested to hear his views on the future until it force command contribution.

it promises to be challenging years ahead. the committee is interested in the role of joint experimentation including the modeling and simulation activities place and advancing our work place capabilities. we have an interest in reducing the number of contractors and to transfer responsibility to dot staff. until joe austin served as director of the joint staff and the pentagon. it is an important position. we have come to know this great service. he also has experience commanding u.s. coalition forces in combat as commanding general of a multinational court of

iraq. prior to that, commanding the 10th mountain division in afghanistan. he will assume command of approximately 82,000 u.s. troops in iraq on the way down to 50,000 by the end of this coming to office and leading to the eventual withdrawal of all of our forces by december 2011. the drawdown of forces is based on our security agreement in iraq and supported by the capability of the iraqi security forces to shoulder their responsibility of maintaining order in their country. annette challenges remain as they have not established a government following elections last spring. they still need to wrestle with the political future of their normanorthern provinces. in the context, it is a complex

military operation. general austin will continue to carefully manage the change of the u.s. forces mission from counterinsurgency to and advising and assisting the barack's security forces and forest protection. all of it must occur while redeploying tens of thousands of personnel.

. . . . .

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the relationship between the united states and russia has to be about the shared prosperity, and about what we can build together. that is why we have greeted the u.s.-russia bilateral presidential commission during my visit to moscow last year, to make new partnerships between not just the government, but our peoples and our society. we will forge a new cooperation across a bridge across a range of areas. we are expanding commerce and we are deepening the energy efficiency and clean technology cooperation. medvedev and myself will joint

russian business leaders and american business leaders for a series of investment deals that will create jobs for americans and russians across many different sectors. from the automotive industry and engineering to high-technology. with the export initiative, this includes the sale of 60 boeing aircraft, which will add to 44,000 new jobs in the aerospace industry. to deepen their place in the global economy -- i followed the strong commitment to the world trade organization. we have an agreement that will allow us to export poultry products to russia, once again. i want to thank him for resolving this issue, which is so important and shows the seriousness that russia has about achieving membership in the world trade organization.

i said the teams need to accelerate their efforts to work together. russia belongs in the world trade organization. this is good for the world economy. i have appreciated the opportunity to hear his vision for modernization in russia, especially the high-tech innovation. especially during his visit to silicon valley. he visited the headquarters where he opened his own account. we may be able to throw away those red telephones that have been sitting around for so long. american companies and universities were among the first to invest in his initiative to create a russian silicon valley. and we are announcing new investments today. the united states will be your partner as you promote

transparency and accountability and the rule of law, to infuse the spirit of innovvtion throughout the economy. the partnerships between our societies -- as did -- the latest from the civil society groups, russia and america, are looking into new ways to cooperate in education and help with human-rights and corruption. in the spirit of medvedev's visit, they are looking into how new technologies may aid in their work. and we have more on how this follows the spectrum. you are aware that i recently welcomed the russian basketball players, boys and girls who were visiting the united states. we went on the white house basketball court, and some of them were better at shooting

than me. they represented the hope for the future that brings the country together. these were the same hopes of another generation, the generation that stood together in the second world war, where the russian people suffered and sacrificed so much. we have recently marked the anniversary of the victory in that war, including the historic moment when the soldiers came together at the elbe river in germany. one reporter who was there says, there is a fine, splendid world in the future, -- if this is there it will be there because the united states and russia get along together, and if not, it will be because they did not get along together. the decades have sought -- the decades that followed had too much trouble.

