ten really well. after the bin laden piece for a day or two we had communication disputes where italian commanders, brigade commanders were trying to contact their counterparts. we didn't have very good contact, but about two days ago the brigade border flag meeting and the colonel jenkins that was the best border flag meeting he's had. that was two days ago. we continue to see great cooperation at least at the tactical level. about a month or so ago we were involved in operation strong evil three in the northern part of kunar as we conducted an operation our pakistani counterparts were able to do complementary ops on their side of the border that enhanced what we were able to do. they have had a very big operation for the last month or so on the mahmoud agency. both the afghans and coalition forces in cue nar have been doing complementary operations on the afghan side. so i have seen it get better over the last 60 days.

. i have mott had a chance to talk with the general since bin laden died. we are trying to work with that relationship. we all understand that we can't talk about afghanistan unless pakistan is in that ecation. so we value that relationship. not only with the coalition of the pakistanis but with the coalition with the pakistani forces. in the end they have to continue to work showing themselves shoulder to shoulder. >> you've described the realignment of your forces in the east. can you tell us how the insurgents and the different insurgent groups have acted or reacted that tactic in their operations? >> yeah, thanks for the

question. i'll use this an example. the westernmost cop that we had mountain river valley. we transferred that to the afghan control. there i don't want to go into exact numbers there. there was a lot of insurgent information operations after we left that they had surrounded the cop, that they had taken over the cop, hat police outside the district center that's rise outside the cop wearing civilian clothes, weren't doing policing duties. that word got back to general abdullah, the corps commander. he and the brigadier general flew up there early one morning about 5:00 in the morning. they took up the afghan commander. they took out a brand new commander because the officer was actually running that battalion. the general got on the ground. the morale was high.

he installed a new battalion commander. the police that were there were in formation. they were all in uniform. so all those reports we got that nagalon was overrun were not true. and the morale of those soldiers knowing they had taken over this cop from the coalition forces was something really to be seen. now, the month of february, there were 35 attacks on na combmbings alaon or a blessing. sin the first of march there may have been three three attacks. so a lot of those attacks -- i would tell you that the coalition were really catalyst in getting them going there. so about three attacks since 1 march. a lot of snurnlt propaganda is that many of those places that are in those isolated mountain regions have been taken over and that's just not the case.

>> if i understand correctly, the sort of flow that the volume of reintegration of lower level soldiers just really hasn't been what the u.s. had -- and the coalition partners had hoped it would be. it's still very slow. i'm interested to hear from you why you think that might be the case. and also, are there any areas either geographically or results-wise where you've seen some backsliding in r.c. east in the past year? and what's being done to address that? >> ok. i couldn't understand the first part of the question. i got the second part. if there is anywhere i think we backslide in the east? i can talk about command. 14 different provinces there's 160 districts out there. 45 of those districts are what

we call key trained districts. 21 of those 45 are part of the effort of the trained. the 21 of the 45 are really where we've applied most of our resources. we can't be in all of those 160 districts, nor are the afghans. many places they have a small contingent of police that may be around in district center. but over the course of the year, as far as security, what we're tracking is in 60 of those districts the security level has gotten much, much better as we assess those and there's probably just a handful where the security level has back stepped a little bit. so at least 60 have gone up out of 160. we think that's very, very good. many of those we don't make assessments in because we're not there and we don't have the good afghan presence as well. those are in the mountains of

the area. the coin piece really, if you take a look at those four provinces, kuristan, that's 2.7% of the population of all of r.c. east. there's eight million-plus in r.c. east. in the pasch river level it's about .7 of the population. not a lot of the population out there. under the governs and development, just a little bit lower in the 45 to 40 districts. it has gone up. everywhere we've applied resources we've seen improvement. i didn't get the first part of your question. >> the first part was about lower level fighters reintegration, and what do you think counts for the fact there hasn't been more laying down

arms or turning around. >> a couple good regions. i think they're tired of fighting. and really the pressure that the afghan forces and the coalition forces continue to keep on them will force them to reintegrate. they can say, hey, i can sit out here in some valley an continue to attack or regot reunited with my family in afghanistan. by the way, the leaders that are telling me to go attack are not here. they're in pakistan. they're taking a hard look at this and say, why am i doing this? and as we're able to get messages out there and show them the benefits of coming back in underneath the government of afghanistan, reunited with your families, i think they're tired of fighting. but we should make light of the fact that the pressure that the coalition forces and the pressure that the afghan forces continue to keep on the insurgents i think is a great

deal about making them reintegrate. >> i was wondering if you had sense of why there aren't more fighters reintegrating than you already have and how can you give us -- can you quantify how many have reintegrated but why do you think those that are not are staying back? >> yeah. we can get you the exact numbers that we're tracking in regional command east. i would say in the neighborhood of 500-plus. we've had really about 30 to 40 or just in the last week as we continue to get the message out through the governors, through the subgovernors, through others of coming back, are youy nighting with your family, having a job, living your life

not on the run, not living in a cave someplace, not knowing in the coalition or afghan forces will strike you with a bomb. they're seeing it's not a good way of life and that the people that are living in the villages now are starting to see a better way of life, a better hope for afghanistan and they want part of that. they want to reintegrate. why that number is not larger? i think that number is larger. again, i said there is an informal or formal way to do this. the formal reintegration works through the governors. it's a very bureaucratic process that we're continuing to work through right now. we are learning more about it on how to really implement that, make it better. but the informal piece, a lot of times we won't even know it's happening. we're dependent upon the subgovernors and governors really to keep us in the loop here. many of the governors that i go around and talk to say, i had a phone call from this leader, he wants to bring in 25 people

and they'll work in their own time and own way they'll work it and that's informal reintegration. those numbers are much, much greater than probably what you're seeing out there in the press. i think it will continue to get more and more as they see that the credibility and the capacity, the afghan security forces continues to grow, they can see that runing -- a life of running and hiding is not the way to go. 99.9999% of the afghan people are wanting the same thing we want for our families. they want a roof over their head, they won't a job. they want their kids to go to school. i think the future is with the free afghanistan, not with the insurgents. >> general a close relationship with omar and bin laden, now that bin laden has been removed from that

equation, do you see, as i think secretary gates implied the other day, that that reason there might be an impact on the snurgetsy and the way -- insurgency and the way the coalition forces attack over the next coming months? >> i heard secretary gates say that as well and i would concur. you know, i have not talked to omar but when we got bin laden and continue to keep the pressure up, i would think he thinks he's probably next and if i was him i would encourage the taliban to reintegrate as well. some point in time that's going to happen. and i think president karzai is reaching out and i think that omar is seeing that what the coalition says, we will hunt you down. it took almost 10 years. we'll not forget.

i think for omar, for the taliban, they'll see that reintegrate with the government of afghanistan is the right future. as secretary gates said, it's a potential game changer. >> general, this is nancy. i was wonder if you could clarify something you said earlier. at some point you said that bin laden's death wouldn't lead to the end of the war. can you help me understand realistically how much will reconciliation be driven by the death of bin laden and when you say at some point it could lead to that, what kind of timeline are we looking at? >> i don't know. i can't answer that question, to tell you the truth. i think we're going to continue to keep the pressure on with

our afghan counterparts, with the -- throughout the regional command east. we'll continue to protect the population of afghanistan. the insurgents are going to find out there are -- this is not the way they want to go forward. i do think the death of bin laden will cause some of them to think twice again and they're going to say, hey, why am i doing this? i can't put a number on it, a time frame on it. again, in the short terms, in just the last week or so, we've seen some integration, particularly in two of my provinces. i can't tell you if that's because the death of bin laden or not or if they were thinking about that before. so it's hard for me to put a timeline on it. i have this combut feeling, and i think a lot of people do in afghanistan, that, you know, this was the number one guy for al qaeda. a lot of people to include the taliban had the symbiotic relationship with al qaeda. and they're going to think twice now.

why are we doing this? why is he over in pakistan? was he in pakistan while i'm suffering over here? and when i said the war is not over, there's many insurgent groups inside afghanistan, inside of pakistan that are fighting the afghan security forces that are fighting the afghan people so, you know i really do believe we live in the most dangerous times of our life. and al qaeda has shown that when they come to the homeland. and since our forces have been here in afghanistan we have not had another 9/11. i think we need to continue to press that fact. >> general, rachel with n.p.r. another with the haqqani network. you talked how the haqqani represents the tough element of the insurgency in your area of responsibility. can you talk a little bit more of how that specific threat has changed and when you get ready to pack your bags and leave in a week are you personally going to be satisfied of the level in

which your troops have been able to degrade that threat in the past year and what metrics have you used to analyze that? >> thanks for the question. al qaeda is the most lethal threat to afghanistan, at least in regional command east. they have sanctuary in pakistan. they come across the border. they kill coalition. they kill innocent women and children. they are well funded. they have the able to regenerate. we have killed many, many haqqani when they mass last november, december time frame. we killed about 90 out of 100, 120. we continue to kill haqqani. we've taken lieu of the low and mid-level leadership. they continue to regenerate fighters. haqqani network i don't think will reintegrate. my gut feeling tells me that right now. so we got to continue to keep the pressure on.

