coverage begins at 2:30 p.m. eastern time. here on c-span, we will discuss the threat posed by terrorism after the death of osama bin laden. we will talk with a representative about the role interrogations' played in that mission. host: this morning, it's thursday, may 5, cinco de may. president obama makes his trip soon ground zero for a wreath laying ceremony. gop presidential polls cold there appears debate tonight in south carolina. in washington, and the

congressional task force led by the vice-president is convened to tackle questions surrounding the federal debt and the budget. and on this thursday morning, cuts and budget talks, the gop pursues common ground, but republicans see little hope of an treadway on medicare plans. senior republicans conceded wednesday that a deal is not likely on plans to overhaul medicare and offered to open talks with the white house on focusing on areas where both parties can agree. our question, is it ok to delay discussion about entitlement reforms, social security, medicare, medicaid, until after the 2012 elections? good morning. real interesting stuff in the newspapers this morning about

the negotiations over the budget as the task force suggested by the white house convenes at blair house today. i mentioned the "washington post" story. this is what it looks like. that same story is on the front pages of "washington journal."

that we put something else on the table. ""the huffington post" says they call eric cantor's office after the article. let me read this story. "post" seemed to get the run-up on well. the title was corrected shortly after it was released.

"republican leaders seeking a compromise for deficit talks." let's bring andy sullivan into this discussion. he writes for reuters and has been following the statements on both sides carefully. mr. sullivan, vice president biden has talks opening today. where are both parties? >> good morning, susan. two parties remain pretty far board at this point. -- remain prettyz -- far apart. republicans like to talk about reductions to popular benefit programs like medicare and medicaid. democrats generally say they

should not be changed and instead we should look at things like cutting defense spending and revamping the tax code in a way that would bring more revenue. republicans alike that. host: are you beginning to hear signs of concession that this may not be possible with the election so closed by? skepticismere is groupther the by tiden will be able to reach a deal. a group last year could not reach a deal, so how could this group reached a deal in a month and a half or so that obama has given them to find a solution? and people say look at the members of this panel, they are not real budget experts. these are folks on the panel who are best known for enforcing party discipline. eric cantor used to be his and jon kyl,f --

besides had that position in the senate. senator max baucus sat on obama 's deficit-reduction panel last year and voted against its recommendations and has been pretty firm that there should not be any changes to entitlement programs. >> what is the goal of this plan versus what the gang of six has been working on? guest: it has been tough to say because the gang of six has been tight-lipped about what they're putting together. and this group is on having their first meeting today. we will see if anything comes out attacks. host: how seriously are you taking some of the reported stories i've read? here's another one. what should we read into that?

guest: that's a pretty encouraging sign they are willing to reach a deal that falls short of what they want. ryan and eric cantor seemed to recognize that they probably will not get resolved and the tougher issues until after the next election, but perhaps we could find common ground on some of these last contentious elements and it has what it needs to allow the vote on raising the debt ceiling. host: if this comes to the floor where 87 new freshmen republicans have the tea party constituency encouraging them to stand fast, so how does the politics played out when it moves beyond the leadership discussion? guest: if you recall during the last battle over the 2011 budget, 59 republicans voted against it. and so, many of them are expected to vote against this again. the house majority leader john boehner might have to reach to the democratic side to get votes again. it might be pushing for

concessions of their own. host: thanks for bringing us up to speed as the meeting convened by the white house and it will be moderated by vice president al bayda and that gets under way today at the white house -- by vice president joe biden. $715 billion in savings would be something other than the big title but reforms and that could according to eric cantor -- on the other side, democrats are divided on debt.

and here's the second headline in this story. let's get to your phone calls on all this beginning without power joe in georgia. thanks for being on the show. caller: good morning. i am a member of the tea party and i am a republican and i have my own television show and radio show. we all are supporting mitt romney. also, tom gray is my congressman. he is one of the ones that voted against the budget. he is for cutting it more. most of the tea party people and

our congressman like tom price cuts.l behind susmaking we cannot put off this entitlement. we have to do this immediately. i thinks gray is one of the strong leaders in the country wanting to do this. host: if the leaders have a plan that delayed the entitlement discussion until after the 2012 elections, what would your message be to your friends, colleagues, supporters? >> i would tell my congressmen to vote against anything that did not have significant spending cuts, susan. i think the entitlement -- the discretionary spending, we have to cut that off, but the big enchilada is the entitlements. i would think we would have to have something done on the entitlements for me to be supporting it. i would tell town to vote against anything that did not have some entitlement cuts. however, is that all you could get off -- we have to get

something, so -- host: so i hear the seeds of compromise. caller: i hate to use that word. i'd think we ought to compromise. we do have a democratic president and democratic senate. i get yoguess you have to be a little realistic. i think i will change my name to "cut spending." host: now, dover plains, new york, on the line. bob, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i happened upon something on tv the other night and i thought it was the greatest example. mahar had a big plate of food and a big pile potatoes

that he called so security -- social security entitlements and then he had a big mound of macaroni and cheese that the called military entitlements. excuse me, i am a little nervous. then he had social security, medicaid, medicare, and defense, those were the three piles. and there was a little garnish that was a tiny piece of corn. ryan d that the gold budget will take some kernels off of that corn. i just think that they're looking in all the wrong spots to make cuts. host: brian is up next from vermont. good morning. caller: good morning. first, i would like to say that

it's not ok to delay any entitlements or forms or votes to wait for elections. that means they are putting their political careers before the american people. they are saying, america, you can wait, we need to use your pain and suffering for our goal is to get reelected. that's a perfect example of a bad excuse of the man that's running this country. on the deficit, i don't understand how we have a deficit. i believe they borrowed money from social security years ago and never paid it back. they stole the money from the it.rly and people they needeatd if you look apps spending -- at spending, it cost the government to triple to purchase the same item id might cost you or me.

they have a long quitting process for people to be able to sell to the government, which ends up being triple or quadruple. every time they mention government spending can and they have to save money, they never mention any of the foreign money that we spend. we could have universal health care probably tomorrow? if we cut back 20% of the spending that to give all these other countries like the egyptian army when it came out, giving them $1.5 million a year. that's when they started writing in the streets. and other countries. host: thanks for your call. we spoke about foreign spending, there's an interesting piece in "to the financial times."

we are talking about the negotiations opening up today on the budget and the debt with the debt ceiling deadline happening may 16. this all becomes much more clear that the discussions need to go under way. we are talking to you about the possibility of delaying discussion about so security, medicare, and medicaid until after the 2012 elections.

north carolina, richard is on a line. caller: put good morning, susan. i am a republican. why would we pay other countries if we need the money ourselves? the deficit, social security, you know, medicare. i don't understand. we are giving money to other countries. why not give it back to the u.s.? host: let's focus on social security and medicare. do you want to preserve those programs as they are? caller: yes. why don't the democrats and republicans get together at the table and talk about it? get some kind of agreement instead of worrying about other countries. we need the money more. host: thank you. they are talking about it and that's why we are talking about it today. a new gang set to begin today at

blair house. the track record of gangs is not stellar. here's the list of people in that meeting with the vice president today. here's a twitter message. and back to the telephone calls, massachusetts, rikki, independent. go ahead, please. caller: entitlement programs should not be delayed. social security was not made to retire on.

people think it's made to retire on. it is up to the individuals in their working years to put away for retirement. this is to help them. with medicare, i pay. i only get $400 a month on social security. i'm not complaining about it. medicaid was supposed to be for the elderly and our welfare people on it and children. these definitely have to be taken care of right away. it cannot be delayed. thanks for listening. host: tina sent this tweet. another story from capitol hill newspapers.

there is another story suggesting delays. next is a call from ohio. caller: good morning. this is exactly 30 days. i don't normally get in at 30 days, but here i am. i have a comment on seniors on social security and medicare. if you vote republican, they are going to take a where medicaid -- they are going to take away medicare and social security. i have a son at 35 and i would like to see him get something i am getting now. i would like to have seniors

give up your medicare and your social security, because otherwise you are hypocrites. host: let's listen to what happened in the briefing yesterday of bloomberg reporters.

we will share a few more of the common ground bullet points that seemed to be beginning to emerge. next, a telephone call from georgia. statesboro is on the air, good morning, shelby. caller: i don't think 535 people in washington, d.c., should be allowed to wait around on making decisions that affect 300 million people. and i think that if they will practice now how to get this straightened out, they will get somewhere someday. i don't believe any social programs that they can come up with will ever work because you cannot plan 50 or 70 years down the road to know how much will be needed and how much the costs will rise and how much as the recipients will rise.

and it is just almost criminal that they can jerk us around like they do. because of greed, graft, and corruption, we don't have any more retirement. all we have is social security. when they were talking about unemployment, my husband, i don't care if he gets the unemployment or not if they don't pay for it. don't be making bets for my children and grandchildren. host: that was from the republican line. now this note from twitter -- back to the phone calls. next up is kansas city, missouri, a joke, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i am sometimes entertains by these fellows wearing shirts and ties and loving to see themselves on tv as they make

sure that any cuts will not affect their salaries. i worked 30 years as a disabled veterans representative. i lost a leg in vietnam. i draw social security. any delay that they built into this always affects every penny that i get. i don't remember that there was much of a delay when they raided the social security trust fund in the 1980's. i think they still owe social security recipients about $1 trillion. thank you. host: thank you. bill tweets -- and about joe biden of leading the group in the white house --

next call, cape cod, good morning, rick, independent. caller: i am 52. the new cut off is going to be 54. government's responsibility for my retirement. the other aspect i wanted to bring up was the increasing cost to businesses are already being directly felt at the grocery stores and everything that we purchase. i frankly cannot afford for this government to continue to spend the money the way it is. the entitlements need to be changed. there are so many people on it that don't need to be.