our countries are now more secure and the world is safer when the united states and russia work together. i thank you for your partnership and the future that we can build together for this generation and future generations. >> thank you, mr. president. >> distinguished colleagues. of course, i must start with thanking my counterpart for this visit and for the exceptional hospitality that we have observed here, and this was so warm that it leaves no doubt -- that this is the result of hard work in preparation for the visit. in moscow, we met, in various

places, and i have managed to dine with president barack obama, in an interesting place that is typically american. this is not very healthy but this is very tasty, and you feel -- >> this is the main thing, where we are engaged. and the russian delegation have the schedule that started in california, and this would parallel an event behind this sector -- i hope that this is a symbolic launch of cooperation between our countries, to share our innovation. we said that we would have dialogue to build confidence for the countries, and we have made

steps aimed at establishing a more firm construction of the relations -- the relations and we made the world safer. this is not enough for a bilateral economic ties, and this visit is generally -- we are ready for this and the american partners are ready for the same thing. we have agreed to work, and many of the talks were about economic issues. and a very complicated issues -- with the world trade organization. the president has just said that the progress that we have made -- i am certain that there is a special cooperation with the mutual and the official,

including this new project that was greeted in russia. we are establishing the continuation in silicon valley, and we hope that the american partners will take part in this project and we have the ground work for them. this is in silicon valley, and the tough economic forum. and we would like the major companies to come to russia, and we have shown that we can agree on important and complicated issues in the agenda. i count on the fact that russia is going to have a lot -- relevant business in place, i met with a well-known investor,

and i was enjoying walking without a tie, -- and this was a pleasure for those people, and i also spoke with the students and the professors, and the faculty, and there was candid communication. and we are strengthening the good relations and and we have new high-tech projects for the federation. and mr. president has said, in details about everything. we went through all of these issues and items on the agenda. we were interested in removing the obstacles accumulated over the previous time, in the area

of bilateral trade. russia has been actively participating in the labour division, and we will go to canada where we will address the issue, promoting the common view and the common goals, and discussing the financial agenda. and a lot depends on the g-20. they have spoken about the economic response, and the effect of the crisis. i think that much is done -- and much has to be done. the president told me that he is trying to approve -- either for the congress to take this on the table -- with the crisis and the exit measures, and the helpful exchange of opinions. and i hope that together we will

discuss these issues for this -- discussing the global climate and the new financial order, with some things that should be substantially changed. and we should provide stimulus to the business, helping people to invest funding, and the business communities -- f these countries, this will help with the future steps so that the economic investment cooperation is in line with the potential of the russian economy and the united states economy. we have created a presidential commission that was mentioned by mr. obama. this is tremendous and on the other hand, this is the mechanism providing for

effective interaction, which is in line with the current level of our relations, and we also have the relations between barack obama and myself. the commission is actively going to work to implement the plans that we have. and so, we went through the national agenda, and there was less time because we devoted a lot -- we have managed to do something. we spoke on the middle east crisis, and iran, with their developments. and some of them -- the most complicated issues, that are currently on the planet. we spoke about european security, and we believe that europe should have a security

system with some differences. and the after effect of the conflict that was initiated by georgia -- this will not prevent us from launching future contact. we talked about this situation around the new treaty and the goal of these presidents is to make certain that we have tranquillity in the parliament and i hope that we will do this in the near future. and in congress, we are hearing this and these activities should show the strength, and the future of the ratification. and we will keep thinking about the future steps, and most of this -- this is the serious

responsibility and the united states would not avoid this responsibility. we are always ready to discuss the different issues and we succeed in these discussions. i had my record of -- the current conversation from barack obama. this lasted one hour and 45 minutes. the result, i will not brief you on this. we were both interested and submerged in this topic, that only the ministers should be responsible. i am thankful to my counterparts for the effect of cooperation and the warm welcome in washington.

>> we are going to take some questions. we will start with carol league, from politico. -- carol lee, from politico. >> does this change or timetable for withdrawal in afghanistan, and is there going to be any issue, especially since secretary gates -- and joe biden said that you can bet on a number of soldiers withdrawn in july, 2011? is everyone on the same page? the expect anybody -- given the history of this country in afghanistan and your ability to talk candidly to barack obama, have given him any advice on the war in afghanistan? and you believe that the foreign country can win in afghanistan?