along that border, what they've been able to do -- they've been able in patikia. they've tried to come up through gazni. again, the -- ghazni. they're really protected in kabul all the way down to the borders. the number of attacks in kabul has continued to go down. i think the lethal attacks has continued to go down. and that's a great credit for our afghan partners. you know, since june i said over 4,000 insurgents have been taken off the battlefield here in regional command east, killed, captured, detained. several of those haqqani. i don't have the numbers off the top my head here for haqqani but many, many have been haqqani. we've really disrupted the haqqani network and the host in particular and that's both with the coalition forces our gaffe began counterparts and our special forces who continue to go out and go after the haqqani

network and we feel good about the progress made. we continue to do it. we need some help from pakistan. they are doing a lot more. again, 18 months ago 30,000 people on the border. now they have 140,000 on the bored boreder. they continue that fight. that's why we got to continue to work with our pako counterparts to fight this common enemy that's killing innocent women and children in afghanistan and in pakistan. >> i was wondering what the current estimates are in terms of how much foreign fighters al qaeda-types, are in afghanistan and whether you've seen any flood of foreign fighters into your region since ben laden's killing and did you change your force posture or reposition in order to catch them as they came back across the border? >> thanks for the question. along the border we have -- you

know, we've got an increased posture back in the april time frame when the al qaeda said they will have a spring campaign. really the way we got that was we were offensive ourselves. we have several operations throughout the breath of regional command east with our counterparts. we stayed on the offense. we think that's the best way to be defensive is to stay offensive. we continue to work that. i have not seen a large number of foreign fighters come through since bin laden's death. i will tell you over the course of the year if i was to put a guest mate on the percentage it's really around 80% are from afghanistan and probably 15% to 20% foreign fighter. that's where we've seen in patiqia and we are able to get reports and get detainees and they'll give us operation on

foreign fighters. again, had a kuehne does bring in foreign fighters. more than many of the other insurgents so we have seen that paktika. >> thank you. my question is that you are there in afghanistan because of 9/11 and 9/11 happened because of osama bin laden. now he's gone -- including president karzai, he blamed the pakistanis that they were hiding him inside pakistan. they have been misleading the u.s. for the last 10 years that he's not there. now, i'm showing as far as the taliban and al qaeda is concerned who are coming across the border from pakistan into

afghanistan. do you think there will be a reduction because their commander is gone? do you believe that their backs have been broken by his death? >> i think you asked me do i think the backs have been broken because of bin laden's death and if they'll stop coming back and forth across the border? since the death of bin laden we have not seen an uptick or surge in regional command east. i have not seen a big increase come across the border. in fact, the border over the last six months has continued the effectiveness although there may be more in numbers the effectiveness continues to go down, as well across regional command east. significant activities had gone up 21% but the effectiveness has gone down 28%, becoming less effective and that's because our afghan counterparts and coalition continue to get

better and better. we have more forces in regional command east than before so we think that's very, very good. but, you know, i don't think it's because of his death. i think that's going to have an impact for some people not to come across. i think it's too early to tell. but in the short term we have not seen a significant increase coming across the border based on bin laden's death. >> quick follow. just a quick follow. what message do you have for pakistan or what kind of help do you need from pakistan or what can they do now after his death? >> i think you asked me what do we need from pakistan. i need to continue to keep the lines of communication opened up with the 119 corps. i have pakistani l.n.o.'s and three border coordination centers that have afghan officers, coalition officers and pakistani officers in there 24 hours a day seven days a

week and continues to build that cooperation, that trust. keeps those lines of communication open. we need to continue to work together against this common energy. that goes out and tries to kill innocent women and children. so from pakistan what i need is their continued pressure on the places that are harboring these terrorist individuals for regional command east. a lot of that is in north waziristan. shah across from host, that is where we get the most people across the border. that's where we know haqqani leadership hangs out so we'll continue to work that very very hard. i have felt good with our relationship with pakistan at my level. we'll continue to work that very, very hard and i think that will make a difference in the long run. >> all right. last question. >> general, can i ask you specifically when you talk about the haqqani network, what is it about them that becomes

so resilient? they continue to be a strong factor. is it their recruiting? what appeals to people on both sides of the border for the haqqani to continue? >> i think you asked me -- they've taken a great hit but continue to come back. was that the question? >> yes. specifically, what makes them so resilient? what's the appeal factor in the haqqani network? >> they have the uncanny ability to recruit forces. across the border in pakistan, the figure i heard before was 10%. i don't know how true that is. but as we take out x amount over the course of the year they will continue to grow by about 10%. again, we've seen a great difference, though, because we've taken out a lot of that leadership and when we first got here in the regional

command east most of that leadership was experienced battle hardened. we've taken them off the battlefield. a lot of the leadership we've found is much, much younger, less experience. the amount of supplies that they have. i talked about the caches, over double what we took off the battlefield a year ago. that has to make an impact on what they're able to do. i think we are really disrupting what the haqqani can do. why -- you know, why they have this ability to grow forces remember, cross that border, many of those -- this is a zadran tie here and family ties. there is no border for them. some live in afghanistan. some live in pakistan. so it's a family thing right there. those family ties are very, very strong. that's going to be very tough. we have to continue to work through our afghan counterparts through our pakistani counterparts to counter, you

know, the rhetoric thrat haqqani has passed on to the -- that the haqqani has passed on to the people. over time we'll continue to work through that. and the haqqani network is more of a -- sort of mafia syndicate type organization as well and they continue to use fear tactics. they continue to coerce, you know, a 12-year-old boy to put explosives on his body and walk into a crowded bazaar and blow himself up. what kind of people do that? haqqani do it. it's a great threat here and we have to continue to stay after them. >> general, i'll leave it with you for any closing remarks you'd like to make. >> well, thanks very much. i can't see any of you back here in washington, d.c. i appreciate you taking the time to come and ask questions. i appreciate talking to many of you. as i heard who was there throughout the year and to pass on many of the observations we've had in regional command east.

the bottom line i think is we've seen progress both in the security, both in governance and both in development. we continue to see that day by day. for that soldier sitting on a coffer, sometimes very, very hard. sort of like groundhog's day. as you get at my level we see that progress every day. the forces continue to get better. we value that relationship, that friendship with them. i also have to say thanks to our families at fort campbell, the communities that help out. they've been very, very good. we've taken some huge losses here. every single loss changes the life of many people back there. i think many people have seen me carry these. 101st soldiers and the other brigades who are with the 101st and every one of these are a hero. we can't forget the impact it had on their lives. we can't forget the sacrifice to their families.

we have to do everything to take care of those families for the rest of their lives. we have to honor our fallen like that. again, very, very proud of what we've been able to accomplish here over the past year. we know there's still a lot of work to do. we feel very good about how we're being to turn this over to the first calvary division. they'll take it to the next step. they have a great team coming onboard. all the brigades for the most part will stay in place. they'll start transitioning brigades over time. but they'll have some in place for quite a while here as we transition over here. we feel very good where we've come. again, appreciate all you do back there getting the word about our afghan counterparts, our coalition forces and just never forget our great fallen, our great heroes and their families. thank you very much. >> general campbell, thank you. >> a traditional panel in california will determine if a teacher's first amendment rights were violated for having

to remove in god we trust in the classroom. mr. johnson has done this for 25 years. he argued that there are historical phrases in u.s. history. a lower court agreed ruling that the school district had same views. this is 30 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this court now resumes in session. please be seated. >> thank you. good morning, once again. next case is 10-55455 johnson versus district court. each side will have 15 minutes. ready for the aplet. >> thank you. if it please the court, i would like to reserve five minutes. my name is jack. we have the honor of representing the powe school district and the individual sued in this matter on -- as my

first remarks, i'd like to focus on the freedom of speech case. i'm sure the court is aware of this volumious record. the case is whether the district violated mr. johnson's rights when they asked him to remove his banners and replace them with some posters that had different language in them but were in -- original context or a more historical context. the trial court erred leaping over -- moving directly to a forum analysis. that was error for a couple reasons. but i think the first reason is that this court has given us a very clear rule on how to approach employee's speech. which followed the pickering garsetti line of cases and if

those first two elements of ying case is examined mr. johnson has no speech rights and we don't get to that issue of whether a classroom is an open forum. >> what do we do about the fact that we give them -- you can decorate it however you like but not in certain ways? >> what do we do with the fact that the district has limitations on what's up there. what we do with that is we define curriculum the way every court and the way this court has -- this part has a defined curriculum. but if we define curriculum consistent with the other courts defined it is anything that is imparted by a teacher during a school day, that's teacher's speech that's hired, it's not permitted. then materials on the bull tan board is under our control as well as long as it's communicated to students. the issue is whether it's

directed towards students or not. if he had a bull taint board that had inspirational messages, i don't think it would raise a problem. the issue here is a seven-foot-long banner across the classroom with repeated references to god and the nation in a sense that communicates to students that the united states is a judeo-cristhian nation and that may make someone in the room who feels differently uncomfortable. >> were there any student commaints? >> sorry? >> were there student complaints? >> there were none. >> were there inquiries if the students had a reaction one way or the other to the banners? >> there was not. the only thing we had was one teacher asked the question, didn't even make a complaint but asked the question, why can he do that and i can't? >> had that teacher been prohibited from doing something?