they just don't want to work. i know i am going to get a lot of trouble for that, but it's true. i work all my life and i will continue to work. nobody is responsible for my retirement but me. host: thanks for the call. back to this article, suggesting that there's room for compromise on delays about the entitlement reforms as long as there are significant budget cuts that come out of an agreement. we have looked at a couple of bullet points about the budget cuts. here are two more. projects that would aim to bring the deficit below present time of gdp by 2013 -- mr. obama's instigation of the vice president is meeting

thursday with six lawmakers four democrats and two democrats, conversations have been taking place outside that for, it's says. next call, seattle, washington. good morning to patty, republican. caller: hello. i just wanted to say something about the medicare and medicaid and the entitlement benefits. there's a lot of people in my state, they got busted for selling food stamps. they get medical and dental care and housing and they get everything subsidize for them. and you are paying for their day

care and they are out there selling food stamps at grocery stores at discounts and using the money for whatever they are using it for, whether it be drugs or gambling or whatever else. it really upsets me that so many people out of work that do need the money and then you have people out there abusing the system. they're not attacking them -- checking them. anybody can sign up for it. that's what upsets me more than anything. also, if they are going to get this stuff, then put them out in the fields working, put them proud cleaning the streets or working in the parks. nothing should be handed to anybody for nothing. host: thank you. bob writes to us on twitter --

that continuing the debate on twitter about what constitutes entitlements. and look this photograph today. a stunt that went largely unnoticed by the national media. students at more than 75 colleges with young americans for liberty chapters protested the country's debt by displaying a 40 foot long national debt signed on their campus. there's a growing youth movement for the country and we are proud to lead the way. at the university of california, san diego, students placed the gigantic that cost next to their library. "the debt is going to change our lives and all this that we have to pay the debts from past generations," says a san diego

student. back to calls. sugar creek, missouri. glenda is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say but there's nothing wrong with social security. the problem is the large tax breaks, shipping jobs overseas, and, actually, giving tax breaks to companies to move out of america. without social security, what are these people going to do? host: thanks for the call. next is a call from baltimore. this is david, independent, go ahead, please. caller: good morning, thanks for having me. i really enjoy a c-span. i am 31. it's still really concerns me about the debt in general. i wish the system would work the

way it did for social security and medicare the way it did for my grandparents. i think the burden should not be put on the backs of the younger workers. i am planning my retirement without social security. i don't think i will actually get it. " i think whenever i get will be so meal that -- so menial. it's not right. we need to cut out as much waste and try to make it as efficient as possible. but not on the backs of young people. host: david, you said you are planning for future with limited social security. are you willing to pay more taxes? caller: sure, if it will guarantee my benefit, most certainly. the burden should not just be on

the young people. one last thing, one of the underlying problems is the base of workers. we need more workers. when social security started, there were 30 workers for one person. i think we need to concentrate on trying to get a new sector of the economy started. i guess that would be renewable energy, that the new thing now. we really need more workers, more manufacturers. host: thank you, david, and thanks for watching. a political memo, bipartisan negotiations begin on how to limit the spread of federal red ink.

back to telephone calls. mobile, alabama, next. good morning, ruth, a republican. caller: good morning. i see no reason why we cannot go along with mr. ryan, congressman ryan. he suggested that later down the road we make adjustments in the retirement based and amounts. several years ago they adjusted

social security. for everyone who was born before around 1920, they received the amount they had been receiving. for everyone who was born after that date, they received last. -- less. they called them they notch babies. host: for many years we heard calls from notch babies on the program saying that they were unfairly targeted in a compromise. caller: they work. -- thy were. host: here is an e-mail from maryland.

and a phone call from farmington, richard, a democrat. caller: i became a democrat when john f. kennedy made the statement, "ask not what your country can do for you." this country now seems to be on the bandwagon of ask what the country can do for you. i used to qualify for social security disability. you just cannot believe the people that were allowed to get it. one of the other statements, too, is that i have not seen a bunch more hypocrites to call into c-span. they talk about spending and they talk about all this stuff, but they keep voting in congressmen in their districts to pass all these earmarks that are taking away from other people because they're getting something in the district. for heaven's sakes, people, use common sense, quit being a

democrat or republican and vote for the person that can do you the most good. starts thinking about the future generations and quit saying, give me, give me, give me. host: and now this e-mail from bob in florida. and this comment on twitter -- next is a phone call from long island. jane, an independent. caller: good morning. that made my blood pressure rise, that caller. it is difficult to get on social security disability.

i used to work at a law firm and represented people doing mas th. people died while waiting to get on disability. a lot people on social security are disabled. these people cannot work. they are unable to work. they were robbed by illness or accident. their ability to work and contribute as well. they would want to work. don't take away their medical care. many doctors now will not take you as a patient if medicare is your primary insurance because of the cuts that have already been made. to take this away, to cut this will kill more people. why are they doing this to the most hurtin peopleg? host: thank you. this paper has a different story

altogether. here's a big photograph of the mayor. speaking of photographs, all of us from around the world have been looking at this compelling photographs from inside the white house situation room as the operation against bin laden were under way. various people in the room identified. such as this gentleman, brigadier general marshall brad webb, the commander of joint operations. he is seated in the tier usually reserved for the president. -- the chair usually reserved for the president. this moment right here is not identified. and they wanted to know who that

was. the woman standing just feet from the president, and iconic photograph of disintegration room during the raid on osama bin laden. her name is audrey thomason, title of director of counter-terrorism. her presence is notable for a few reasons. she is the only woman in the room next to the secretary clinton and appears to be the only person under 40. she works with the national security council, a white house agency closely involved with the intelligence that led to bin laden. the white house generally does not discuss personnel of its intelligence agencies. when asked why she had never

been identified before, a white house representative said that we have never killed bin laden before. we will talk more about the implications of osama bin laden on the weekend. back to telephone calls. pittsburgh, pennsylvania, gregg, a republican. caller: i would like to talk a little bit about entitlements as far as social security. my father worked all his life and retired in 1982. all the money that he paid in, the collected in 18 months and is still living at 85 years old. that is a heck of a savings plan. host: what would your message to washington be? caller: either you have to raise the limits or raise the age on social security, or you are going to have to decrease the amount. people are living longer. host: madison heights, wisconsin

or rather michigan. pamela, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to mention that with the entitlements i do believe that there are many people basques do actually depends on it as they get older. my sister works for a school district and they are basically trying to get rid of the union's. her salary is going to be cut almost in half. for her to have to pay her bills and keep up with the cost of living today, i am sure that she is going to need her social security. host: your message to washington about social security and medicare would be -- caller: we need to keep social security. if we do have to pay a little more, i agree that we would have to. host: thanks. and the white house announced

all three pending free-trade negotiations delayed are ready for congress to consider. next is a phone call from baton rouge, louisiana. good morning, doc, a republican. caller: good morning. let me tell you something i do and i think democrats should think about doing. when i see a child and didn't years old or younger, i kneel down and pat them on the head of and say i am real sorry for this mess that we have used up with. you are $185,000 in debt right now as you stand here. sometimes i get into arguments with some of the parents. but the truth hurts. social security was opposed to

being in a lock box that was not to be touched, but during the 50 years under the reign of a democrat congress it was absolutely stolen from the american people. -- social security was suppose to be in a lock box. those congressman should be sent a bill to pay for that. host: massachusetts, next, angela, a democrat. go ahead, please. caller: it is sandra. host: excuse me. caller: i would like to know why we allow rich women from other countries that come into this country and have their babies, they are illegal aliens, they get on social security and birth certificates are made for them and they can come back to

our country later as citizens. please, explain that one. thank you very much. host: i appreciate all of your discussion about the right way to approach the discussions over the budget deficit with the debt ceiling decision looming in front of us. a reminder, today vice- presidential biden is convening 6 bicameral house and senate and address house to compromise in the budget. mark writes for the tribune papers including the los angeles time. he's on the line. we said today would be the date for the first republican presidential candidate debate. tell us about it. it is posted by fox

news. a number of candidates considering running for president on the republican side in 2012. the real headline is not who is participating. there are number of rules to determine who be eligible. only five candidates. former senator rick santorum from pennsylvania, calm former minnesota governor tim pawlenty , representative ron paul from texas will be on stage. mitt romney, seen as a front- runner, is not to participate. host: when will this event me into party politics? guest: for the candidates, it's a chance to get more name recognition, in particular tim pawlenty. inside the beltway, he he is considered a top tier candidate,

but polls have shown he has not really connected with voters yet. it's an opportunity in to get his message out to the voters and to the activists who will be choosing a nominee next year. he was in iowa earlier this week and hopes seem to be trying to hold on. his fellow contenders fell like the race was starting too early plans and now people are looking at making a case against president obama. host: there was a speech in washington at the american enterprise institute, indiana governor mid-and l's. what did we learn about his intentions? guest: he seemed to enjoy the buildup that led to the speech. he's on a national tour, visiting new york and washington.

he said thank goodness that the field for the republican primary is starting a little later. he did not show his hand more than that, but he is somebody considering the race. host: thanks very much. the debate is in greenville, south carolina, hosted by fox news. you will be able to watch it there. mike will be covering the politics that come out of this in the first go round of some of the potential presidential candidates on the deal seaside. thanks very much for being with us. we are going to turn our attention to the story of the week, really, which is the killing of osama bin laden over the weekend and the implications for our national security. we will talk with two members of congress. mr. gohmert will be with us as well as loretta sanchez.

we will be right back. >> every weekend, experience american history on c-span3. starting saturdays at 8:00 a.m. eastern. 48 hours a people and events telling the american story. first-person accounts from people that have shaped modern america encore oral history. travel to important battlefield to learn about the figures and events that shaped an era, during the anniversary of the civil war. every weekend visit college classrooms across the nation as professors delve into america's past. join curators, collectors, and historians behind-the-scenes at the museum exhibits and historic sites. and the presidency, focusing on american president's policies and legacies as told through historic speeches and personal insights from administration

officials and experts. american history tv on c-span3, all weekend, every weekend. gatt are complete schedule online and sign up to have an e- mail sent to you. congratulations to all the winners of this year's student video contest.am if you like and will start on next year's competition, the team is "the u.s. constitution." select any portion and create a video on why it's important for you. details available, august 1. >> now available, complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information, including twitter addresses, district maps, and committee assignments, and information on the white house, supreme court justices and

governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> "washington journal continue" . host: democrats laura sanchez joining us. when issues are services committee and the other is homeland security. let's start with our services and your oversight of people involved in the raid. what's your reaction to the job they did? guest: i had the honor of being the chairwoman for the subcommittee last year. let me just say that they did an awesome job. remember that we have used different special forces in different ways. everybody remembers the black hawk down situation, where things did not work out. these are troops very specialized, special skills, we

really invest in them, they are training all the time. we have them in a lot of places in the world ready to go into action if we need them to, hopefully, into situations where we can calm down the situation can and make sure democracy is alive and well and that people are doing well. to take this little elite group and to do that, and to marry them with what we have been doing for a long time in 15 years i've been in congress in particular and on our services committee, marry them with the cia and get everybody to work together to go in and able to do this very discreet task and to make it really happen the way it did. kudos to all of them. host: let's move on to the communications in the event by the whole team and the administration. the story has become clear about the circumstances. do you believe the administration did the best job

it could in the communications surrounding this? guest: listen, it is always difficult. we were not there. even at this point, the perceptions from everybody of what went on, everybody wants so much information right away. we are in a 24-hour news cycle. everybody's trying to get information. people are making things up sometimes as we go along slovaks' -- along so that they can fill this appetite for information. we need to try to understand what actually happened during that hour's process of what was going on. not just the decision-making capacity. by the way, i give kudos to president obama for being so strong and forthright in deciding to go into this in this manner. but, also, for us to talk to