>> thank you. the short answer is, what we saw yesterday was a change in personnel, but not a change in policy. when we engaged in the extensive review last year, general petraeus was part of a group, and this group included secretary gates, hillary clinton, and my national security team. we discussed, extensively, the different options that we had in afghanistan. and what was determined was that we had to be very clear on the mission. the mission, first and foremost, is to destroy al qaeda and their affiliates so they cannot attack the united states. the reason that we are there is because 3000 americans were killed, from the attacks launched in that region. this is not going to be

repeated. in order to achieve this, we have to make certain that we have a stable government in afghanistan, and we have to make certain that the government of pakistan is working effectively with us to dismantle these networks. what we have said is that we would put in additional soldiers, to provide the time and space for the government of afghanistan to build up their capacity and to clear and hold the population centers that are critical, to drive back the taliban, and break their momentum, and that, beginning next year, we would begin the transition with the government of afghanistan is taking more responsibility for their own security. this is what we did not say last year. we did not say that starting in july 2011, suddenly, there would

be no soldiers from the united states or the allied countries in afghanistan. we did not say we would be closing the doors behind us. we said that as we begin the transition with the afghan government is taking on more responsibility. this is the strategy that was put forward. and we have said that in the summer of this year, one year after this strategy has been put in place, at that time when the additional soldiers are in place, and they have begun implementing strategy, they -- then we will conduct a review and make an assessment. did this strategy work? is this working in parts or other parts not working? how is the coordination between civilian and military? are we doing enough to build security capacity. and how are we working

effectively with the allies? we are in the mid -- the middle of implementing the strategy that we came up with last year. and we will deal -- we will do a review by the end of the year. general petraeus understands this strategy. my expectation is that he will be outstanding in implementing this, and we are not going to miss a beat because of the change in command in the theater of afghanistan. general petraeus has been the and he hasf cenntcom seen what has happened. that is one reason i think he will do a capable job. he has extraordinary experience and he helped to write the manual for dealing with the insurgencies, but he is also intimately -- intimately familiar with all the players,

and he understands the personnel on the ground. this team is going to be moving forward in sync, and this is true that i am going to be consistent, on the unity of purpose on behalf of all of the branches of the u.s. government. and this reflects the enormous sacrifice that is made by the young men and women who are there. and every time i go to walter reed hospital, where i visited hospitals and you see the young men and young women who are giving everything, making enormous sacrifices on behalf of the security of this nation, i believe that the leadership is true to those sacrifices, and the strategy we are promoting and the manner in which we are working together at the leadership level, this fully reflects an honors the

incredible dedication of the young men and women on the ground. this is what i expect, this is what i believe i will receive. >> does anybody else need to go into the chain of command? >> i am confident that the team in place will be able to execute. i am paying close attention to make certain that they will be able to execute. and i will be insisting on an extraordinary performance, moving forward. the one last thing i want to remind everyone about, the issues with gen. mccrystal, that culminated in my decision yesterday, were not as of a result of the difference in policy. he was executing the policy that i had laid out, and he was

executing the orders that i had issued, and this was reflective of the review process that took place last year. >> i will try to be even more brief than my colleague, mr. president. you know, i hope that -- i have friendly relations with barack obama, but i try not get -- to give a piece of advice on this very difficult topic. i can say only a couple of things. we believe that the president of the united states -- and other countries are assisting the people in obtaining -- the much- wanted statehood. to restore the basis of the effective state, and restoring

the economy. and we will support the efforts of the united states. and as far as our own experience, i would very much like to say that the people in the near future -- i would like to see them having an effective state and a modern economy, which requires more than one year, but this is the pathway to guarantee that the most -- the greatest scenario -- this is tough to repeat. >> >> my question -- i must

repeat this, and state this, that the promises to facilitate the private entry -- this has been dictated. more specifically, can you name the time frame that you are referring to, with a bilateral approach in the near future. and there is the visit to the silicon valley. how did your perceptions of the future cooperation, how has this changed? and what indicators should be reached so that you can call this a successful? thank you. >> on the world trade organization, i have emphasized to the russian president and i would like to emphasize to the russian people. we believe that this is not only in the interest of the russian