>> i don't know it. i only have in the record what the question was. in 2002 this court looked at one of those phrases "one nation under god" in context of the pledge of allegiance. this court outlawed one nation under god from the pledge of allegiance. this happened a couple years after that. teachers like that teacher thought he couldn't put that out because of some of that news. i know the court took a different position -- >> he had these banners up for more than 25 years. >> yes, he had. >> nobody said anything. >> nobody had ever noticed it. we couldn't find an administrator who remembered seeing them. one was a legal answer that the district doesn't create an open forum or establish a right simply by a passage of time

under case law but factually realistically administrators don't remember often go into senior respected teachers' classrooms. this is an excellent teacher, has a good reputation in the school for teaching math, handling students well. i think after about 10 years under california law you are required to evaluate a teacher after two years. after you've done that five times i think administrators quit going in the classroom. >> this was a new principal? she had just taken over the high school? >> true. >> apparently, if anything had been said to her predecessors, no action had been taken? >> nothing was -- nothing -- we couldn't find any record of anything being said. the assistant superintendent collins was deposed and he was in the school for ages and he didn't remember. he had evaluated this teacher and didn't remember ever seeing them. i have another explanation for that. if that is when a teacher goes

in the room, when an administrator goes in the room to evaluate a teacher he's not looking at the walls too much. i think he's looking at the teacher. >> he couldn't have missed it based on the exhibits i saw in the record. he couldn't have missed it. >> i won't get in a debate with it. it was large. if you go in the room looking at the teacher and the interaction of the teacher and the students you may not even look at the walls. particularly with a -- >> but didn't the principal testify that one of the first things she was surprised at was the size of the banner? >> yes. >> seven feet by two feet. >> yes. >> and the word god was in much larger font than any of the other words in the phrase? >> the word creator in the second banner was much larger typed and large caps like it was shouting. and she was surprised by that. why didn't she notice it when she was in that classroom before? >> would it have made any difference if mr. johnson was a

civics or social studies teacher rather than a mathematics teacher? >> some other cases have taught us that the word context is extremely important. so i think the answer to that question has to be, it wo change the context and that makes -- may make the analysis a little bit different if it was a social studies class if it was a history class and the item to be discussed -- my argument -- it almost sounds silly to me because this was out for 25 years. it wasn't up for a few days on a particular subject for a particular period of time. >> well, all of those things would change the context. >> what's difficult for me in part is the fact that one of the phrases that the principal found or the superintendent found objective or objected to was "one nation under god," and yet every day in mr. johnson's classroom they say the pledge of allegiance, right? >> absolutely. >> and that phrase is in the

pledge of allegiance? >> yes it is. >> it's ok if you say it in the middle of the pledge of allegiance but tut it on a banner and up on the wall, suddenly that's mott ok. >> and i think -- i was rather surprised by these administrators understanding of the current state of the first amendment jurt prudence. they said it was because of the context. they thought taking to out of the pledge of allegiance and put iting on a banner with other phrases that refer to america and god altogether changed the context and change the -- changed the message. it was the intent to communicate something different than the context of the words one nation under god as a part of the pledge of allegiance where you come down to the end, one nation indivisible -- >> the hypothetical is how attached it seems to be from reality because we have this concern about impact on students and yet there's no

effort to made as to what impact if there is any on the students. >> well, i don't think it would have -- here was my thinking on why we didn't take the depositions of a bunch of students because i think we'd get answers that were all over the place. >> even that's too late. i'm astonished that the administration makes the decision based on what they think might happen without chatting up a couple students. find if anybody was going to object. there isn't students reacting. >> you couldn't lead prayers whether or not students objected, could he? >> he couldn't. >> i don't think it mattered if the student objected or not. it was legal or illegal. >> that was the reason given. i read the brief. non-cristhian students might adversely react. >> she didn't know if it was a non-cristhian student or scientologist or someone else in the room. she said her gut issue was i think it would make some

students uncomfortable. >> she never asked? >> she did not. >> i think that's the correct reading when we get down to the establishment clause, the endorsement task -- >> that's a whole set of other issues. at the threshold, this problem struck me was more theoretical than real. >> i think it was illegal. we thought we'd be in trouble. >> i disagree with you on that proposition. the state of this nation's establishment clause jurisprudence who knows what's ok and what's not. so -- >> i'm hoping -- and that's one of the points i want to make on the issue of the freedom of speech, i'm hoping this court can give us a bright line rule and the bright line rule i would request is that this court follow the idea in pelosa and downs and the holdings -- the language of lee vs. york and mayor and define curricular speech outside the arena

define it as higher speech and define it broadly, define curricular speech as any information, any knowledge imparted by a teacher to a student during class time or during the contract day or during the work day or some language like that so we have a bright line rule and we leave teachers with their constitutional right to speak as they're leaving or off campus or in the lumple room or break or other times like that. but when they're working for the school district, a broad definition of curriculum and the exclusion of curricular speech from the protections of the first amendment would give administration a brine light rule -- administrators a bright line rule. >> help me write the opinion. if we write the opinion in such a way that we do that, would mr. johnson, as thed a the gentleman is recognizedors -- advisors to the christian club is meeting -- in the classroom

after school hours? >> absolutely. >> so we're going to have to put an exception to our bright line rule. >> when he's volunteering, when he's off of his time, when he's dealing with that student group, i don't think that's contract time. >> you would call that extra curricular. >> i would call that extracurricular. >> you are down to about three. >> establishment clause issue my principal argument is that the school principal nailed the endorsement task by saying that she was concerned that some kids would feel like outsiders. we didn't violate it because we had a secular purpose. our primary effect didn't -- inhibited religion because we gave him other posters. moving on to equal protection was the most complicated

because it's fact heavy. i'm -- i have very little time here left so the thing i would like to say is that the court would look at those prayer flag volume 2, page 203, and ask the question of any rational purpose can look at those flags that are called to those prayer flags and come to any conclusion that their primary purpose was to endorse religion or that they had any primary purpose related to religion. from the floor, the flags are high up. and it is about an inch, inch and a half tall among a combruche flags far over on the side of the room buried in squiggles. >> and you can't find anybody who can translate them? >> the teacher who put those up asked her students -- and she has kids from all over including thailand and areas close to the home of the language, and none of them could read it.

none of them had any idea that it was religious and she was using it for a secular purpose to talk about carrying the flags to the top of mount everest an because she talked about seashells on the top of mount everest. the trial court didn't believe her. that's all the evidence we have. the only evidence we have of her purpose in putting up the flags is that she put them up and used her in her curriculum to talk about evolution and seashells on top of mount everest and while the secondary purpose of a picture of buddha might be religious the issue of whether the tie betans believe in these flags or -- tibetans believe in our flags or not doesn't reach our school district. it relates to documents or speech that might have the primary effect of endorsing religion and those flags don't do it. so the answer is we treated everybody alike. if somebody else had some thing up that endorsed religion we would have pulled it down. we did not see that. and finally a brief moment of

qualified immunity. i was stunned when the trial court issued a $10 award of damages against these school board members and against these administrators. they did not punish mr. johnson. they have a good relationship with mr. johnson. this is purely philosophical discussion, and there's no possibility that anybody could know fully in 2007 and 2008 that the words "one nation under god" up on the wall were permissible in a school district, particularly after ludall one. >> thank you. >> good morning. >> good morning. if it please the court my name is robert. it's my privilege to represent the plaintiff, mr. bradley johnson. this case presents unique set of facts. the fact that is not contested and facts really matter at the end of the day. based on the fact, the school district did create a limited

public forum for the noncurricular freedom of speech. >> is that the analysis or shouldn't we begin first with the supreme court's decision in pickering garset timbings, connick and ask whether or not this was actual leer hired speech by a public employee who is directed by the school board to teach a particular subject matter and is entitled to made policy as to what may or may not be taught in the classroom? >> well, i think when you look at the first amendment jurisbrewedens and looking at the use of a -- jurisprudence and looking at the use of a purpose designed for as opposed to the use of that property for expressive activity -- >> even though the audience is can'tive? >> even though the audience is

captive. it's based on these facts. regarding -- >> that's not what we said in pelosa, is it, or in downs? >> downs is interesting. downs dealt with -- counsels did a forum analysis or would have done a forum analysis saying the speech was a noncurricular speech and because it was a government speaking then you don't have the first amendment issue because once the -- >> so we need to make that decision first. what kind of speech was this? >> all you have to do is look at the testimony of the people in the school scrict who has testified pursuant to rule directed without exception they testified this is personal noncurricular speech. it's not related to the curriculum. they testified to that to that effect. >> i'm not sure it's the same thing. it's the captive audience that strikes me. the principle pal -- the principal audience of this is stuentsd that are supposed to be in the classroom each day. that's the target audience.

and the target audience is there only because of the school district. i'm not sure i understand why it is that we disregard the fact that this is something happening during the school day through the vehicle of the school, a commentary being offered up by somebody who's an employee of the school, why do we disregard this? >> think about it in these terms. it deals with the government restricting speech. restricting the speech of an individual, whether it be an employee or an employer and it takes the point that teachers don't -- >> only don't take the position that the school couldn't ban this altogether. >> they could close the forum. this is where the problem comes in. because they created this forum for personal noncurricular speech the government could, based on the arguments of opposing counsel, saying teachers, can he will allow you to put up campaign -- we will allow you to put up campaign posters. those that want to put up posters to promote the campaign of john mccain or some other republican candidate, you go

right ahead and do so. you put them up on your classroom walls. but those that want to put up democratic posters, you can't do that. here's the problem. they created the problems yourself. you look at whitmar when the government creates the forum, when they create this curricular nonpersonal speech, they have to deal with the limits they set by themselves. in that forum you can't make viewpoints based on discrimination. if they want to retain the control of their classrooms then close the forum. they have that option available to them. >> let's suppose -- let's suppose we disagree with your analysis of how the forum is characterized and we find for the reasons articulated by judge cliffton that this forum is closed. doesn't that strengthen the right of the school district to dictate what may or may not be posted on its walls inside its

classroom particularly when the contents are being displaced to students who have to be there? >> you still have a problem with a discrimination based on viewpoint. even in a nonpublic forum. >> do we have a problem under the pickering test, if we conclude that this is not interest -- speech of -- of a public interest, if it is instead the employer's speech, which is to be confined to whatever curriculum mr. johnson as a teacher is supposed to be teaching, then the supreme court has told us there is no first amendment protection. the school board can tell mr. johnson what he may say and what he may not say when he's on the clock for them. >> not nearly so much pickering but in a sense garsetti said pursuant to the duties that they were -- that they were asked to do. under garsetti it would be