those people who were there, to debrief them, and to sort of put together the whole thing. remember the adage of the 10 blind men who are touching a piece of an elephant that and they all think that it is something different depending on where they were touching. when we get the opinions, the perceptions of what was really going on by each of those people involved, we can, hopefully, together if what that elephant looks like. host: i want to ask more questions about this, but we want your calls, comments, questions on two aspects of this. osama bin laden operation itself and the implications for homeland security going forward. our guest is loretta sanchez. the phone numbers are on the screen. also, you can tweet or send us an e-mail. we will have the information below the pictures. the big story on every newspaper

today is the decision by the president yesterday not to release the death photograph. is that the right decision? guest: it is neither here nor there for me. we always get caught up in the details. people always want the details. the reality is the most important thing for the united states is to figure out what went on, why bin laden was there, what is our relationship with pakistan, what do we do about afghanistan, if anything? this whole situation, this precise, surgical type of situation, i think carter is back to why we have 120,000 conventional troops hanging out in afghanistan if al qaeda is perhaps a dozen people in afghanistan? for me there are so many larger issues that we should grapple with and try to move forward because it is costing us lives

and it is costing us a lot of money in the current situation that we are. so this ability to get osama bin laden and we did that is at the top of the list of how do we begin to phase down what congress approved almost 10 years ago in let's go after him because he did was wrong on 9/11. an photograph, i'd think, is incidental king. host: the president gets kudos from a pace that's often critical of him, the wall street journal editorial page.

-- we are beginning to have folks wh undero stand is go through the treasure trove of materials. here's this little item from this morning. are americans more danger because of possible reprisals after the death? guest: there are a lot of groups loosely affiliated with al qaeda. there are people who just want to do us harm.

they might look at this as an opportunity to go after americans. the fact is you have to look at the last 10 years. they have not been successful, terrorists. we have really cut the legs off of al qaeda. we have to acknowledge that, celebrate that, and move forward. no, i don't believe it means we are in any more danger than we were before. in fact, it points to the fact that we are becoming very effective, the fact that we were able to go in and get osama bin laden even when some who or may be helping us supposedly might have known where he was. this was very effective. this is the first piece of puzzle, to figure out what to do with the rest of the war on terror. it's not just a celebration for americans. anybody who believes in true government by the people, any type of democracy, whatever that

might look like, if this is great for nations and peoples around the world. host: when you mentioned people supposed to be helping us, i assume you are referring to the pakistani. guest: yes. this is a house that supposedly was eight times larger than any other home in the neighborhood. the house is closed to the west point of the pakistan people. a lot of retired military and retired isi, like the cia, in this neighborhood. you get this house with 12-18 foot walls and barbed wire and why would not someone say i wonder who lives there or what is going on there?

i believe we have a lot of information. this treasure trove will be important. one last thing that i think is important, there were several options given to our president about what to do. clearly, a very risky option was to go in as we did. but there will probably not two main reasons that he chose that. thank god he did. the first is that we wanted to confirm to ourselves that we had gotten osama bin laden and we have done that. secondly, this treasure trove, this ability to gather this information so that we can really be much more effective in protecting the world, that is incredibly important. if we had bombed him, as some in the pentagon and other places advocated, we would have lost that treasure trove. host: the lead in this story --

let's take telephone calls, beginning with one from florida. mike, a democrat. you are on. caller: the democrats quickly turned to independent -- as a democrat, i am quickly turn into independence as the day goes on.

representative sanchez, i always see you on c-span debating. i love virtually every word out of your mouth. as far as what is going on now, i need to remind tthe american people. all these people that are supposedly our friends and we turn them into our enemies to create the reason to go to war. i will remind everyone, nine months after september 11, al- walaki dined at the white house. so now he is after us and he is basically getting my safety. everyone knows that osama bin laden was a cia operative in the 1980's working against the mujahedin

the last president, president bush, why did not vote for, his father's business partners were bin laden's partners. on september 11, if they were missing at the carlyle group to discuss the actions. if it is a little bit more than fishy. host: a response? guest: in a lot of ways i agree with the things you were same. let me just say that just as afghanistan is important to us, so is pakistan. if to jump on the bandwagon and dismiss that somehow we have no need to have an interaction with pakistan, it is not in the best interest of us as americans. politically, pakistan is an important country.

as a nuclear power perspective, it is important to pay attention to. more importantly, said the main reason why we need to have an engagement with pakistan has is that we do not want it to become an area in which terrorists are training to come after americans, or american soil. it is an important relationship. is it a strong relationship? are they in our corner? absolutely not. just as i would set afghanistan, and some of our partners. if you have heard me, you know i have been critical about where we should be. certainly, disengaging, without any relationship, it would make our life more difficult as we try to make our future safer. so, i appreciate your comments,

and, believe me, i am not a roll over on this. if you know my positions, you know i have been an advocate about what we are doing spending our blood and our treasury in afghanistan, and i appreciate people that think, reid, and form opinions. it is always great, and never black-and-white. host: another mike in canada. an independent. caller: i had a question with regard to giving up civil liberties in order to be more secure. i have contacted the gsa in response to -- tsa in regard to this question. i understand the need to screen everybody more thoroughly before they get on the airplane, but what goes to prevent somebody

from detonating a bomb while waiting to be screened, or outside of the airport terminal? it looks like bells and whistles, because it does not really make us more secure. host: do you travel regularly between the united states and canada? caller: i live in the u.s., and travel somewhat frequently. host: there has been an increase in the documentation needed. you now have to use the passport. why has it been like compared to last year's, traveling? caller: the paperwork is not so much an issue, rather than i am presumed a terrorist, rather than probable cause. i do not feel like giving up my

civil liberties to be more safe. guest: thank you for the question. i am one of those who believes that when we give up our civil liberties, the terrorist has actually won. one of the great things about being an american is the history of civil -- civil liberties. you're looking at somebody who voted against the patriot act. i did not like my mother listening to my phone calls when i was a teenager, so i certainly do not want the government listen in. i care about my civil rights, and the civil rights of americans. i have been one of the people that have been placed on the terrorist list at some point. luckily, i was able to get myself off because it was a mistake. i travel the airport all the time. i'm a californian who comes back and forth to washington, d.c., every week. we have had incidents.

for example, lax, in front of the israeli airline, a shooting happened on the curbside, and people were going to get in line for the process. yes, we have to be vigilant in so many ways. if we cannot capture everything, do everything -- it is too costly. yesterday, we had a mass transit hearing in the homeland security committee and the house of representatives. how do we keep people safe? people get angry when police make you go around and not stop and wait at curbside airports when you are waiting for your wife or somebody to come out. there are so many things we do to limit as much as we can the probability of these things happening. if we cannot do it 100%. i will tell you this, and maybe this treasure trove will tell us

again, that these terrorists are fixated on airports, passengers -- they love to blow up airplanes. as long as we understand that, we will need to continue to figure out what is the best way to protect the travelling public. host: "the examiner" looks at the response in a los angeles.

host: one of our viewers the high twitter asks -- guest: again, it is a matter of resources, and giving up civil liberties. the answer is, and i believe, remember, i represent the anaheim area, where we have dizzy -- disneyland the convention center, i have my mighty ducks there -- so, the answer is i represent an area that are any given day has an influx of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. so, we worked very closely with local law enforcement because as we saw on 9/11, they are the ones that have to figure out what is going on on the ground

and alert us to things that might be coming. i mentioned that yesterday we have this hearing on public transit in the homeland security committee. one of the things that struck me -- i mean, i was dumbfounded -- that had transit cop for chicago said to us that anything we have done on securing public transit in chicago has been paid by the federal government. not $1 has come from a local level to do that. he said 100% of the security they have for public transit has come from the federal government, and yet if you look at our budget, and what people are advocating, they are doing away with the money we give to a place like chicago to work around securing our public transit. so, what is it you want? if you want us to bring down the

federal deficit, but at the same time, we want people to use their local chicago line, or the subway in new york, and yet if we look across the nation, most of the money is used to sit around how we sort things on public transit, and those are being cut by the -- caught by the republicans. host: the president is in new york today to lay a wreath on ground zero. he did invite george bush. here's what the tabloids look like. host: we're talking with representative loretta sanchez of california, who is a member of the armed services committee and homeland security, about some of the implications of the weekend operation. the next call is ralph, a republican.

caller: i'm hoping to get an honest answer from a politician, stranger things have happened. it was any of the information used to get osama bin laden gathered through enhanced interrogation techniques? why are democrats sending grief without giving bin laden miranda rights, or giving him rights to turn himself in or surrender? if you say it is not -- it is for the safety of the soldiers, that is not what you said in the bush years. you said you need to give them their rights, and here, you're of democratic president, shot him without giving him a chance to surrender. how do square with that, how are you so gleeful, and how you

change your viewpoint on that 180 degrees, and not even bother your conscious? guest: that is the question. fino my record, in no i am not so gleeful, and i am one of those democrats that have said we do not need to read miranda rights to people we pick up under the war on terror. you might have to check the record of the person that you are talking to would be the first thing i would say to you. more importantly, the execution, as you called it, of bin laden. there are two things we know that bin laden said to the world -- 1, i will never be taken alive. when somebody says that to me, that says he is predicting that he will fight. the second thing that he said, not once, but various times, is

that when he would be caught, he would have a strapped bomb on him, and he would take anybody who tried to get him out with him. those are given facts. so, if you are a soldier coming in, in the dark, with chaos going on as these things happen, and you see bin laden there, in a row, or whatever it was that he was wearing, and you do not take serious the fact that he said i will have a bomb strapped to me, and i will take out people -- by the way, the congress, in their issue with respect to 9/11 and their affirmation of the war on terror said that he was part of the combat, and when we did that, -- when you're a soldier, in combat, you have a right to

shoot in that manner. it is not for us to second-guess what is happening there. that is why we have to wait for the fact spread that is why we have to see what everybody says and understand more what is going on. in a time where seconds matter, and minutes matter, i will always be on the side of my soldiers judgment. host: "the washington post" has a profile of the terrorist hunter. as you look at him, this is what they say. one of the most experienced hunter in the u.s. government had kept it in for the mission two months earlier. he had overseen weeks of intensive training for a covert operation that could strain the

alliance with pakistan if it went awry. the surge was led by the cia, which eventually appointed to the all wall compound. when president obama gave the authorization to invade the site, cia director leon panetta delegated to the man who had been preparing for this moment for much of his career. g tel i had -- guest:. guest: i have the opportunity to be that committee. if you look at some of the comments i have made, i was not for the conventional troop increase that president obama did in afghanistan. i truly believe that a land- based army, military -- yes, we

need some of that, but that is not the wave of the future. actually, if you look at what we were trying to do -- remember, i have been on this committee for 15 years. when we began, when of the things that we wanted to do, and i was critical, but there was the transformation process in the military away from the land- based army sitting in germany, and going away from that, bringing troops back, reach transitioning, is figuring out where the new conflicts would be rejected the soviet union, the middle east, -- the soviet union, the middle east -- and this entire strike fighter situation, where we are going in more strategic, and we have gone from investing two billion

dollars a year, to almost $10 billion in the time that i have been there. we have more staff. we need a modernization. some of that started when we got into iraq and afghanistan, and some of that was slowed down because the money and the effort has been so focused in these two places. that is one of the reasons i want to see us wind that up so we can concentrate on what our military should look like in the future to protect us and our allies. host: elizabethtown, n.c., david, an independent. caller: i think the whole thing is a hoax. they did not really killed bin laden. if they did, they would have more pictures of him on the tv and everything.