federation but of the united states and the world, that russia joins the world trade organization. this is something that we're wanting to see resolved. in terms of the time friend, let me give you a sense of perspective, from the u.s. trade representative. he has been in close contact and negotiations with his counterpart on the russian side. the way that he has described this, 95% of these issues have now been resolved. the remaining 5% or 10% -- these are difficult issues. and they will require significant working. but, this should give you some feeling that a lot of work has been done, in the last few months. and this makes an enormous

difference. in the joint statement, we would essentially instructed the negotiators as they try to come to terms with the technical issues that remain. we're going to keep putting pressure on the negotiators in the same way that we did before, so that there is a feeling of urgency on the part of the team. a lot of the technical issues and the resolution of these technical issues may be in the hands of the russian government. we have made progress on some issues, like encryption. and there may be certain international standards that will require modification in russian law. and as much as possible, but i have told my team is that we will do everything that we can to get this done as quickly as possible. and we're going to be very

specific and very clear about the technical issues that russia is facing. and russia is going to act in accordance with their needs and requirements, internally, to me to the demands of the world trade organization to get this finished. i am confident that we can complete this, and i am, that in president medvedev and his vision of the economy is entirely consistent with the world trade organization. sometimes, it is strange when you are sitting in a historic meeting, with your russian counterpart, and you are talking about chicken. but, the ability to get this

trade dispute resolved around poultry, and this is a multi- million dollar export for the united states, this was an indication of the seriousness with which he and his team take all of these commercial issues. and i very much appreciate the steady and consistent manner in which the president has approached these issues. and this is part of what gets me, that, and i believe that this will be one aspect of a greater strengthening of commercial ties and cross- border investment, and the expanded opportunities and job creation. >> i will say a couple of words, i believe it is important for the country -- we have a common approach, with some

substantive issues, and the most -- this is moved along all the lines, coming with encryption and intellectual property, the state bodies and other things, like that. the character is changing -- with the russian legislation, in the process of joining the world trade organization. and there are some remaining technical problems, and the teams have been instructed to work as quickly as possible. and we are hoping, and we have stated, that this will be finalized by then, by september of this year. and just so happy that we have set the time frame -- so we will not lose all of the positive momentum, and the talks about

the world trade organization, and the issues of chicken and swine trimming. this is a different situation today. as far as the silicon valley is concerned, everyone wishes to call this the kremlin ballet in russia, because there is -- they think there is no difference, but there is in russia. it was very interesting, with the timing. i was looking at the activities of the major companies that help but come the partners, because we had a memorandum on the investment, and -- we also saw

the activities of the small countries in silicon valley, which set an example of being an efficient and effective in the high-tech business. it is very good that these companies -- that they settle in the silicon valley. yesterday, i went through a search engine, the number one search engine. and all the major systems for such information in the world. we should learn how to work and we should not say that when are clever enough. we have something to learn in terms of organizing the business, and this is prompted by the russian business community, that most in the united states are here on a temporary basis and some people wish to work with the russian

investors and many of them want to come back. but they do have precious experience. and the silicon valley, and what is done there. their minds and their abilities and skills. and also money and infrastructure. and so, we will carefully study the experience of the silicon valley, without replicating -- we will use the best examples that exist in california, for this major project. this is called the silicon valley. >> thank you very much, mr. president. since you are both going to the g-20, you have talked about china and you are welcoming their decision on the yuan. are you happy with how far that

they have moved? do you believe that they are occurrence a manipulator? and when will you release your report? >> i think that china, they have made progress by making this announcement, that they will be returning to their market-based approach, and the initial signs were positive. but this is too early to tell whether the appreciation -- this is going to track the market, if this is sufficient to allow for the rebalancing that we believe is appropriate. i will leave this up to tim geithner to make a decision about the pace, and he is the expert when it comes to the currency markets.