government speech. in this court case in downs if it is government speaking. if it's government speech and not noncurricular personal speech of the individual, they can make those restrictions. but that's why the facts matter. in lee they said it was curricular speech but they don't have the record -- and they even said in that decision in the fourth circuit that had it been personal, noncurricular speech, they would have -- the school board would have shown there was a disruption in the school district to restrict that speech. >> let me come at it a different way. if you take the position that nothing on the walls of mr. johnson's classroom could be curricular, then what do we do with these huge white chalkboards that i see on e rembings-284 in which i presume -- er-284 in which i presume mr. johnson writes calculus

writes calculus for? >> it's not that it can be used for curricular speech either. >> if mr. johnson is using the same location in order to carry out the directives of the school board to teach mathematics, why doesn't the school board have the right to say to him, we want you to talk about mathematics, we don't want you to teach religion? >> if they want to exclude the noncurricular speech, tell someone you can't put up something promoting gay rights promoting anti-war causes or don't put up your barack obama campaign posters or don't put up these personal items. if they want to take that position they can. they can't single out mr. johnson after allowing his banners up for 25 years and say, we don't like your viewpoint. they're still the government at the end of the day. and school districts and schools themselves are not

enclafes of totalitarianism. that's the things we're running into it. that's why it's distinguishable from pickering connick, downs, garsetti, all those other cases. they chose to open that forum and allow the personal, noncurricular speech and they have to live by those restrictions. >> suppose we define curricular to include more than what the teacher says when class is in session. suppose we define curricular to say that a teacher is employed as a leader to impart all kinds of information to students and that is done in addition to what is said in the classroom by other things that the teacher does while he's on the school premises. >> so with that said then, would the court then will a school district, such as poway during the next campaign election, that will allow the

teachers to put up all the democrat, all the campaign posters for barack obama but not for any republican appointee? that's a huge problem. >> are you saying there are no limits to what they can regulate as far as the bull taint board goes? he can put up white supremacy poster? >> it's a limited public forum so you can make content based restrictions in a public forum. they can say no political campaign posters. they can say that. >> other religious stuff? >> as a -- for example, if he wanted to preclude crosses and 10 commandments displaced he can. the -- >> this point is there's really -- in context no religious significance to the tibetan flag compared to what mr. johnson did. they're not comparing apples and oranges. >> 35 to 40-foot tibetan flag with buddha on them, they

described it as tibetan prayer flag. if those historical phrases are not from sacred text. they are from our founding documents. they're not -- they don't represent any particular religion. they are historical in nature. >> it's hard to take that straight given the display of the word creator. you look at the picture, there's obviously a message meant to be conveyed there. it's not an accident that mr. johnson is conveying what happened to be his personal views with regard to the existence and importance of god. a view i don't quarrel with but to suggest that these are a bunch of historical documents, that's just not how it is. >> i think it is how it is, your honor. if you look at the context the role religion played in the history of our nation. there's -- any different than you see a poster of there are teresa or martin luther king or

gandhi, i don't think there is no problem of those being in the classroom. these are historical events. they are not quotes from the bible. even creator in the actual word of the declaration of independence is capitalized. the declaration of independence -- >> because the word creator capitalized in the declaration of independence? >> in the first one. >> in the banner what is it? >> to say a student doesn't understand that's not in the declaration of independence, then we have more problem. >> there is a religious method doesn't -- you're telling me the students don't pick up the religious method, that this is not meant to convey a religious message. >> this is no religious message. >> don't give me the legal question. you're saying it's all about facts. i'm asking, are students likely to infer from these banners a religious message? >> no.

>> no? >> no. it's from our national motto. declaration of independence is our motto. >> it rests on the premise that students won't get a religious message? >> to make a viewpoint-based ditinks and if they are going to rely on the establishment clause, their fear cannot be an unfounded fear and that's an unfounded fear based on the facts of this case. first, it's mr. johnson's speech. any student in the classroom, you look at all the photographs, you go to any particular classroom on any day you would see the classroom represents the personalities, values of that teacher. whether that person's a sports fan or an activist like lori. you look at mr. johnson, the greatest number of pictures is native pictures. there is someone that loves his nature. you look at his red, white and blue. you see someone who is anti-war. you see someone that's pro-war. >> counsel, if we accept your

opinion, aren't we constitutionalizing every grievance that ms. brinkly or some other teacher might have about the contents of some other teacher's room? aren't we doing exactly what the supreme court told us in garsetti that federal courts should not be doing? you really don't want federal judges making quarterly visits on campus to make sure everybody's complying with the first amendment, do you? >> the response to that, your honor, is how i state it before, if they don't want to create this limited public forum then they don't need to do. the fact that they did they have to abide by the law in that particular forum. that's why this case is so unique than the others. make it just curriculum, make it only the items that the school districts directs to put in, they're more than free to do so. they could have done it from the beginning. the fact they like to pick and choose which social issues they want to particularly promote that should cause concern. >> if we do that and we find it's their speech, not his speech, that's being uttered inside this classroom, then

they can change it any time they want, can't they, because the first amendment doesn't protect him? >> if they did not create the limited public forum then, exactly. but that's the problem. that's why the facts of this case matter. they created a limited public forum. the testimony is without equivocation or exception, personal, noncurricular speech of the individual teacher. and that's what mr. johnson was doing. when you pick an choose among viewpoints in a forum you created, that is a problem. it's a problem in a public school. because it's the government. and as i stated before, they're not enclavestotalitarism. >> the answer is the ballot box. to get rid of the members of the school board and put other people in charge who will run the school in a different way. >> we don't subject

constitutional rights to democratic votes. >> if he has a constitutional right that is -- >> it is in the sense they created the forum. they created that forum. they can close that forum tomorrow. they haven't lost control. that's why this case is distinguishable. even a limited public forum in a particular school context. we made the point if it was noncurricular personal speech it would be a different issue. if it weapt the school's speech they'd have a different issue. that's why the facts matter in this case. they created this public forum and those are the confines and that's something this has to be viewed. otherwise, you'd raise an even greater constitutional concern. they have absolute control if they want to do it. they chose not to do it. now they're picking and choosing and discriminating based on viewpoint. >> thank you. you have one minute left. >> i would like to change my answer, judge. i said that he could unfold his

banner at the noon meeting or after school meeting of the students. the students could unfold his banner. if the banner is up on the wall there is no problem. he shouldn't unfold it. if he wants to hand it to a student and unfolds it i'd be happy with it. there is a footnote. there's a footnote in garsetti which the court has not dealt with that deals with academic freedom. k-12 doesn't give the application of academic freedom and i think that's another thing that needs to be in this is this court needs to oy dress that issue and -- address that issue and see if academic freedom includes the publishing issues for university professors and doesn't apply -- and we would suggest it does not -- in that broad definition of curriculum would be important --

>> your time is up. thank you. the case has been argued. the court stands in recess. >> all rise. the court stands in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the u.s. house is about to return from their recess. this afternoon general speeches. they will return at 4:00 p.m. eastern for legislative work. they'll deal with offshore drilling permits which members began working on last year and a bill dealing with haiti relief efforts. and now live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. offered by the guest chaplain reverend jane wood, jerruselum mount pleasant united methodist church in rockville, maryland. chap chatch o lord our god, god of our past, present, and future, we look to you today as we begin this session of the united states house of representatives. we thank you this afternoon for

those who are assembled here. they have been given a great privilege and an awesome responsibility. bestow upon them the wisdom, the sermon, and knowledge they need. be very near to each of them and may this day be a day of accomplishment. by your grace enable these representatives to continue on the path to a more perfect union. amen. the speaker pro tempore: 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 plemming pledge will be led by the gentleman from -- the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: 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 pro tempore: under clause 5-d of rule 10 of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the resignation of the gentleman from nevada, mr. heller, the whole number of the house is 432. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the on honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following pledge from the secretary of the senate on may 9 2011 at 10:05 a.m. that the senate has added additional conferee to h.r. 658, appointments, united states capitol preservation commission, with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk of the house.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. boustany: mr. speaker i have said many times on this floor and in meetings with constituents this country does not have an energy strategy. and the only thing worse than not having an energy strategy is having bad energy policy. yet the answer lies right here in our own backyard. we have the resources but this administration continues to block access. today we are voting on h.r. 1229, the putting the gulf back to work act. it is crucial to restoring our own capabilities to produce energy by moving forward with permit applications in a sensible amount of time. it's deplorable that businesses in louisiana cannot get back to

work and have no options unless we hold these regulators' feet to the fire and force them to do their job. these indpen producers and service companies, the backbone of american energy production, deserve answers and real solutions. with oil and gas prices skyrocketing, there is no excuse for any delays to offshore energy production. the people of this country are tired of uncertainty. they are tired of dependence on foreign oil, and they are tired of record gas prices. the bottom line is we must begin the path to a solid energy policy to get americans back to work. there is no excuse for delay. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. deutch: i rise today to honor and celebrate the state of israel on her 63rd birthday. 63 years ago israel was founded against all odds. through enormous courage and after a difficult struggle.