the things they do and say -- our government has been falsified documents for years. host: so, there would be no convincing you, even if you saw pictures? caller: now. they didn't even get a body. host: thank you, david. let me get one more caller in. marx, a democrat, pennsylvania. caller: he is absolutely right. they got the wrong guy, they did not want to admit it. they brought the body, and deep-6ed, and then this been a began. think about the information that is out there. host: two skeptics guest: i will

tell you this today, -- two skeptics. guest: i will tell you this today, outside and knows that bin laden is dead. we have blown apart their network by getting this guy, and i am very confident that we have, and sometimes you cannot convince some people, but the reality is it was a good day for the united states and the free world. now, we need to moves forward and figure out how we dismantle the rest of the loosely-knit, some held high, and some others around the world -- elk hide, and some others, -- al qaid the and some others around the world. host: thank you. our next guest is louie gohmert. we will be right back after this news update.

>> more reaction to the killing of osama bin laden -- pakistan is war in the u.s. of "disasters consequences" if more unilateral race against suspected terrorists are. out in this country, but the foreign secretary -- are brought out in this country, but the foreign secretary says the joint missions remain in the senate passed a joint resolution honoring the seals who killed bin laden, but the house does not appear likely to follow. they report that the decision by gop leaders follows new rules they enacted in january, scrapping the tradition of congratulatory measures. the lack of house action group criticism from some democrats, who say the exception to the new rules was more than warranted for the killing of the number one enemy. secretary of state henry clinton

said the obama administration is looking to free up some of the more than $30 billion as frozen in libyan assets to support opponents of muammar gaddafi. secretary clinton said she will ask congress for portions of the funds. $25 million has already been authorized, and 53 million has been pledged in humanitarian aid. >> you can now access our programming at any time with the c-span radio iphone app, offering network strains. you can listen to our signature programs each week, and it is available around the clock, wherever you are. >> michele bachman is here, and dell, and i understand, -- is here, though, i understand, and

she is thinking about running for president, which is weird, because i hear she was born in canada. yes, michele, this is how it starts. >> video of president obama at the white house correspondents' dinner and is our what most watched video ever. watch it again online at our youtube channel. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our second and final guest, as papers drop on the floor, is congressman louie gohmert. we are here to talk to you in your capacity as vice chairman of the house judiciary subcommittee on crime, terrorism what caught my eye was this opinion piece in "the wall

street journal" by an israeli. he writes reach -- that guest: sometimes that is true, sometimes it is not. time will tell. as an old history major, and somebody that studied military science for four years, that could go either way, but in this case, i would humbly submit that when you have a leader who has been as powerful as bin laden has, and you take that leader out, you have done a very good thing. host: relations with pakistan -- pakistan is war in the united states no more security actions without their involvement. what is next with our

relationship there? guest: they are saying we need to check with them before we do that, and let me think for a moment -- all, yet, we did not check with them is what the administration said. we now if there is a high-value target there, and we let their intelligence people now, the high-value target will not be there. you also have to look at it from the leaders of pakistan's position. if the people of pakistan fought for a moment that they had given their -- thought for a moment that they had given their permission for us to come in, they would probably be in deep trouble and there might be riots in the street going after them. so, of course, it does them a favor if we do something like that without talking to their leader's first. his bin laden's replacements end

up in the same compound, we need to do the exact same thing, and not show intelligence sources, but also go back to what president bush said, and i applaud president obama. after four and a half years for condemning the bullish for not always getting the u.n. approval and having an alliance working together, and he realized that to do this, it had to be unilateral. it was a great moment for the president coming to the realization that the condemnation he made for four and a half years was wrong, and he had to do this on his alms. host: will this cause you to scrutinize any differently the money that the united states provides to pakistan? g, while, i have been concerned about the money for a long -- guest: i have been concerned about the money for a long time.

they are sovereign countries. they make their own choices. we do not have to pay people to hate us. they will do it for free. when you look at what has been done with the money, it certainly causes great concern, so it will not cause me any heightened scrutiny beyond where we already are. it will be the same level. host: this was an interesting secondary story and "the washington post care." guest: yeah.

just because gaddafi is a crazy, murderous leader, it does not mean he does not recognize other crazy, murderous leaders. of course, it makes sense, especially if you are a maniacal leader like gaddafi has been. you recognize others that are similar. so, it does not surprise me at all. i did not realize that, but it does not surprise me. daffy new he was dealing with the guy that would come after him -- gaddafi know he was dealing with the guy that would come after him. host: the phone numbers are on the screen. you can write us as well. this yesterday --

guest: we still do not know the full story on what the orders were -- the rules of engagement going in. normally, the rules of engagement are you go in, you take out the bad guys. if the president's order to them was go in and do all you can to take the man alive, they would have done all they could to take him alive. all of those details are still unfolding. we still do not have the full story. the white house keeps changing the story we are getting. essentially, we will get the full story. perhaps, we will -- eventually, we will get the full story. perhaps we could have lost intelligence. they have a flash drives, other things that are important, they figured out how they were communicating -- i have not heard this in a classified briefing cents, but tom clancy

does great research on his books, and there were indications in public knowledge that there were some that would put messages in photographs, and then you send the photographs through the internet, and you have the software that takes out the information in the photograph. if there is all kinds of information we are able to glean from that. just taking out bin laden, do you think he was going to tell us alive? maybe if he had been water board, but that was not when do happen under this administration. host: what are the questions you want to answer? guest: i am curious what the rules of engagement were. was there in order to kill on site? do not bring him back alive, we do not want that circus? or, was the order do what you

can to take him i am curious about that. i have nothing but the highest praise for the seals team. i have become friends with members of some of the seals teens. has finishedon seals training, and i am proud of him. i have no questions for them. they are the ultimate professionals, but i would be curious to know what the order was. host: here is "washington post." headlines. [laughter] host: let's begin with sam, a republican. sam, are you there? let me turn not -- let me turn to queens, new york, richie, and penn line.

-- independent line. caller: i just want to say that the information they are going to get there is much more important. host: turn your feed down. that is causing feedback. caller: they should work like the massad did. host: i am going to let you go. more targeted, i think is the implication? guest: from where he started, it sounded like he was wendy's said there will be more information gleaned from what -- when he started, it sounded like he was going to say there would be mor information gleaned. it will happen. in afghanistan, perhaps the more

troops you have, sometimes, the more you create problems for those gathering against you. in iraq, though, the surge worked, but it is obvious that afghanistan is an entirely different country. it is some tribal. it is so different than iraq. i have met with some of the warlords from the northern alliance who we used to take out the taliban originally. i did not realize that we made them disarm after it appeared that the taliban was initially defeated. i would love to see as rearm the northern alliance, and they would love to see that, too. they are concerned that we have been indirectly in negotiating with the taliban, and pakistan, and afghanistan -- that was basically what they were telling

us they heard. if we let us out next year, without big incidents, you could divide this up. the no. all lines, they know what that means, which -- the no. alliance, they know what that means -- they and their families will be -- dead. i think loretta sanchez is right, we could reduce the amounts of troops we have, dbut get back to the role in which the taliban was originally defeated. they did a better job than we have done since we took it over. host: texas, mary is a republican mayor. guest: that is my district. caller: good morning. mr. gohmert, i am one of your

constituents. i am 80 years old. my husband is 83. we are on social security and medicare, and there is talk about taking away our medicare and our social security. i want to note if you are one of them who is one to take it away from us. that is what we hear from the democrats. also, was the 5 $1 billion taken out of medicare? -- 500 and billions taken out of medicare? we pay 96 -- $500 billion taken out of medicare? if we pay $96.50 every month. where does that money go? guest: we should have had a law years ago that said social security tax money had to go into a social security trust fund. since its inception, there has never been one dime of real money and the trust fund. it should have happened. it is a responsible that we have never made that happen.

as far as taking away your social security and medicare, that is a scare tactic that one party is against the other. i know the republicans are in the majority in the house, and we are absolutely committed that if anybody over 55 -- they will not have their medicare changed, their social security changed. so, you do not have to worry about it. and i hope to see you soon, but do not worry about it. please, do not lose any more sleep over it. we are in control in the house, and we have made it clear we are not going to let that happen, especially to somebody that is 80 years old, and '83, like you and your husband -- and 83, like you and your husband. one promises are made, and

somebody acts to their detriment, the original party should be made to keep their promises. that is what we are talking about. i believe the government will keep our commitments, and not break promises to those that are already on medicare or medicaid, and within 10 years of getting there. host: the next caller is from tom, in laurel, maryland. caller: first, i have to appraise your intellectual integrity. you're being very objective. guest: have you been talking with speaker john boehner about how upset i was with him last week? is that why you are saying? ? i am very impressed that you are serving the public the way they should be served guest: thank. guest: thank you.

caller: that takes courage. i have been involved in special ops. say a washington redskin defensive player is looking at a dallas cowboys, they know every move and tendency debthat tony romo has, and if he gets the pass off, you have set out technical -- you have sailed. -- failed. mr. bin laden is left-hand dominant, that is pretty easy to identify. number two, he is moving away from you, going to relocation you know nothing about, supposedly running upstairs, who knows what could be there -- you are responsible for the rest of that seemed to read you have to take prudent action, which they

did, in -- the rest of that scene. if you need to take prudent action. which they did. there are two missions. one is direct action. number two is to be a force multiplier. we need to train some of these other troops in other countries, and you can see an example of it in latin america where we have professionalized those armies. no longer will a common and -- , and then bought stroke eight soldier get -- a soldier for lacking to perform. guest: that could come back to bite us if they fall under

control of the moslem brotherhood. host: let me turn to another subject. there has been a good deal of reporting about yesterday's exchange with the attorney general -- here is a headline -- host: you were involved. give people a background on what the issue is? guest: the investigation began under the clinton administration. the fbi has been working on it. if they get valuable information in 1993 -- they got valuable information in the 1993, that continued through the next decade. there was very valuable information gleaned. if there was a treasure trove of documents. i believe it was annandale, where a couple were arrested going across the bay bridge.