i would say that we did not expect a complete, 20% appreciation overnight, for example. this would be extremely disruptive to the world currency markets and the chinese economy. and ultimately, not surprisingly, this has to be made based on sovereignty, and the economic platform. but we have said that we believe that this is undervalued, and that this provides china with an unfair trade advantage, and that we are expecting change. and they are beginning this process and this is positive. and so, we will continue to verify how rapidly these changes are taking place and we will be able to follow a trajectory, and if this trajectory indicates that over the course of the appreciating, a

certain amount, and this is more in line with the economic fundamentals, hopefully, not only will this be good for the u.s. economy, this is also good for the chinese and world economy. and more broadly, with the challenges that the world economy is facing, we have said in pittsburgh at the g-20 that it was important to reach balance because the u.s. economy, for a very long time, was the engine of world economic growth. we have the imports from all across the world, financed by huge amounts of consumer debt. and because of the financial crisis, and also because this was fundamentally unsustainable. the united states is not going

to be able to serve in that same capacity to that same extent. we are huge part of the world economy and we will still be open, and we will still be importing and exporting. but the economic reality is such that for us to see sustained global economic growth, every country is going to have to be moving in a new direction. this means that the surplus countries are going to have to think about how we continue the domestic demand, and this means that the emerging countries are going to have to think, are we oriented towards exports, or are we also starting to think about manufacturing goods and services for the internal markets? this means that these countries have to start getting serious about the long-term deficits, and this includes the united states of america, which is why

i have a fiscal commission that will be reporting to me by the end of the year. not every country is going to respond the same way. but all of us will have responsibilities to balance in ways that will allow for the long-term, sustained economic growth where all countries are participating, and hopefully, the citizens of all of these countries are going to benefit. >> you see discussed this situation in khyrzyghstan -- have you considered the

administration -- the current rating? we have discussed this issue as the situation in the public -- in this area is difficult, and this state is not operating as it should. or, the countries -- they have split into different parts and there is civil unrest and clashes that continue on the ethnic grounds, with many people who have -- the authorities have been incapable of preventing what has happened. in the interest of russia and the states, in the ability to resolve such issues, and looks at the civil rights observed, and the tasks of making certain of the food supply, and basic

materials, the material facilities are made certain of. russia is working with the temporary caretaker leadership of kurdistan to -- khuzistan -- kyrgystan, and we will help them pn terms of money and humanitarian aid, and we hope that during the election process, the government will be shaped, able to solve these issues that face this state, otherwise, this is going to break up into different parts. and i would share my concern, that the radical elements may rise to power, and in this

case, we will have to address these issues and i am referring to the goals that we have in afghanistan. we have discussed this issue. and if we are talking about -- the possibility of some enforcing order, i believe that they can cope with this problem on their own. the russian federation does not support the deployment of a peaceful contingent, and i received a letter from the acting president -- and there is the consultations mechanism and the security council -- have they met to discuss this issue of security? and deploying the peacekeepers

contingency. they have decided, things may start developing with the different scenarios. and we will see if they will respond and as the chairman of this organization, i can convene and work with the relevant bodies, and we hope that the united states -- that we have an understanding. >> we are monitoring this situation very carefully. there has been excellent coordination between the united states and the russian federation on the delivery of humanitarian aid. one thing we have discussed is creating a mechanism so that the international community will be able to make certain that we have a peaceful resolution of the situation that is there. and that, if any actions are taken to protect the civilians