now she is the beacon of freedom and hope throughout the region. as the only true democratic society in the middle east israel has built a technologically advanced and thriving economy. israel's a world leader in biotechnology research and is home to some of the world's great entrepreneurial success stories. her people enjoy freedom of expression in all forms and she boasts one of the strongest records on human rights. the united states as the first country to recognize israel's independence, forged an unbreekable bond with israel through our shared values and goals. and the partnership and cooperation between our two countries has never been stronger. the united states is committed to ensuring israel's ability to defend herself and will continue to provide the most advanced assistance and security and the most robust economic aid. in 63 years israel has persevered against all odds against foreign armies terrorism, and those who deny

her right to exist. today we reaffirm the bond between the united states and israel that it will not be broken and today the united states stands firmly with our great ally israel, in true friendship and celebration. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. 30e poy: thank -- mr. poe: after years of funneling money to pakistan we still don't know whose side they are on in this world terror. we have given pakistan $12 billion in foreign aid since 2002. we have reimbursed them $9 billion for their military operations in the war on terror. it's time we freeze the foreign aid to pakistan until we get some answers about their knowledge of bin laden's whereabouts. we cannot continue to give pakistan money in the hopes they will be our friend and ally. we did not trust them enough to give them advanced notice of the bin laden operation.

we even had detailed plans to fight the pakistanis if they interfered with the capture of bin laden. bin laden was able to live in a mansion right under the nose of the pakistan military academy for years but government officials say they didn't know where bin laden was. that statement defies the evidence. and that dog just won't hunt. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, the national labor relations board has filed a complaint against the boeing corporation to stop thousands of jobs at the currently built 1.2 million square foot production facility in something sfpblgt this is the second line for 787 jetliners which are so popular due to 20% less fuel use than any other airport of its size.

manufacturing employees locate in south carolina due to the welcoming climate provided by the right to work laws which train workers educated at world class technical colleges. boeing has the right to contract to work which in the best interest of its shareholders and workers. i appreciate the governor leading the defense of our workers against the obama administration's attack. i am grateful attorney general alan wilson is recruiting fellow attorney generals across america to protect jobs. south carolina's fortunate to have america's youngest governor and america's youngest attorney general. energetically standing up for freedom of american workers. welcome to washington general bob livingston, former 218th commander in afghanistan. in conclusion, god bless our troops, we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. pitts: request permission to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, we only need to look at massachusetts to see a preview of what is in store if we fail to repeal obamacare. just a few years ago it was predicted that the massachusetts health reform would reduce emergency room care by getting patients in to see primary care physicians. but a new survey shows that only half of primary care physicians are able to accept new patients right now. it now takes 48 days to see an internist for a routine checkup. premiums in massachusetts remain among the highest in the nation. low reimbursements in the commonwealth care health plan mean only about half of doctors accept the state managed insurance. far from solving massachusetts' health care crisis, the health reform law has created problems of its own. the massachusetts medical society finds that the environment for physicians continues to deteriorate despite billions in government spending. just a sample of what awaits the nation under obamacare.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i ask permission to rise address the house for one minute revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: thank you mr. speaker. the patient protection affordable care act build billed as a health care bill is a tax bill. it's riddled with fees and penalty that is will drive up the cost of health care by imposing taxes on families and businesses. included in the law was a tax increase on nonmedical expenditures from a health savings account. there's always been a 10% penalty now it jumps to 20%. in addition beginning next years employers that have 50 full-time employees for the previous calendar year must offer health coverage that meets the minimum essential benefit coverage requirement of the secretary of health and human services and that coverage requirement is likely to cost $52 billion over the next 10 years. hardly the way to foster job creation in an economy that

desperately needs jobs. the individual mandate starts out as attacks then a penalty, now back to a tax again. the administration creatively changed its position when it realized that the mandate was indeed a tax even though it violated the president's own pledge during the campaign not to raise taxes on middle class americans to pass this signature health care legislation. the taxes in the health care law will affect everyone and inevitably it cannot help but drive up the cost of health care in this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> request permission to drome. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> with americans feeling pain at the gas pump i'm so glad that the house remains focused on lowering the cost of energy and creating an environment for positive job growth. mr. harris: american energy production has been handcuffed by a moratorium that the

president has placed on new oil, natural gas and coal production right here in the united states. mr. speaker, there's simply no reason that a country with the largest fossil fuel reserves in the world should be suffering yet through another energy crisis. a crisis that has already cost america thousands of jobs forced manufacturers to relocate overseas, and made a gallon of gas unaffordable. the folks that get hurt the most are our seniors on fixed income, small businesses, and the poor. this add martial thinks the best way to help these folks is to raise their energy taxes and then lend brazil billions of dollars to drill for oil. while our workers and our factories stand idle. what we need is a dose of common sense when it comes to our domestic energy polcy. we have to use our own oil natural gas, and coal to create jobs and stop the pain at the pump. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. i rise today with concern over oil prices and the effect these high prices have on the american consumer. in my district in northeast yip, fuel prices are around $4.10. just this morning wayne tv reported gas prices in northeast indiana will be at $4.29 by the end of today. at $4.29 a gallon, many of my constituents will not get out of the gas station for under $80. the third congressional district in yn is rural and geographically expansive causing many constituents to fill up their gas tanks two to three times a week simply from commuting to and from work. for many this cost makes their total monthly expenditure for gas at our above their rent or mortgage payment. when president obama took office, we saw gas prices at a national average of $1.84. now we are told gas prices could be as high as $5 by

memorial day. we cannot continue the status quo and expect hoosiers to pay at the pump. that is why, mr. speaker, i support h.r. 1229, the putting the gulf of mexico back to work act, and h.r. 1231, reversing the president's offshore moratorium act sponsored by mr. hastings from washington. mr. stutzman: these bills along with h.r. 1230, the restarting american offshore leasing now act that the house passed last week will help us move away from our dependence on foreign oil by opening restrictions placed on the outer continental shelf. allowing us to tap into our domestic resources. doing this will provide jobs to more americans and lower our gas prices. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will now stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

>> the coast guard's persist interpresence in patrolling the u.s.-mexico border has signaturely reduced the amount of people attempting to enter the u.s. on boats illegally but the aging coast guard ships have made this a challenging task. he testified today at the senate appropriations subcommittee on homeland security.

louisiana democratic senator marry landrieu, chaired this hearing. >> i call the subcommittee to word. the -- to order. the purpose of this meeting is to review the coast guard budget and priorities for the coming year. i welcome admiral robert path to discuss these issues and thank you, admiral, for being with us today. i'm joined by my ranking member, senator coates, and the vice chair of the committee, senator lautenberg. i'm pleased to welcome you this morning. this is to review the budget request and examination agency's operational and recapitalization requirements. this is your first appearance before the subcommittee so welcome and congratulations on your new role as commandant of the coast guard. the importance of the coast guard to our nation cannot be overstated. it's one of the five branches of the military and is responsible for the safety and security of

our maritime interest in u.s. ports, waterways and the high seas. we will never forget, particularly this senator the heroic efforts of the coast guard men and women who came to our aid after hurricanes katrina and rita, along the gulf coast and rescued 33,000 citizens during the largest search and rescue mission misin the coast guard's history. last year the coast guard was first on the scene to respond to the earthquake in haiti. coordinated the response and cleanup efforts following the explosion of the deepwater horizon rig and subsequent oil spill which was also the largest of its kind in the history of our country. the coast guard gentlemen i served with, is extremely busy in missions along the southern part of our state but all over the united states. the southern part of our country. and all over our country. however the coast guard's

ability to fulfill its mission requirements has reached a critical juncture cure to the aging infrastructure and work force gaps. the former commandant, who had a tremendous amount of respect for, said with every passing year our operating capability erodes putting our people at risk and endangering our ability to execute our statutory responsibility. he has been equally candid about the state of the coast guard and recently said we may need to reduce the number an range of our capabilities since 9/11 until properly resourced. frankly the coast guard has not been properly resourced in its budget request to congress. this has been a failure of both the current and previous administrations. over the past five years this subcommittee with my support has increased the coast guard budget by $160 million annually above the white house request levels to fill operation recapitalization shortfalls.

however continuing such increases may not be sustainable in today's constrained fiscal environment in which we are all aware and this committee intends to do what it can to eliminate the waste and fat and focus on our central missions. however we have been calling the coast guard to do more and more things with less and less and at some point which you are going to see in this hearing things start to deteriorate. with that in mind today we focus on the coast guard's 2012 request which is only a 1% increase above last year. specifically we'll be examining whether the coast guard's propertyly resourced to execute its many missions. i want to take this opportunity to stress my concern about the status of the fema disaster relief fund. for several months i have been pressing the white house on the need to submit to congress emergency funding request for it. there is currently a $3 billion

shortfall for 2012. if the president does not seek emergency funding, it is likely that this fund will be exhausted in the spring of 2012. stopping disaster recovery efforts in 49 states including the states impacted by the devastating and historic recent tornadoes again primarily in the south but in other states as well particularly as the state of al that was so hard hit. and by states currently facing historic flooding along the mississippi river which is truly the breadth and width of our country. it makes no sense to cut funding for agencies that prepare for and respond to future disasters to pay for the costs of past disasters. those are clearly emergencies. they are over the allotted base amount that we allocate to the best of our judgment on a

five-year average. we cannot predict. there is no crystal ball sitting on this desk. i cannot predict what the future storms will be. i could not predict the tornadoes. i cannot predict the river flooding. all i can do is budget a reasonable amount of money based on a five-year average, and then expect the president will send emergency request when it truly is needed. i believe that the evidence is in to support that action. following senator coates' remarks we'll go to vice chairman lautenberg and other members will be recognized as they come in. again i thank my ranking member for his support and cooperation. i know he, too is a great supporter of the coast guard. i appreciate that. >> madam chairman, thank you very much. admiral, thank you first for your call a few weeks ago and the opportunity to work with you. i did have the privilege of serving for 10 years on the senate armed services committee and i always viewed the coast