they had documentation. 2005, more documentation was found, but on the holy land foundation, the bush administration began the prosecution based on information that had been going for about 15 years. officially, there was a hong jury, but they persisted and they got all 108 counts guilty on all five defendants. the bush administration, in 2004, had decided they were not going to pursue the unindicted co-conspirators, and they would make that call once they got past the convictions in the initial five defendants. there was a motion by some of the unindicted co-conspirators to have their names stricken from the pleadings. if the attorney in dallas, acting on behalf of the -- the attorney in dallas, acting on

behalf of the justice department, did a good job, and the judge in the district court came back and said there is plenty of evidence to show that unindicted co-conspirators are at least joint ventures. so, he refused to strike the names. then, we had word from some people within the justice apartment that -- department, that a political decision was made not to pursue the remained unindicted co-conspirators, so that was something we were pursuing with attorney general eric holder, and he seemed to think that the claim, and even the question was baseless as to there being political motivation. but, when you looked at some of the information -- some of the evidence that was produced, one of the unindicted co-

conspirators was one of -- here are slips. there is money going to fund hamas, terrorist activity. there are all kinds of evidence. boxes that have not been translated yet. it is interesting. if you go on the white house website, you can find remarks by the deputy national security adviser at the dulles area muslim society, where in the first paragraph of those remarks, he thanks the president of the islamic society of north america, and he also applauds him for the wonderful prayer that he gave at a ceremony at

the white house that the president conducted. we have the president of an unindicted co-conspirator, of which there is a case that they were involved in funding terrorism, not only tangentially involved, but actually in their doing prayers for the ceremony. we have a problem. we have some foxes in the henhouse. if we find out that the fbi has been getting -- we find out the fbi has been getting advice from the moslem brotherhood, care itself appeared the two people that started -- itself. there is all kind of evidence the two people that started that have funded terrorism. they were advising the fbi.

it was not until 2009, when year after the convictions, that the fbi finally issued a letter that they were suspending their close relationship with c.a.r.e. the attorney general did not take kindly to my inquiries, but this is a problem needs to be addressed. we do not need unindicted co- conspirators coming into our state department, defense department, justice department, giving them advice on how to deal with the muslim brotherhood, and then come lead. the white house. that is a problem, and -- prairie and the white hous -- prayer in the white house. that is a problem. caller: good morning. you made a comment that the full

story will finally come out. governments always withhold information. we never got the full story on pearl harbor, the u.s.s. liberty, the boston massacre, the kennedy assassination, and this is all of the same lines. it is obvious to me that the pakistani government was involved with us, with respect to this action. i do not know why that has not been brought out. also, if you remember -- guest: fred, the united knowledge -- both sides have said they were not involved. maybe they were, maybe they were not. if they were, you realize how bad it would be for the government of pakistan to admit. it would be a real problem, you do acknowledge that, i am sure.

caller: there is a quid pro quo. that is why the body was done in a moslem burial at if there was something r.i., we would be calling for -- burial. rrayhere was something a , we would be calling for funding to stop. guest: nobody knows what the conversations were, -- if i put myself in the position of the president, and i will never be president, because since 1968 we have never had a bald president. if i were in that position, i

would have notified -- and add to notify them, it would have been at the last minute, pat and if you do anything to warn them, anything to intercede, then you are our enemy, and we will have to take actions against you, because you are harboring terrorists that killed americans. so, it is up to you, but if you take those actions, we will have to go to war with you, and i would have made that very clear so that pakistan would not interfere, and we could go after our target. i think if there were going to be a message, that would need to be it, and i would not have wanted pakistani help. our guys are too good. i was in the army, but i have known a lot of special forces folks -- those guys are so good i would not want pakistani assistance of any kind. -- good.

i would not want pakistani assistance of any kind. host: our next caller is jennifer, louisville, ky. caller: good morning. the first thing that i want to bring up to you his -- i do not know if you recall or not -- the bin laden would go from different places, take children, and tell the families that they were going to take them, and get them a good education, but when it came down to it, he was teaching these children terrorism. i do not know if you recall that are not, but i do. also, too, about the picture of him been publicized, i agree with them not showing at for the simple reason that it would

jeopardize things. even here in the united states i believe that. guest: there are definitely pros and cons. we would have to make a decision. is a picture more prejudicial, will it so shocked people's consciousness that it would overcome the value? that is really know what the president and the administration had to decide. did they believe the pictures, after looking at them carefully, are they more prejudicial or harmful than they will be helpful? obviously, they made the decision that they would be more prejudicial. i am not sure. if i would lean toward wanting to bring those forward -- i would lean toward wanting to bring those four. we have already people -- made people mad by killing osama bin laden. i did not think we may get any

worse by showing the picture, but i have not seen the picture. i do not know. if there may have been things that. a problem. host: have you been in any classified briefings this week on it? guest: susan, i was in a classified briefing, and i will tell you -- leon panetta, i have not been a fan of his, but everything i have heard and read in the case that he did a marvelous job. obviously, we cannot go into anything that was discussed in a classified briefing, but i can't tell you i did not hear anything in the classified briefing -- can tell you that i did not hear anything in a classified briefing that i have not already read on the internet. host: speaking of the internet, where riders did post -- reuters did post pictures of the others in the compound were killed.

guest: the classified in that is that obviously, there are in pakistan, there is cap wasn't at work. -- capitalism at work. host: this comment. guest: i would agree. it would have been nice to have the body, but the people making the decision, they did not have a lot of time to make the decision, hopefully they thought about it in advance, but she is right. if somebody is buried at sea, it will be tough to have a shrine. host: as a rebuttal to that, when your says i agree, but they needed more documentation. guest: that is a bit of a juxtaposition by the

administration. you go online, read all kinds of statements from the administration -- he was not a true muslim, he was a threat to muslims. he was not as -- and islamic leader -- he was not an islamic leader because he had perverted the crown and its teachings. -- the koran and its teachings. if that had been the mantra so long, that it is a bit surprising that even though they have been saying he is not an islamic leader, that he is perverted the koran and its teachings, we will treat him like islamic leader. i agree with the viewer. host: louie gohmert was a captain in the u.s. army, served three terms of a district judge, and was appointed by the texas governor right. to complete the term of the chief justice of the 12 court of appeals in texas our next call

is from carolina. . , -- texas. our next call is from kurt. caller: is texas still on fire? guest: we still have fires. i think it's over two acres. caller: how about gaddafi? i've heard that we got him. guest: i am not aware of that. you would be seen scrolling news bulletins effect happened. host: are you ought supporter of our involvement there? -- are you a supporter of our involvement there? guest: not yet. i'm not a supporter of our action in libya.

gaddafi is a bad guy. his been responsible for the preponderance of murder. he is a bad guy, but before you participate and put american lives on the line to take out one guy, you really need to know who is going to replace the guy, and are those people going to be worse? we do not know dead yet. we know that some of the people that are trying to take -- we do not know that yet. if we know that some of the people that are trying to take about are part of el tied up. the moslem brotherhood looks as if they have a -- are part of al tied up. -- al qaeda. doug muslim -- the moslem brotherhood looks like they have a good chance to take over. i would hope that we have

learned from lessons. host: we have about six minutes left in our shortened session today. jack is a republican. good morning. caller: good morning, susan. mr. louie, how we feel about being an american this week? guest: i have always been proud to be an american. i have always been blessed to live and be born here. we cannot go back and bless those who blessed us by allowing us to be born here, we need to do it for the next generation, and that is what i'm scared to death we are not doing a good job of. caller: i'm a veteran of the 1960's, and i can tell you there have been covert actions forever, and will always be.

we were beginning to look like a wind nation, and i am glad to see we are doing something to get the respect that. you head of these rules of engagements. -- you have these rules of engagement. guest: you are right, if this operation had turned out like the fiasco in around under president carter, it would have banned devastating. -- in iran, under president carter, it would have been devastating. thank god it turned out well at the end. host: we are receiving an enormous amount of tweets about bringing troops home from afghanistan. you think there will be more of a cry for that from congress? guest: i think everybody is in

favor of that, and when i am still in favor of his getting weapons back in the hands of the northern alliance. i know karzai has not been crazy about that. get that back in the control of those who can deal with the taliban, bring our people home, have advisers there as we withdraw. that will still be a hotbed. we need to make sure there are people that do not want to hurt us in charge. host: reduced the money? guest: as you pull out troops, you can sit up the money, obviously. host: there was a report in "the financial times" calculating the aeda for the u.s..

they estimate it was six and $90 billion in additional security. guest: that was one of the ways we were losing the war against terrorism, and actually, bin laden was pointing that out that they were able to take a very small amount of money, bring about 9/11, and his hope was they could bankrupt america by how much we were having to spend to address the little investment they made. host: was that not the strategy with the russians in afghanistan? guest: that was exactly this tragic -- strategy, and it worked with the russians, which is why we do not need to pursue that track. host: matt, a democrat in ohio. we are running out of time. caller: we have one question -- i have one question to ask you. we are sending billions of

dollars overseas to afghanistan and pakistan, and they're supporting the people that are against us. if we are going bankrupt, why don't we keep our money here to protect us, and said the heck with them countries? guest: that is why i filed the u.n. role in accountability act. if you want to vote against us, be against the things we hold dear and believed to be true, that is fine. you are a sovereign country. we do not have to pay them to hit us. they will do it for free. host: this is our last question. intel, a republican. caller: i wanted to call again and congratulate our military. they are like angels to us, and they do not get half of the credit. i highly respect you, and a lot

of what you say, but on this, one area i would like to say that general david petraeus has been right on the money. he is batting 1000. if he says we should be keeping a things calm, he knows more than what is going on and all of us do. i would like to go with his judgment. i respect to what a lot of your beliefs. guest: i want to point out one area -- david petraeus is one of the greatest generals we have ever produced in this country, but one area i have a profound disagreement on -- i have not heard anything about the koran burning in florida, and then there was the day of rage in afghanistan were innocent people were killed. i think it is atrocious that the crown was burned. i would feel the same way about the bible or the flag.

in 2005, there was documentation that one of the goals in the u.s. for the moslem brotherhood was to subvert the first amendment to share rear lot. if people say you cannot burn koran, i think david petraeus was wrong on that. host: thank you for being with us. now, to our live coverage of the house of representatives. who are working for relief. comfort those who mourn and welcome hoes who have died. bless these representatives. may all they do begin with your inspiration and find completion in your love. we ask this in your holy name. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved.