-- this is not done under the flag of any particular country. but that the international community is stepping in. and the teams will be in continuing discussions in the weeks ahead as we monitor this situation. thank you very much, everybody. >> in a few moments, house debate on the bill setting new campaign finance reporting rules for -- special interest groups. we are live with segments on the regulations bill and the confirmation of elena kagan. and the national press

club are having a special hearing on climate change and we will have live coverage at 9:00 eastern. in response to the supreme court ruling allowing certain campaign spending, the house has passed a bill setting new campaign finance reporting rules for corporations and interest groups. this requires individuals and groups to disclose when they pay for campaign ads. this portion of the debate is a little bit over one hour. the chair: the house is in the commiee othe whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 5175, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the federal election campaign act of 1971 to prohibit forge influence in federal election, prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections and

to establish diadecisional disclosure requirements in respect to such elections and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for the first time. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman rom pennsylvania, mr. brady will control 20 minute, and the gentleman om california, mr. lungren will control 30 minutes and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: i stand with the american people and the house leadership inportf h.r. 5175, the democracy is strengthened by casting light on elections act, or disclose act. its designed to bring greater transparency to election spending. it was reinforced by the supreme court decision that reaffirmed the constitutionally and necessitof laws that require this disclosure of political spending. r democracy requires

transparency and accountability in our political campaigns. knowing the source of political spending allows us to investigate the motives and better judge the accuracy of the statements of the spenders and candidates. the disclosure requirements for corporions, unions, and other brupes that make campaign-related expenditures for the purpose of engaging in campaign related activity this improvement to current disclosure requirements allows voters to follow the money and ensure that special interest money can't hide behind sham organizations and shell corporations. the supreme court has recognized it essential to hold people accountable. voters he the right to know who is trying to buy our leches. the bill requires c.e.o.'s d highest ranking officials of corporations that sponsor political advertisements to

record stand by your ad disclaimers as well as protest taxpayers dollars from misuse by preventing certain government contractors from making campaign related expenditures. the disclosure act also closes a loophole creebate citizens united to ensure foreign corporations and foreign governments aren't able to influence elections by spending unlimited sums through united states subsidiaries or affiliates. by allowing them to make campaign contributions, foreign players could use limitless funds to influence the election. the bill is designed to accommodate nonprofit issues advocacy group who have long participated in political activity of which their membe are aware. the bill must have more than 500,000 dues paying members in all 50 states, have had tax

exempt status for the past 10 years and derive no more than 50% of its funding from corporate or union sources. it cannot use corpate or union money to pay for campaign-related expenditures. the narrowness of the existing law will make it impossible to have a dummm or sham group. those exempted will be required to file publicly available reports explaining their campaign related expenditures and staff will need to appear in and take responsibility for -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brady: i yield myself 30 seconds. the disclose act ensures accountability and provides prompt and honest disclosure about those seeking to influence our elections.

it's been considered by the house and senate with 30 expert witnesses. citizens are concerned about the citizens united decision urging congress to quickly consider legislation that addresses the problems created by the ruling. i yield myself 30 more seconds. this support in the disclose act reflects the will of the american people and commands the support of the -- the support of the representatives. in addition to that, with 140 co-sponsors and a broad spectrum of support, it promotes open politics. if we don't pass this, the public will be left to wonder who is being served by the negative advertising dominating campaigns. i urge all members to support thregs and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. mr. lungren: thank you, mr. speaker. obviously if youttempt to speak on the floor and your microphone is not near you, or they have turned it off, you can't exercise your right to represent your constituents here. i yield myself such time as i may consume. that is the problem with this bill. it does not allow the free exercise of the first amendment right to speech. the constitution of the united states refers to that first amendment and unfortunately, in many, many decisions by the supreme court thaverbing talked about everything other than political speech. yet in the citizs united vvrsus federal election commission case, the court finally got it right.

the majority opinion says the first amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints, prohibited, too, are restrictions prohibiting different speakers, allowing speech from some and not from others. that's exactly what this bill does. benjamin franklin stated, whoever would overthrow e liberty of a nation must again by subduing the freeness of speech. unfortunately, that is what we have here before us. mr. speaker. or mr. chairman. just because you call something disclose or disclosure doesn't make it so. when you prohibit speech as has been done here, when you have onerous disclosure obligations placed on some but not all, when you make no distinguishing, that is,