guard as the fifth service but essential as the first four. i think since 9/11 you have had to take on even greater responsibilities. i commend the coast guard for its participation in our nation's events and wish you the best in your leadership. i'm sure you breathed a short sigh of relief when congress finally gave you some direction on what your funding would be for the remainder of 2011. unfortunately we may be in a situation for the 2012 budget that again leaves some uncertainty in terms of just exactly what the funding will be. sorry for that. i know it makes it difficult in terms of planning comparing your goals and meeting those goals. in any event you're pretty much faced with a no growth budget this year. looking forward to your testimony in terms of outlining how you're going to have to

manage your priorities. as a result of that. if you don't mind i'll give you a little spiel i've said several times and i'm sure the chairman's tired of hearing me say this, but we face the kind of deficit situation today that i think none of us had anticipated. it's going to require some pretty serious action in terms of how we deal with this. my concern has been and continues to be that we are limiting our focus on two -- just a small part of the overall budget. and therefore the discretionary including defense spending, is subject to taking a disproportionate share of the burden of addressing this debt and deficit problem. so i have been trying to encourage so-called coalition of the discretionary that will

encourage members of congress and the executive branch to broaden the look in dealing with the real drivers of our deficit and debt and that's some of the mandatory spending. i know this is outside your jurisdiction, aim just raising the point here that you are the recipient of perhaps a disproportionate share of the burden. and lower funding than you need to accomplish some of your priorities. because we have not yet come to a consensus in terms of moving forward fon -- on mandatory spending. so that has continued to be a focus on a slice of the budget of which you are a part. i just say that for the record. i'm not asking you to necessarily do anything about that. i do look forward to your testimony. madam chairman you for your leadership with this. you certainly have much more at stake relative to the coast

guard than the state of indiana does. but i do want to state for the record that we do have a coast guard station in michigan city. small, but necessary. we are glad to be a state that participates just a little bit in the efforts of the coast guard. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator coats. senator lautenberg. >> thank you madam chairman. thank you admiral. and all of your colleagues for the wonderful service the coast guard gives the country. i think it's well-known that in my all years in the united states senate that the coast guard has been a principal focus about my views of what we ought to do to take care of our security, take care of so many other responsibilities that the coast guard has. whether it goes from fish, i don't know whether it goes from fish to foul, but it starts out with safeguarding our supplies

of fish. protecting the quality of the water. being there for security duty. it's just an amazing thing madam chairman, the coast guard is one of those organizations that the more good they do, the less we give them. it's the kind of contrast that gives me cause for concern. we are all so proud of what our people did when they went to get osama bin laden. and proud of the president's decision to have the courage to take that kind of a chance because obviously great personal feeling goes along with putting people in harm's way. but there we are. and we learned one thing that when we put the resources into a mission, that we can succeed. and this is a mission is -- the

attack on osama bin laden was in the works for years. so when i looked at the things that we were asking coast guard to do and see that prior to 9/11 coast guard invested only 2% of its operating budget, security activities immediately following 9/11 it shifted the resources spending approximately 59% of its operating budget on security missions. so there are lots of positive things in the budget for the coast guard. including the funding to modernize an aging fleet or respond to disasters. and i am also pleased that the budget includes funding to rebuild thedy plap dated pier at the coast guard training center in cape may facility. it protects our coastline.

i hope we can provide the resources, the training certainty desperately needs. madam chairman, i ask unanimous consent that a floor statement i have goes into the record. >> without objection. >> just say that my respect for the coast guard continues to evolve. i look out from the window in my apartment in new jersey and i see a small patrol boat going around to make sure that things are all right in the hudson river, in the harbor, and i can imagine what it's like having to take care of all the ports the security duties, military duties the coast guard is required to do. thank you. we are going to work hard to make sure you have the resources. >> thank you senator. senator cochran. >> thank you very much for

convening this hearing. i'm going to join you and other members of your committee in welcoming the commandant to review the budget request for the next fiscal year. the coast guard is really front and center right now in everybody's mind and on everybody's tv screen with activities, search and rescue, protecting our coastlines, our inland waterway entrances into our country. very complex challenge that the coast guard is facing. but from my vantage point i have been very pleased and impressed with the leadership and hard work that's being devoted to the mission of the coast guard by everyone involved. from the commandant throughout the corps of people, men and women who serve so gallantly and impressively in our coast guard today. i look forward to your comments about the budget request and

taking our questions. thank you. >> thank you senator. admiral, proceed please. >> good morning, madam chairwoman and ranking member coats and also to two long time supporters of the coast guard senator lautenberg and senator cochran. thank you for the opportunity to appear here today before you and thank you for your unwavering support of the men and women of the united states coast guard. it's my great honor and privilege to represent and lead these outstanding patriots. america's a maritime nation, 90% of our goods arrive by our shipped by sea. the safety and security of our maritime impacts the daily lives of every american. regardless of whether they live on or near the water. in the past year, our citizens have witnessed the coast guard in action like never before. coast guardsmen conducting drug and migrant interdictions responded to the devastating earthquake in haiti. with haiti still on their boots they respond with agillity to

the unprecedented deepwater horizon oil rig explosion. these all hands-on-deck evolutions demonstrate the the value of our unique versatile adaptable maritime and multimission and military capabilities. while we search to meet these challenges, we continue to perform our other missions. in the flood ravaged ohio and mississippi valley they are there. on the great lakes coast guard ice breakers freed the flow of $2 billion worth of job sustaining commerce facilitating among other things the start of the 41st international shipping season into the port of indiana burns harbor allowing stevea doors, longshoreman, truckers, and small business men get back to work. deep in the eastern pacific ocean, one of our 40-year-old cutters based in seattle interdicted a drug submarine loaded with 6. tons of cocaine

worth $138 million. in the arabian gulf, 700 of our coast guard men still serve. they are protecting the oil platforms that provide 85% of iraq's revenue. coast guardsmen are also deployed off the coast of after ga. and -- after cafment and in alaska -- africa and in alaska they rescued folks in two separate plane crashes. these coast guardsmen as their predecessors have done for over 220 years are working tirelessly to safeguard our nation's maritime interest on our rivers, ports, along our coasts, and high seas. yet today we find our coast guard at a critical point in its

history. i'm well aware of our nation's current economic and budget challenges, however i also know that decisions made today will do one of two things. they'll either sustain a coast guard capable of meeting mission and responding to future man-made or natural disasters as madam chairman, as you mentioned, we can't predict where and when they will happen, so it takes our versatile forces in sufficient quantities, to be prepared for those unpredictable events. the other result could be a coast guard that's less capable and diminished in force. your steadfast support has most recently demonstrated to the f.y. 2011 appropriation enabled us to continue to perform our challenging maritime missions at the level the nation demands. senator coats you said i must received a sigh of relief, i wanted to do a high five because it addresses our most pressing

requirements. the sustaining current operations by fully funding national security cutter number 5, you enabled us to deliver the ship up to one year earlier foningsly saving taxpayers millions of dollars. it was ironic that this morning when i did my daily readings there was a quote in there that says when we pay later the price is greater. certainly when we buy it earlier, we get it at a better price. we will have savings for our taxpayers. our acquisitions momentum must continue. gaps in funding are costly and jeopardize our ability to protect the nation's high seas sovereignty. the 2012 budget request responds to our nation's budget challenges. i had to make some tradeoffs and i directed management efficiencies and reductions in administrative costs and professional services totaling about $140 million. i will reinvest these savings into sustaining our frontline operations as the american

citizens expect, to rebuilding the coast guard enhancing our maritime prevention and response, and supporting our coast guard families. i'm requesting over $1.4 billion to continue our recapitalization effort including funding for national security cutters, fast response cutters, response boats, maritime patrol aircraft, and sustainment of our aging ships and aircraft. i recently decommissioned two antiquated high endurance cutters and our oldest cutter, known as the queen of the fleet which was almost 68 years old. this allowed me the privilege of best toeing the queen of the fleet status to another coast guard cut cutter, which is merely 67 years old. but at some point it becomes unfair to keep our crews asking our crews to expend countless hours fixing old machinery. our crews deserve state-of-the-art equipment and decent living conditions to do the jobs. and the american people deserve

the capability of a modern coast guard fleet. the good news is because of your support our recapitalization is starting to pay dividends. the first of our eight national security cutters is currently conducting its first alaska patrol. it marks the beginning of decades of service the national security cutter fleet will provide in the baring seas and throughout the -- bearing seas and -- behring seas and throughout the area. and one was launched in louisiana. this is a critical step towards replacing our tired by venerable work force. the 2012 budget also invests $22.7 million to ensure the safe and efficient flow of commerce protecting our natural resources and effectively managing pollution incidents when they occur. finally, you can't have a strong military work force without healthy families. this budget also requests funding for military housing projects and increases access to

chining services -- childcare services for coast guard families of the the american time component ensures the coast guard is able to continue to perform our vital maritime missions. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you admiral very much. i appreciate it. it's also i think appropriate to note on the coast guard facts and figures that is available on the website some of the extraordinary work that you just touched on in your opening remarks about in the average day what the coast guard accomplishes. and just to say a few, it saves 13 laws, responds to 64 search and rescue cases provides a presence in all major pores screens 679 commercial vessels and 170,000 crew passengers, i could go on and on.

it tracks 1,200 icebergs that came into shipping lanes last year and other testimony. i have recently given a speech on these capabilities and it was an impressive part of what was prepared for me. i looked at it and it's quite amazing, admiral, the breadth of the services you provide to our country on a daily basis and looking back over last year. so again we commend you. let me start by -- with a few questions. you have pub pickly expressed despite your very poss -- publicly expressed despite your positive statement this morning you have expressed concerns about the coast guard's ability to carry out its 11 statutory missions. recently in february you said we need to respond, we need to reduce the number and range of capabilities unless we are properly resourced. i know you are pleased with several aspects of the budget, but can you elaborate object the capabilities to which you were referring to in that statement?