the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm proud to be an american. will you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, wildfires have raged in texas because of a long drought this year. the town of possum kingdom, texas, population 5,500, has burned up. this is one of the many

photographs showing the raging fires throughout the state. statewide, two firefighters have been killed, 400 homes have been destroyed. the 9,000 fires have covered over 2,200,000 acres. this is the size of rhode island and connecticut put together. and the cost of this devastating destruction are enormous. the governor has asked fema for a federal disaster declaration but the governor has been turned down by the white house. no more additional help for texas. too bad texas isn't a foreign country like pakistan. the federal government has shelled out over $500 million for disaster aid to pakistan citizens for the flooding in their country. when washington considers aid, if any, for daster relief, they -- disaster relief, they should consider americans in texas just as pack stanies. that doesn't -- pakistanis. that doesn't seem to be the case. meanwhile, the fires continue to burn in texas.

and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. defazio: small businesses are being crushed by $4 a combl of gas at the pump. now, they say it's plain old supply and demand. drill was the past. inventory is 2.6 million barrels over the five-year average and demand is now. what's going on? it's big oil and it's wall street. goldman sachs said that there is a -- the culprit for inflating prices is excess speculation. now, we wouldn't want to rein in the speculators because that's wall street and they're very generous to the republicans. we wouldn't want to take on big oil as manipulating the market

because they contribute big time to the republicans. so let's just play pretend. let's pretend we're doing something for consumers while hiding the culprits in plain sight. speculation on wall street, they traded 189,000 contracts, that's 189 million barrels last week, driving up the price. that's explanation. rein in the explanation and take on big oil. get real. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina wish to be recognized? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, this week's historic election in canada brought to power conservative party for parliament. by winning a full majority of 167 conservative seats, prime minister steven harper will now have four years of uninterrupted government. plans to create jobs without increasing taxes and paying

down the national deficit are top priorities of this new majority. the relationship of canada and south carolina has been strong for many years. this year marks the 50th annual canadian american day festival at myrtle beach which celebrates the partnerships between our citizens. david wilkinson of greenville served as u.s. ambassador of canada from 2005 to 2009. canada is our leading trade partner, which i know firsthand and appreciate with michelin tire corporation of lexington producing earth mover tires for recovery of oil sands, resources in alberta. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california wish to be recognized? ms. sanchez: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is

recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in observation of teacher appreciation week which commenced on may 2 and will end tomorrow. it's not only appropriate to recognize our hardworking and dedicated educators, it is necessary. in honor of teacher appreciation week, i'd like to recognize all the teachers in my district. i have visited every school back home, and i feel fortunate to have the classrooms filled with passionate teachers who are committed to every student by addressing their needs and guaranteeing their academic success. i would specifically like to recognize the 2011 teacher of the year recipients from the school districts in anaheim and santa ana, california. mr. eric rosman, ms. ann mack divine, ms. sylvia emanuel, ms. michelle magiski, and mr. john lombardi, mr. lauren davis. thank you.

thank you for your passion and your outstanding success and work with our students. and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi wish to be recognized? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. >> i rise today, mr. speaker, in strong support of h.r. 1230. as a congressman from mississippi's gulf coast, i've seen firsthand the damaging effect of the administration to delay offshore oil exploration. i worked as a rigger, a materials manager. i understand the positive economic impact offshore jobs have on the local and regional economies. mr. palazzo: by the administration's own admission we've already seen 12,000 jobs lost with a direct salary impact of $500 million. to prevent these jobs from permanently being sent to other countries, we need firm timelines for considering permits to ensure investment

for employers. i not only urge a yes vote on the restarting american offshore leasing now act, we must not sideline a vibrant industry that is critical to our economic and national security. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california wish to be recognized? ms. chu: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: hardworking middle class families are struggling to put gas in their cars. but i did a double take recently when i saw a gas station in my district had the highest price per gallon in the country, almost $5 a gallon. what is the republican response? they just released their budget. it gives more tax breaks to big oil. they don't want to reward you for working hard.

they want to reward exxonmobil, which made $34 billion last year in pure profit, more money than any other company in the world. you are stuck paying over $4 a gallon for gas and the republicans also want you to pay $4 billion in tax breaks for big oil? stop the $4 billion republican giveaway. let's make smart investments that will lower gas prices and put americans back to work. it's time to say no to the g.o.p., the grand oil party. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri wish to be recognized? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. hartzler: i wish to express concern about our nation's gas prices. as i spoke at eight town hall meetings, the one comment i heard everywhere i went was that gas prices are crippling our families and our

businesses. one over-the-road trucker that i visited with from el dorado spring, he would bring $1,000 for a week's worth of gas for gas. now he has to bring double that. this is hard for someone struggling to make ends meet. and it's dangerous bringing that much money too. it means less money for food, clothes or spending time together at a ballgame. for the average driver the increased cost of gas since the president took office is nearly $1,100 a year. we must stop the government from standing between its citizens and reasonable gas prices. this country has been blessed with some of the most abundant resources on the face of the earth, but this administration has stood in the way of exploring and utilizing them at every time. it's tim for the president to get out of the way so we can

develop our own sources of energy. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina wish to be recognized? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, i rise today to express appreciation for the good work on the part of local emergency sponners, fema, the division of emergency management, the american red cross and the many other agencies that have been helping survivors in my congressional district recover from the devastating tornadoes that hit north carolina on april 16. i represent, mr. speaker, one of the hardest hit communities. where 12 people lost their lives. 50 were injured and dozens are now homeless. i am grateful that president barack obama was very quick to announce that 19 counties from eligible for federal disaster assistance. and the hard work toward recovery is now under way. more than 4,700 people in north carolina have applied for state

and federal disaster assistance. we are a generous and resilient people and i know we will recover. mr. speaker, i ask that my colleagues join me in applauding the recovery efforts and in expressing deep sorrow, deep sorrow for the victims and their families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana wish to be recognized? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor and congratulate the state of indiana, the governor of indiana, and indiana state ladies and gentlemen slateure, the accomplishments in this past -- legislature, the accomplishments in this past session. they give promise and hope that the same can be done here in washington. something i'm particularly proud of is the fact that fworchor daniels and the legislature have passed the fourth straight gimmick-free balanced budget for the state of indiana, which will give indiana a budget in the black eight years running. mr. stutzman: we can do the

same here in congress. this legislative session in indiana has also produced real education reform that was passed that ushered in real choice for students and parents. governor daniels led the charge for full funding for kindergarten, the nation's most expensive voucher program, more charter schools and rewarding our teachers based on their pectiveness. we can do the same here in congress. as we discussed tax reform and how to do it here in washington, indiana's already done it. they have done it by lowering corporate tax rates, lowering property taxes to give a great place for businesses to do work. we can do the same here in indiana. as a former state legislator in indiana under the daniels administration i rise today because of the despair and partisan bickering. i know we can do better in congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah wish to be recognized? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 245 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 34, house resolution 245, resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 1229, to amend the outer continental shelf lands act to facilitate the safe and timely production of american energy resources from the golf of mexico. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and

ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the amendment recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole. the bill as amended shall be considered as original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report. shall be considered as read. shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole.

all points of order against such further amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill as amended to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 1230, to require the secretary of interior to conduct certain offshore oil and gas leak cells and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources.

after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part b of the rule of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. section 3, in the engrossment of h.r. 1229, the clerk shall, one, add the text of h.r. 1230 as passed by the house as new matter at the end of h.r. 1229. two, conform the title of h.r. 1229 to reflect the addition of h.r. 1230 as passed by the house to the engrossment. three, assign appropriate designation to provisions within the engrossment, and four, conform cross-references and provisions for short titles within the engrossment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one hour. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that all

members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: house resolution 245 provides for consideration of two very important bills. h.r. 1229, the putting the gulf of mexico back to work act, and h.r. 1230, the restarting america offshore leasing now act. each under a structured rule. with many amendments all of which are democrat amendments having been made in order, this is a very fair and very structured -- very fair rule. i commend the sponsor of the two bills, the chairman of the natural resources committee, mr. hastings of washington, for his leadership in bringing both these bills to the house. h.r. 1229 is a bill that goes to the heart of the bureaucratic delays which are permitting approval of drilling permits within the gulf of mexico and modifies the standards and procedures governing federal leases and permits in order to streamline the patriots sess, making developments of these domestic resources a reality instead of status quo paying lip

service to drilling thrure bureaucratic inaction. h.r. 1330 is a bill that would direct the sale of oil and gas leases within the outer continental shelf reversing a failed administration policy of canceling and delaying those processes. mr. speaker, over the last few years many republicans have come to this floor and have sung the same refrain of show us the jobs. it was indeed a nice song and a catchy tune, so catchy that the minority of today seems to have been picking up on that kind of song as well. i don't expect to hear that today or at least we ought not because the two bills in this rule are real bills that create real jobs for people. unlike the bills we have seen over the past couple years which have led us to a situation where today there are twice as many workers in the government as there are in all of manufacturing in this nation, which is an exact reverse of the situation this nation was in in 1960, these are not going to be government jobs which attack the

taxpayer and suck the money out of their wallets to fund them. these are going to be real jobs that grow private sector, that expand the economy, that provide wealth, and would provide actually millions of new government revenues coming into this country. the situation we find ourselves today with regard to energy is one that is detrimental to everybody. everyone that goes to the pump to fill their car, recognizes the cost of increasing and will continue to increase. they recognize the situation we are in puts all our jobs in jeopardy and it's because of the inaction of this particular administration. the president has continually said he wants to do action to move forward to develop american energy, but the actions of his administration have, quite frankly, failed to meet the rhetoric of his -- rhetoric of the administration. the problem has always been a fundamental flaw in our nation's energy plan. last may, the deep water horizon accident occurred which was a tragedy, and we must thank all of those who helped to solve

that particular problem. but unfortunately the administrator's response to that tragedy has turned it into a catastrophe and one which destroys jobs. immediately amoratorium on all sorts of development was put into place. prior to that moratorium being put into place there were 52 approved and pending permits. that moratorium was lifted in october. but of those 52, only 10 permits have been issued since that time. two of them are new in deep water and eight of the 52 that were originally done. that means there are over 40 still approved, still stalled, in what has become a de facto moratorium. caused by foot-dragging of this administration at what one columnist said is moving at a glacial pace. more rigs have left our shore, 12, to go to other places in the world where they are welcomed and developing energy sources, where they don't have to face the red tape and foot-dragging,