constitutionally justifiable distinguishing differences between groups, that is you cause some to be subjected to provisions of disclosure and others not, when you specifically have five or six provisions in which you exempt unions as opposed to corporations of all stripes when you've rendered the bill unconstitutional. mr. chairman, i would have asked, if it were proper, to have unanimous consent request to extend our debate for four hours. but i know that's not in order. the majority has decided to stifle debate by allowing only a single hour on the debate of -- of debate on this issue %% dealing directly with the first amendment. we have spent in excess of 10

hours in this congress talking about the naming of post offices. but we have determined we do not have more time than%% an ho to discuss something as important as the first amdment to the constitution. when we allow ourselves to become an auction house for the first amendment, where some, because of their power and influence, are allowed to exercise first amendment rights, unfettered, and others are not, it is a sorry day and to do it under the rubric of disclosure is even worse. but that's what weave here. mr. chairman, in the time given to us, i hope we can explain exactly what thissbill does and what it does not do and why it, in fact, not only is dangerous to the first amendment, but is directed at the heart of the first amendment, wwich is

vigorous political speech, particularly close to an election. it may make some members uncomfortable. in some of the hearings and markup of this bill we had members saying, if i had my way, i'd make sure no one could say anything about our campaigns except those of us who are candidates. unfortunately, there's something called the first amendment. i know it's bothersome to some on the other side. i know it's an obstacle to at they want to do. when i came here, i took an oath to uphold the constitution in all parts, not just the second amendment, by way of specific exemption, but by -- of allmendments, the first as well as the second and every other. with that, i would reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: ladies and

gentlemen of the house, th is the most disturbing debate that i have engaged in in the 111th congress, and to hear what i have already heard from one of the most distinguished members of the judiciary committee is a little bit dismaying to me. let me say this. i'll answer one of his questions. what does the bill do? i agree. i'd love four hours. perhaps we'll be debating this bill after the vote regardless of its outcome. this bill rolls back the decision, blatant decision of citizens united and the supreme court by using the three tools

that the court said that we could do to make their decision different. firs, we can increase disclosure. two, you can require disclaimer requirements on advertise -- advertisements. and three, we can limit foreign inflnce in our elections. one, two, three. now, the danger of citizens united decision, the most shocking decision i have read anthe supreme court and many, many years -- in many, many years is the threat of groups who attack candidates for office wiihout ever having to tell people which corporations are are bank rolling these ads.

this is what the disclose act, the bill on the floor, is designed to prevent. is bill permits some long established advocacy groups to follow some of the new disclosure requirements, but if these groups take more than 15% of the money from corporations, then all the requirements. discle sure act kick in. -- disclosure act kick in. and they have to stand by their ads just likeandidates do. and citizens united, justice stevens, who argued that the much more persuasive -- with much more persuasive reasoning, his position in this case, dissenting, said this, the constitution does, in fact,

prevent numerous restrictions on the speech of some in order to prevent a few from drowning out the many. for example, restrictions on ballot access and on legislators' floor time. he stated that corporations are categorically different from indiduals. and the context of election to public office, the discks 2003 -- distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. although they make enormous contribbtions to our society, corporations are not aatually members of it. they cannot vote or run for office. because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents,

their interest may conflict in fundamental respects with the inteeest of eligible voters. then they close with this sentence. our lawmars have a compelling constitutional basis, if not a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially dilatorious effects of corporate spending in local and national races. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> mr. chairman, i would like to yield to the gentlelady from california, zoe lofgren, a +

valued member of house administration, four minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, the supreme court's decision in the citizens united case fundamentally alters the politicalandscape as a result ofhe court's ruling all organizations, corporations, and unions are free to take unlimited corporate money and make unlimited political expenditures. this could allow corporations to simply take over the political system. according to a report late last year by common cause, the average amount spent for winning a house seat in the 2008 cycle was $1.4 million. during the same cycle exxonmobil recorded $80 billion in profits. if exxonmobil chose to use just 1% of their profits op political activity, it would be more -- on political activity, it would be more than all 435 winning congressional candidates spent in that election cycle. that's just 1% of the profits o