you ordered a review of coast guard capabilities when will this review be completed? and it provided -- if provided the resources, where would you invest your next dollar? elaborate on the capability shortfalls if you would. you have order add stem to stern review, when will it be completed, and when will those recommendations be reported to this committee? if additional resources would be available, where would you invest your next dollar? >> thank you ma'am. those are three great questions. the first of which is this review of capabilities and do we need to cut back on some of those capabilities. i think we generally acknowledge across the board that prior to 9/11 the coast guard was underresourced to do all the missions it had then. since 9/11 we picked up additional responsibilities through the maritime transportation safety act and safe port act. we are grateful to the congress for the increase in people first of all.

we gained about 6,000 people total which has brought us back up to where the service was in approximately 1990. we have also picked up these additional duties. also culturally this service has this attitude of can-do and it's both a blessing and curse. and as we have looked across the security responsibilities and threat facing our contry, oftentimes because of this can-do attitude, we start doing things that no one really asked us to do. examples of that would be in some cases rotary wing air intercepted which we are now training our helicopter pilots to do which interseptember low threats that might approach a national security event. we are resourced to do that in the washington, d.c. area, but we are not resourced to do it out, yet we are doing it. insertion of coast guardsmen on to ships and other tactical operations that we looked out perceived a need and started

doing on our own without the proper resources to do it. and unfortunately we have experienced some accidents over the last couple years as we have trained for these activities. this has given me cause for concern and to take a pause and order this stem to stern review which will order the capabilities out there decide which ones are the highest priority and make sure we are properly resourced to carry out those activities and properly trained to be the best possible to do those things. inevitably we'll find some gaps that exist, if it's a job that the coast guard should be doing, it's my responsibility to identity that to the administration and congress and seek the proper resources to do it. if it's something that can be filled by another government agency working through partnerships, then i think it's reasonable to go out to other government agencies and ask them to fill that void in cooperation with the coast guard. that's the two first questions i think i have answered.

then the last is where would i invest my next dollar? clearly recapitalization. we cannot continue to ask these young patriots to go out to sea in 40-year-old ships living in conditions that were world war ii vintage stacked three high in berthing areas where the condensation and darkness and extremes of heat and cold. plus we need to give them the proper tools to work effectively out there. new sensors, new radars, and survivable ships that will take them out of these very dangerous conditions like the bearing seas -- behring sea we need to be about the business of getting those ships built as quickly as possible. >> i understand the average age of a navy ship is 14 years but the average age of a coast guard ship is 40, is that correct? >> yes ma'am. generally the navy plans on a 20-year service life generally. in fact our high enturns cutters were used as a model for the

class for the united states navy which was built years later and all that class have been demissioned. we are still running our original 12 high endurance cutters with the exception two hamilton and chase. >> let me ask you one other question. we have many so this will be the first round. but the coast guard policy requires an incident specific preparedness review to assess lessons learned from major oil spills. the review of 2010 was recently completed in march. however it is reported that many lessons learned from prior spills, such as the 2008 spill and the one 11 years earlier had not been addressed or implemented before the deepwater horizon. now we have those two previous spills which were smaller, now the deepwater horizon. where are you in your review of what it's going to take if this

country, it is a priority i think for the majority members of the senate, mainly not everyone, but the majority, to get deepwater crilling back up and operational in the gulf of mexico as soon as possible? recognize there is additional safety requirements. where are we in that task? could you explain just briefly the role of the coast guard in making sure that spills are prevented and then responded to adequately? >> yes, ma'am. i'm very proud of the incident specific performance review. we did it for the deepwater horizon spill. it's an introspective review that i order for our service to take a look at how we did the job and to reveal all the challenges, problems, and shortfalls we might have. i just received that report and we are in the process of evaluating that. we also need to make comparisons to the president's mission report and other reports that are being prepared, including

our marine casualty investigation. which has just been wrapped up. we will look across all those reports and come up with a comprehensive plan on what we need to do. but we are not sitting back waiting on that. we are already moving ahead. in fact the 27 -- 22.7 million that we put in the f.y. 2012 budget builds on a plan we already started after the spill which is to enhance our marine safety program with additional i spectors marine and environmental responders and other people. it's a measured looked, making sure we are doing the right thing. and the 2012 budget continue that is process. in addition puts in there an incident management assist team of about 33 people which we will forward deploy when a spill happens. one of the things that came across clearly in the deepwater horizon spill is the lack of capacity that we have for a

sustained operation like that. we are also not sitting back in terms of our efforts. we directed all our captains to review all their spill plans particularly for those facilities that are offshore, and do a complete review of those. we are working with our area committees to look at worse case scenarios and how we bring industry and federal and state and local together to combat those things. and all these things are in progress as we continue to evaluate. >> finally, when will you have that report to us? do you think it will be 30 days or 60 days? in time for us to consider it in this budget cycle? >> i think certainly the report has been published. it's out there. we made sure that the report itself went out and it has a number of recommendations. clearly i can't do every recommending that's in the report. but we are going to assign priorities. but the report's available. >> as soon as you find your priorities, let us know.

senator coats? >> thanks for your testimony. you mentioned tough trade yoffers. garnering $140 million which you had to -- you tried to reinvest in frontline operations. give me some examples of those tough tradeoffs particularly that generated that $140 million. what did you take away? >> we really need to go back to the 2011 budget. once again i have to thank this committee for restoring money in the 2011 budget. we were facing some rather drastic cuts in there including maritime safety and security teams and cutters. that's a quick way to get savings, but unfortunately cut back on your frontline operations. as we went into the 2012 budget cycle, my first budget in preparation to go forward my guiding for instance was we will sustain our frontline operations. i don't want to lose any coast guard people or coast guard resources that deliver services

to the american people. so we would look at administrative overhead, where we could find redundancies and fat to carve away. we didn't find fat. we are scraping muscle. most of it is in administrative services, operational support reductions troofl, conferences other things that -- travel, conferences, other things that are enhancements because i think it helps us keep a healthy work force, but the alternative is cutback operations or aircraft and ships. i just don't want to do that. >> we have had a lot of interest here obviously in strengthening border patrol regarding illegal immigration. there have been some significant successes at a considerable cost. there's some thought that as we strengthen our border security on illegal immigration there may be more attempts to use the oceans and seas as entry points.

is this nothing that you have looked at? do you anticipate more responsibilities coming your way? >> yes sir. it's like squeezing the balloon. if you make the land border more secure there is the possibility of going around it by going out to sea. but we've got that fairly well covered by a persistent presence both on the gulf and pacific sides of the mexican-american border. we have patrol boats out there and larger cutters further out to sea. frankly most of our migrant sectors are down in terms of numbers of people. we have seen a slight rise in the last few months in haitians, but whether it's cubans, dominicans, haitians, or migrants from across the ma civic, all those numbers are down. but i believe everything points back to us having a persistent press ns out there maintaining those cutters and aircraft out there. people know they are there. and a policy of returning

migrants to their home country when we pick them up. we are finding ourselves increasingly challenged because the difficulty in keeping these old ships running out there and keeping them out on station. >> describe the process for me, if you would. you're in the gulf. you come across a makeshift boat. there's 45 illegal immigrants trying to reach land. you intercept that. what happens from that point forward? in terms of those individuals. they are brought on the boat. they are brought on shore. they are detained. what's the process that you have to go through? >> that is the value of these multimission cutters that we have that have flight decks for landing helicopters. but we also have accommodate large groups of migrants. it's not unusual for us to find a group of 45, whether cubans or

heche shans. what we do we bring them aboard, we treat them humanely. we feed them. we make sure we have facilities to protect them and we have agreements in place with both cuba and haiti to repatriate them to their countries. we also interview these migrants to make sure there aren't any concerns about political repression or punishment that they might receive when they come back. sometimes there are people that may be -- have some political concerns in terms of going back. we interview these people. if we find that there's a threat or belief, then we will work with customs and border patrol or i.c.e. and bring them back and they'll get further interviews. for the most part we repatriate them back to their countries. >> i don't know the answer to this. but when you repatriate those

immigrants illegal immigrants, you take them back yourself? or they go through some process system on land before -- >> if they are interdicted at sea, we bring them on. treat them. then we bring them directly back . for haiti we take our ships until a delivery point when we turn them over to haitian officials. overseen by united nations people that are there and working with the red cross. and we have an agreement with cuba. we generally have to transfer them to a smaller coast guard cutter to go into the port of cabanis just this morning though, we had two cubans, four, that were able to voice what they perceived as a threat. what we did we took them around to guantanamo bay and delivered them there. we have a migrant holding facility that does further

interviews on shore to decide whether they go back to cuba or brought to the united states. >> i have more questions, but i think we'll do a second round. >> yes we will thank you. senator lautenberg. >> thank you. madam chairman. stoo -- admiral you're now a seasoned commandant and i can tell you that you have won the respect for the kind of leadership that you have shown with the coast guard since the time you have become the commandant. we thank you. 5d according to the f.b.i. new jersey -- according to the f.b.i. new jersey is home for the most at-risk terrorist attack in the united states. the area has targets ranging from the port, airports, chlorine gas plants, attack in this area could endanger 12 million people. who live within a fairly short

radius. with the administration's decreased budget request, what will -- will any efforts in the port of new york-new jersey area be affected in terms of its supervision by the coast guard? >> no, senator. as i said earlier my emphasis on the to 12 budget is sustaining at the current level our operations in the field. delivering those services that the american citizens expect of our coast guard. new york i believe is well covered. we have sector new york which is one of our most robust sectors in the coast guard. located on staten island. station new york over the last 10 years we basically doubled the number of votes and people at the station. we have maritime safety and security team new york, which is there to provide response to terrorist events or provide additional security when there