that have been approved by this administration. perfect example is dr. ehot drilling. company that had over 500 jobs, 20 rigs, went into chapter 11 bankruptcy and the president of that company stated only one reason for that bankruptcy and loss of jobs, it was the de facto moratorium of inaction done by this administration on this area. 2008, in a response to an arbitrary drilling ban, that was lifted by both the president and congress, it created a five-year plan. virginia was supposed to start the exploration process in 2011, but the secretary of interior delayed that until 2012 and then later delayed all exploration on the atlantic coast until after 2017. in the gulf of mexico, two others were canceled and moved not from this year when they were supposed to begin but once again into next year. it became so bad that a judge in new orleans gave the administration 30 days to start moving on these projects saying,

what was happening by this administration was increasingly inexcusable. and that not acting at all is not a lawful action. the result of this has simply been catastrophic for jobs in america. the obama administration has admitted in their official memoranda that for those days of their official moratorium, 12,000 jobs were lost. but what is more significant is the de facto moratorium there. an l.s.u. study simply said if this was sustained for 18 months in the gulf area would be 24,532 jobs lost, and in the nation, 36 k. 137 jobs lost, simply because what we are not doing in the gulf of mexico. very simple to understand how this works. each platform that is out there drilling has 90 to 150 employees. if you add the production team as well as the exploration team you can add -- multiply that by a factor of four. so you have almost for every

drilling up to 1,400 jobs tied to that particular project. with $1,800 a week as the average wage. for every one of those drills that is not put back into production, it is $5 million to $10 million per month per platform that is lost to this economy. and the ripple effect within the economy for our energy use as well as jobs is once again staggering as this administration is indeed going at a glacial pace. in virginia alone, 2,000 jobs will be estimated to be lost if indeed that moratorium, de facto moratorium that pushes everything to 2017 is allowed to take place. this action or inaction by the administration costs every american. it costs us at the gas pump as we see costs of running our cars increasing almost daily. and this hurts the poor worse than anyone else. it is estimated that every american will pay $700 more this year for gasoline than last

year. obviously those are the lower end of the economic scale are the ones hurt the most. for every cent that has increased in gas at the pump, that is $1 billion that is taken out of host hold incomes in this country. and it makes sure that americans are then put at the mercy of foreign oil development and foreign energy sources who may not necessarily like us. and sometimes are just flat out bad guys, but also has other areas affecting everyone. once again those are the lower end of the income scale the most. for every dime the diesel goes up, $400 million, that is added to the agricultural industry, that is packed on to what we eat in our food prices. you have to have oil for fertilizer. as that goes up, the cost of fertilizer goes up, the cost of food goes up. narments, plastics -- pharmaceuticals, plastics. if you go in the emergency room, everything that's not metal has some element of oil. all of those are increasing. there's only two ways we can

handle the situation. first, you can go with the old concept of supply and demand and simply increase production, which is what these two bills are trying to do. or you can go to the approach this administration seems to be asking us to do which is to cut our standard of living, except gasoline prices at the european level, and beg saudi arabia to be nice to us. to put our hands -- to put our futures in the hands of opec. and then amazingly saying we can also solve these problems simply by taxing oil companies at a higher rate. since 2010, the domestic production of energy in this country has decreased 16%. in this year -- next year and the year after that we'll estimate unless we make changes that a quarter of a million barrels of oil will be decreased in our production rate each of those years. the only area, the only area in which any energy production has been increasing is on private property. and unfortunately for this country, almost all of the

energy that we have, most of the energy that we can develop, is on public lands which is controlled by the government which is doing nothing now to help develop that. this is the time where pragmatism is much better than a failed ideology of restrictions. now, what these bills do is simply reverse the job-killing delays that have been taking place. in 1229 it reforms the law to require lease holders to receive permits to drill before they start drilling, and it will do it for the first time by law not simply by a regulation. it demands the secretary of interior conduct and approve safety reviews, once again for the first time in history. but more importantly, it ends the de facto moratorium by demanding froment guidelines and action -- prompt guidelines and action. it says that the secretary of interior will have 30 days in which to deal with these issues and then can have up to two 15-day extensions, a total of 60 days to do the review. while that may seem to some as a

quick path, it's not when you look at the history what has been done. before the moratorium went into effect, it was taking five to 15 days to do the drilling leases and permits. one company was done in nine days. just recently. what is the problem is that most of these are simply not being done simply because of inaction. it also says for those that were approved prior to the may 27 moratorium, you got 30 days to get them going again. . this is plenty of time to get it done. so that legal rights are not lost, they are protected. you can't go into a lawsuit in a moratorium. in 2030, the bill says that -- recognizes that this year will be the first time since 1958 that we have the possibility of no offshore lease sales. and it wants to reverse that

action to complies promptly with a five-year plan so that those in virginia will happen in five year and those scheduled in the gulf can be done within one year of passage of this bill. this bill will create billions in federal reserve revenues coming in and it will create billions in our economy and it will create jobs. i hate to say this but under president obama the cost of energy has skyrocketed. the administration has actively blocked and delayed energy production. it cost jobs. the raised energy prices. it's made the united states more reliant on unstable foreign countries for energy. through the energy -- american energy initiative, this house is actively working to increase american energy production to lower gas prices, to create american jobs, to generate revenue to decrease our dependence on foreign energy. the united states government has had a long history of

sporadic attempts to respond to oil and gas prices. usually we had missed the mark. but unfortunately oil is still the lifeblood of the world and will be for the -- will be for most of our lives. that is why 70 countries and 31 states in the united states are involved in the process. signals are given by worldwide circumstances and also by government policy. these two bills are the first of several signals that this house wants to send to the world and to the economy that says our goal should be to come as close economic and self- energy reliant as possible. this includes in the gulf, including in the outer continental shelf and including in our future if we want to help the american people. this is what these two bills are aimed to do.

as such, mr. speaker, this is a good rule and a fair rule and the underlying piece of legislation are terribly worthy of our support. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: today, the house considers the b.p. respill bills that might not be what they're officially called but a more accurate title of these legislations. they ask not learn any lessons from the deepwater horizon victims. these bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for the environment, which was coded with 4.1 -- coated with 4 kp 1 million barrels of oil -- 4.1 million barrels of oil spilled. these bills will make offshore drilling more dangerous for our national security because they reinforce a complete myth that

america can somehow drill our way out of dependence on oil. and these bills are more dangerous for the economy, risking destroying fishing and tourism jobs in affected areas. but one thing these bills do not do is make filling up at the pump more affordable at all for american families. according to the american petroleum institute itself, the main advocacy group for oil interests, even if we opened all federal land to oil drilling, including offshore areas, including alaska's wildlife refuge, and all federal land that isn't a national park, they can't even say it will reduce gas prices or oil prices. in fact, the chief oil analyst at the oil price information service, which calculates gas prices for the a.a.a., the motorist organization, said, quote, this drill, drill, drill thing is tired. it's a simplistic way of looking for a solution that doesn't exist, end quote.

so if this legislation isn't about reducing the price at the pump, what is it about? it's about exploiting our legitimate concerns about high gas prices to deliver another huge giveaway to big oil, an industry that made over $35 billion in profits in the last quarter alone. meanwhile, the majority refuses to end big oil's nearly $50 billion of special interest tax breaks. mr. speaker, i'd like to submit to the record a statement by my colleague, mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: yesterday in the rules committee, mr. mcgovern brought forth a bill that would have ended the giveaway of tax revenue to big oil. unfortunately, the republican majority chose not to allow that amendment in this rule. had that been allowed under the open rule that mr. mcgovern

proposed, i would have brought an amendment to the floor to use those $50 billion to reduce the corporate tax break to help create jobs in america. instead, the republicans are seeking to keep american taxes high, to keep corporate taxes high and this another example of a job-destroying bill that keeps taxes high while picking winners and losers in the economy and using government subsidies to an industry that is one of our most profitable industry. we should allow all american businesses of all sizes to compete. the american corporate tax rate is higher than most of the rest of the world which is why they continue to engage in operations overseas. if we can reduce it from 35% to 28 or% -- 28% or 26%, and we could have done it if mr. mcgovern's amendment passed in rules committee yesterday, and that's the reason why i say this today, we could have created an economic engine of

growth. the republicans continue to use special interest tax breaks to keep taxes high on small and middle-sized american companies that don't have the same lobbyists here in washington to lobby for special interest tax breaks. we know that big oil would rather do without -- they can drill safely but this bill delivers that. it states that the interior secretary must act on any drilling permit within 60 days or it's automatically approved which should be a very serious process to ensure safe drilling, to ensure there aren't further disasters, to ensure that jobs aren't destroyed, turns into a little more than a rubber stamp. a rubber stamp for the further degradation of our economy and of our environment. the second bill this rule makes in order claims to restart the process of issuing oil and gas leases. now, what the majority is doing in this is essentially validating what the administration has already done. the administration has already restarted offshore drilling in february. in fact, the administration's announced plans to have all

three gulf of mexico lease sales that's in this bill this year or early next year. again, this particular policy is something i don't fully agree on with the administration. the republican are validating president obama's leadership. these bills will not relieve pain at the pump but may have another chance of another deepwater horizon disaster and hurting some of our most precious natural resources. why? because that's what big oil want. big oil wants to destroy jobs. the republican majority is giving them that. in fact, even the problem the majority purports to be addressing with these bills, restarting offshore oil drilling, doesn't even exist. here are the facts -- following the temporary pause on deep-water drilling last year, the oil industry wasn't able to demonstrate that it had the capacity to contain a

deep-water blowout. once they had the capability to contain a deep-water blowout, there was a permit issued. there have now been 10 deep-water permits issued at that time. matching the number from before this bill. let me repeat that. matching the number of permits from before this bill. if anything, the majority by acting through this bill is effectively congratulating the administration on its leadership for speededly approving permits. in addition, in the gulf renal, the number of jobs that depend on tourism and fishing is five times the number of jobs related to the oil and gas industry. gulf jobs related to oil and gas and resource extraction total 25 4,000. tourism is 770,000 jobs. so with this bill, the majority is putting at risk the 770,000

jobs for the benefit of 154,000. we should not put them at risk just to make the permitting process easier for big oil to exploit. passage of these bills is not good for the gulf coast economy or its ecology. although it is best for big oil. again, while i appreciate the republican majority's efforts to validate the leadership of president obama on energy issues, this rule could be a lot better. rather than keeping corporate taxes high, we could help america more competitive by reducing corporate taxes and helping make american businesses more competitive, including in the critical tourism and fishing industries in the gulf coast. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. let me just make a couple of very quick point if i could. once again, the purpose of these two bills is to start our process going towards the americans having adequate

energy supply is to live their lives. it's one of the things you either increase production or you try to cut back. our goal is to increase production. the idea what we're doing is in some way making safety less significant is silly. there are new safety rules that have been in place. they are ready. they are prepared. they are ready to go forward. the myth of subsidies to big oil is one of the things, also, that we need to talk about. because even my fellow democrats have admitted that the president's plan to push a tax hike on energy taxes does result in the loss of american jobs and higher taxes on independent oil and gas companies. i love the fact that we spin things by talking about big oil but the nonpartisan polifact.com says that it comes not from the biggest multinational oil companies but from independent firms. american production activities are dominated by these independent producers who drill

95% of the nation's natural gas and oil wells accounting for as much as 67% of the total u.s. natural gas and oil production. often we try to find some kind of strawman which to attack and the idea that big oil is one of the easiest ones to do but in reality, if those tax hikes were going to place on production, you would not be hitting the big oil companies. you are going to be hitting small companies which have 100 or fewer employees, not only offshore but onshore as well. that is the attack. i'm sorry. i'm not validating president obama's leadership in this issue. to me leadership means you do something. inaction is not leadership. the not the government picking winners and losers. what this administration is doing with the de facto moratorium, the inability of moving forward on this issue is picking losers in the field, losers for jobs. and that is wrong. this tries to get us going ahead in an area in the way which we can do it, we should do it, we have the capability of doing it. all we simply need to do is do it. i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to this rule because my constituents in the state of rhode island can no longer wait for action to reduce the price of gas at the pump. and this bill does nothing at all to address this issue today. just last week the price of gasoline shot to more than $4. as we know this is an increasingly familiar story for states all across this nation. hurting families and small businesses. it really underscores what i heard from my own constituents, hundreds of men, women and families all throughout rhode island in recent weeks. we have got to find immediate solutions to lower the price of gas. but the legislation before us this morning calling for domestic drilling will not provide the short-term relief that's needed right now. at the same time it will make drilling more dangerous for our environment, for our economy and for our national security.

my friends on the other side of the aisle have refused to take up the recommendations of the independent commission convened after the deepwater horizon oil spill and continue to fight to protect big oil and subsidies as americans are struggling to pay for high gas prices. we must find solutions to lower the cost of oil now. we must find a way to end the $4 billion in tax breaks that pad the profits of big oil. the way to do that, mr. speaker, is to bring legislation already drafted, already introduced on the house floor immediately that would address the issue of rising cost of gas. legislation aimed at preventing big oil from engaging in price gounling scheme which drive up the price of gas at the pump and would help ease the pain at the pump that americans are experiencing. we need to do those two things, end the subsidies and begin to address this urgent problem now

and stop taking measures that continue to advance the interest of big oil rather than the american people. i thank you the gentleman and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: for the moment i'll reserve my time and enjoy the spin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. . mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to this rule and underlying bill. we all understand the desire to do something about high gas prices and we all sympathize with families in this economy who are struggling with $4 a gallon gasoline. but these bills will do nothing to provide american families with relief. they could threaten coastal ecosystems, and the millions of americans who rely on them. it's been a year since we watched the horror in the gulf

coast. we found that the agencies who oversea -- oversee offshore drilling and the oil companies engaged in it were not prepared for the disasters and americans will be paying for that for years. the administration has taken a number of steps to prevent future spills. unfortunately, these bills undermine that progress making drilling less safe. instead of pretending as one of these terrible environmental disasters just never happened, congress should implement the recommendations of the oil spill commission. and we should be pursuing legislation that will reduce our dependence on oil by investing in things that give american commuters choices in terms of more efficient vehicles, transportation alternatives, alternative fuels. this bill, fortunately, will never be enacted into law, but i'm disappointed that the rules committee did not make in order any of the amendments to repeal

unnecessary tax subsidies to the oil industry. at a time of record profits, it's adding insult to injury that billions of dollars are going to flow to the largest oil companies that -- and make no difference to the consumer, no difference in the production of oil. it just adds to the bottom line of these international corporations. i hope that at some point the house will be able to deal with these subsidies which even our republican speaker recently said should be examined. i have had legislation ready and ready to go for months now and i hope it gets a chance to be voted on on this floor. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. with regard to the subsidy issue, simple fact of the matter is that the republicans are not for free markets. what they are for is big oil

co-opting free markets. 70% of all energy related subsidies go to fossil fuels like oil and coal, less than 5% of subsidies go to renewable energies like wind and solar. the gentleman from utah pointed out many of these subsidies help small drillers. in fact, that can be true, but it's easy to apply changes only to the big oil companies and not even affect independent producers. there's no excuse not to end this corporate welfare which keeps taxes for all americans who pay their taxes artificially high. in fact, at the same time that b.p. was reaping sizable tax benefits from lesioning the deep water horizon rig, it turned out that the company was using the tax break for the oil industry to write off 70% of the rent for deep water horizon. that tax subsidy cost american taxpayers $225,000 a day since

deep water horizon began. that's one example of many. i also want to address misperceptions regarding president obama's policies regarding oil resources. the obama administration is allowing on average more drilling than the bush administration did. in fact, the obama administration approved more leases in 2010 than the bush administration did in any year except one of his presidency. again, in moving forward in reissuing permits which the administration has already begun to do, this bill helps validate president obama's leadership on this issue. the real issue at hand are the oil -- are the subsidies the industry continues to receive. as long as we continue a policy of using taxpayer dollars to artificially pick winners and losers in the economy, the winner here being big oil, the loser being american taxpayers, we will continue to hurt energy security, destroy jobs, and continue to put our environment at risk. i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman, mr. bishop. thank you, mr. speaker. i'm from louisiana. of course these leasing issues, the issues of drilling, oil production are very important to my state. and certainly any issue with regard to oil spills affect my state the most in the last year or so because of the deep horizon. but here's the point i want to make. the president has said that oil production in the united states and offshore in the gulf is the highest it's ever been. when i asked secretary salazar

in the natural resources committee, he said the same thing. then i asked someone else and they gave the same answer. the truth is, mr. speaker, that the oil production off the gulf of mexico peaked at 1.7 million barrels a day. and it is now down to 1.5 million barrels a day. and in the next year it will decrease by another 225,000 barrels a day. and even if we restore drilling permits at the level they have been previously, it will continue to decline over the next several years. so i think we can ill afford, mr. speaker, at a time when our gas prices continue to go up, to continue this activity that we have, this ruse, where we have a sloritorium. i think we are up to 12 permits in the deep water, and i was

speaking with the gentleman, an expert yesterday, he said that we normally pace about 40 or 50 permits per year. that means we are at a fraction -- fraction of what the actual permitting process would normally be in the best of times. some would say, well, we haven't proven that it's safe. if that's true, why is the administration releasing permits? obviously that is proof that the administration is comfortable we can again drill in the deep water off the gulf of mexico. so i say today that with america being at gas price that is will soon approach $5 a gallon, and the usgs now saying that we have more coal, natural gas, and oil than we ever thought we would have, really more than any other country in the world, including russia, and many more times than

what saudi arabia has, 1.3 trillion barrels of oil equivalent if you add coal, natural gas, and oil, why in the world are we pulling back on the exploration and production? of these vital resources that we have. and i'll also say in summary, i'm from the fourth district of louisiana, where natural gas -- mr. bishop: an additional 30 seconds. mr. fleming: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. where we have a veritable saudi arabia of natural gas in my district. the most natural gas in north america and the fourth largest deposit in the world and we didn't even know about it four years ago. that just goes to show you how new technologies in the area of exploration and development are creating many more resources

than we ever thought we had. and that will help stabilize their prices. so i ask that we pass this bill today and that we finally get this country back on the stable footing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i yield myself 30 seconds. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to provide immediately after the house adopts this rule it will bring up h.r. 168 , the big oil welfare repeal act of 2011. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. polis: the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation in its analysis of the administration's budget stailted the repeal of oil and gas references are quote, likely have no effect on the world price of fossil fuels and any increase prices for domestically consumed fossil fuels are likely to be attenuated, end quote. when we talk about ending the give away to big oil and gas, it will have no effect with regard to actual energy prices.

mr. speaker, i am proud to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, the democratic leader, miss pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. pelosi: -- ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his leadership on this very important issue. important and having an immediate impact on america's families. they are feeling the pain at the pump and our families, our workers, our small businesses, every day it gets worse for them with the price at the pump. so what can we do about it? we can do enough -- a number of things. and we will. and we have been advocating. for of course we must increase domestic production, and there is a way to do that. but that's not all that we have to do. the american people understand that their tax dollar is going to subsidies to big oil.

if we ended those subsidies, we could save over $30 billion for the american people. to put it into context, my colleagues, for the first quarter of this year, the big five oil companies made profits of over $30 billion. why are we, the taxpayers, subsidizing their drilling of oil when they are making huge profits doing it in the free market? president obama has written to leaders in congress asking to bring a bill to the floor to end these subsidies. i have written to speaker boehner asking him to do so. he has said the oil companies should pay their fair share. mr. ryan, the chair of the budget committee, has acknowledged that in his own district. and yet in the budget that is

proposed by the republicans, big oil still gets a big subsidy from the taxpayer. it would mean a great deal to us in a situation where we are saying to seniors, we are going to cut medicare and you are going to have to pay $6,000 a year more at a minimum for fewer benefits because we want to cut medicare at the same time we are giving tax cuts, big tax breaks to big oil. so here we are today, we have -- just last week exxonmobil reported $10.7 billion in profit during the first quarter of 2011. over $10 billion in profit. a 69% jump from last year. in fact, this quarter marks some of the largest oil profits since 2008. democrats are introducing comprehensive legislation. mr. tim bishop is going to be

leading us on the previous question which we urge our colleagues to vote no on so that we can bring up mr. bishop's legislation. much of what that does is to eliminate tax breaks for the five largest oil companies, saving over $31 billion over 10 years. think of it. we are trying to just save $31 billion over 10 years when the oil companies made $31 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year. that is so unfair to the taxpayer. legislation to ensure that oil companies are paying their royalties that are due the american taxpayer. hold big oil and the industry accountable for price gouging at the pump. hold the -- use the strategic petroleum reserve to increase the oil supply and combat price hikes. in addition to that we must end the harmful speculation which

wall street tells us accounts for a large percentage of the increase at the -- in the price at the pump. we also will have measures that increase american energy production. it's very important. we don't disagree that we have to have production. but we do agree that we have to do other things that have a more immediate effect on the price at the pump and we can do that. and we must invest in our clean energy future. which will reduce our dependence on foreign oil which is a national security issue, which will enable us to create new green jobs in our country, a jobs issue, which is a moral obligation we have to the american people to create jobs. but what the republicans are proposing today is so -- has blinders on it. it does not recognize that what it is doing does nothing to reduce the price at the pump in e