are security events in process. the other thing that's very important is the active partnerships that we have. our area air time security committee we bring together all the state and local port partners plus industry and i would say probably one of the biggest allies is commissioner ray kelly, city of new york. they have pretty robust services them selves. they are all complementary. we try not to be redundant. i think new york is well covered. >> cape may coast guard trade promotioning center is in pretty bad shape. presents a safety hazard. they are responsible for performing the critical safety and security emissions in the mid-atlantic region. your budget request includes $11 million for the reconstruction of pier. what kind of embearment might -- impairment might follow on to lack of funding for that mission? >> well, i have been up there

and i have walked that pier, sir, and we cannot take heavy equipment out there. we have two major cutters that call that homeport. ultimately you need to take cranes out there to do work on the ships when they are in port. as it stands right now you can't move heavy equipment out there so you have to move the ships in order to get any work done. it affects daily work just like delivering supplies and things if you can't take a truck down the pier. getting that replaced and giving us the versatility to do pier side work and keep our cutters sustained in homeport there and not have to put extra burdens on our people to have to move the ship if work is to be done after they have already come in off long patrols is a great benefit to us. >> you know the coast guard represents the u.s. before the international maritime organization and our efforts to

prevent and respond to acts of piracy. pirate attacks have been rising steadily in recent months leading for some call for the increased use of arms on merchant ships. whees the coast guard thinking about that? it sounds like that our ships ought to be able to defend themselves. >> well, what we do know sir is that i think the pirates are zero for 12 or 13 or 14 whenever they tried to attack and take a ship that has a security team onboard. so we have evidence to validate the fact that if you have a security team onboard you're most likely going to survive. how those security teams are provided is what the real question is. some countries still prohibit the use of security teams onboard ships that fly their flag. there are some shipping companies that are actually changing their flag to other countries now so that they can

bring security teams onboard. there seems to be a fairly robust activity out there in terms of companies willing to provide those services and the shipping companies seem to be able to afford them. i encourage the use of security teams but we also have other measures that work as well including safety procedures for the crews onboard. increasing speed. trying to make the ship less accessible to pirates coming onboard. a full range of activities you can do. ultimately what we found is security teams work. >> i close with this, madam chairman i would hope that you wouldn't keep using the reference to his old as world war ii. there is some of the parts still remain. are fuppingsing quite well. -- functioning quite well. >> thank you. senator cochran. >> welcome again commandant, to our hearing.

we appreciate the fact that in our state of mississippi we are building coast guard vessels and we are very proud of the fact that english shipbuilding has produced two cutters, i think. cutter number 5 and 6, and they are looking to continue the construction of these cutters. . and inside question is, what is your assessment of the work and contribution to this project and what are your -- what are your assessments of the efficiencies that are gained by long lead procurement of these vessels? >> well, sir, that's a great question and i have been out to san francisco just a few weeks ago and i spent a full day riding in a.c. number two

it's an outstanding ship. i'm almost willing to give up those stripes to be a captain of one of those stripes. it's that outstanding. on the other hand, it's not extravagant either. it gives us enhanced capabilities to better carry out our missions in better weather conditions and longer range and speed and to do it more economically with fewer crewmembers, better fuel efficiency and better environmental conditions as well. i was fully impressed with the functionality of that ship and everything that it brings to the coast guard missions. proving it is another thing and right now the first ship is up in the baring sea. i read a report from its commanding officer captain john prince, just this morning. they are out in 20-foot seas

with up to 60 knots of wind and still able to launch and recover their helicopter. unheard of in the past to be able to do that from one of our high endurance cutters up in the baring sea. they are launching boats because of the stern launch capability. they are able to stay out there longer because the engines are more economical, even at higher speed than the ships it replaces. we are doing it with about 40 fewer people in the crew. they're living better. the ship rides better because we have segregated bowel tanks now instead of fuel tanks that you have to mix water in it before, which guesses you a better, more stable ride. it is proving the solid design and all the work that went in and i couldn't be more pleased with these ships. number three is nearing completion. the dorothy stratton, and she'll be delivered to the coast guard later this year.

we were able to get the contract for number four and because of the generous work of this subcommittee, we have the money in the 2011 budget to award the contract in number five. to your final question on long leave materials whenever we can keep a stable and predictable flow of funding going, the ship yard gains confidence, we gain confidence, prices are lower and we save money in the long run. >> well, that's a very impressive report. it makes me very proud of the workers and officials and the coast guard who devoted just a strong workman-like performance in the building of these ships and getting them to sea where we need them operating. i know too there are plans to build additional cutters and

long leave time materials are needed for those ships. are those requests contained in your budget request before the committee or do we need to have a conference to see what you need, what you can use and what will be efficient and appropriate for this committee to support? >> well, sir, ultimately i would have in my original plans and in the coast guard's overall plans we would have liked to have requested funding for number cutter number six in the budget that's going forward. we were confronted with a very difficult situation. i will admit that we had some problems early on because we had a integrator and we ran into difficulties there. the first thing we needed to do was negotiate a fixed price contract for cutters four through eight. it took us a little long to hammer out that deal, to get the fixed price contract

ultimately. i believe we came up with a good price on number four and the ship yard i think is negotiating in very good faith on number five which we'll see here very soon. but because we didn't have a price for number four we were uncertain what it would cost, what number five would cost and we thought we'd need additional money given our estimate for national security cutter number five. we could not fit that additional money for number five plus the full coast of number six in the 2012 budget. so i made what i thought was a reasonable decision at the time was just to ask for the additional money to complete national security number five and we would defer full funding. what i'm confronted with now is a-11 requires full funding. long leave production and post production cost all in the same year is a challenge for us because it eats up half our

acquisition budget. i cut fit that in until the 2012 budget. now, we did ask for money in the 2012 budget to complete number five. you gave us the money within the 2011 budget so that leaves a little bit there in the 2012 budget as it goes -- >> what is a fogy bear. >> a bogey is a target either opportunity or problem because it sits there originally -- as the present president goes forward, it's $77 million to complete the funding for n.s.c. number five so it sits there with no assignment. >> i hope the committee with cork with you and your -- can work with you and your team to see what we can do in this cycle. you're open to further consultation and discussion of this issue, i hope. >> yes, sir.

>> ma'am chairman, i have other questions -- madam chairman, i have other questions. if i have time, i will ask about the unmanned aerial systems. the coast guard has been analyzing various unmanned aerial systems. i wonder what the status is of potential requests for next year's budget or a supplemental request dealing with unmanned aerial assets. >> well, clearly when we devised the system of cutters and aircraft, unmanned aerial systems wasn't part of that to make it to enhanced the effectiveness of the system and to compensate for having ultimately fewer ships out there. right now i am searching for room on where we might fit that in. plus, i have to look at other things. the coast guard is looking at a

fire scout which i think holds promise but i don't have the money to move forward with that right now so we're leveraging off the navy's work and we're hopeful that they will work with us to experience with one off the national security cutter to see if that's the dregs to go. the other is more a predator -time u.a.s. which would do wide area coverage and right now customs and border protection is working with some predators. we're experiencing with them which is using some coast guard pilots to look at the effectiveness of that system and see how that might be employed with our ships and cutters. right now ultimately we're doing better because the national security cutter gives us better sensors and coverage and working with our current manned aircraft, it makes us no less capable than we have been in the past, but we would look forward to the future when we can identify the systems we need and then work them into our budget. >> thank you, madam chair.

>> thank you. let me just follow-up on that because when you think about i guess the question is, what is the most effective way to catch the bad guys, you know, is it with our ship patrols, is it with unmanned support? i'm concerned about what i'm understanding are the increased reliability or increased reliance by these major drug dealers to basically build their own submarines how, without going into too much -- and we can't go into classified information -- what is the coast guard's current response to some of these new and emerging and less sophisticated operations? >> well, they clearly are presenting us with a challenge. but the drug trafficking organizations are still using a wide range of conveyances. sometimes just slow fishing vessels sometimes go fast. they are using semisubmersibles and then fully submersibles.

it's clearly a chess game. when we come up with a new tactic they'll go to another tactic and we have to rely to that. when you ask, what is the most effective? it's really a combination of all those things. and then one you didn't mention which is intelligence. we can't do nearly as well as we do now if it was not with active intelligence, working with our partners, lateral and multilateral agreements we have with central and south american countries in order to train together and also actually conduct operations together on the water and sometimes even allow us to go into other sovereign waters based upon the agreements we've come up with. so intelligence is probably one of the most important things for us because it will tell us oftentimes not only where to go to but what ship to look at and oftentimes what compartment in

that ship to look at. i'm now divulging. i'm talking in generalalitys it's what our intelligence is and in combination with our intelligence out there. >> well, i'm glad you mentioned that. i was in gal mala on a different issue got a security briefing on our embassy and that's what they talked about. the gat mallan government was working with you in partnership. we can't just stop drugs with the borders along the western border. they're coming through maritime channels and ship channels and oceans and bayous and getting the right intelligence before they leave the ports or intercepting them before they get in our ports is a right strategy. it's the right kind of materials and platforms but the intelligence aspect and the other partners with honor

duras, -- honduras, guatemala and anything wag with a and others -- nicargua. >> it's not just the united states coast guard cooperating with those solvent central american countries. we also facilitate cooperation amongst federal agencies as well. one of my collateral duties is chairman of the interdiction community where we bring together the justice, department of defense, the full range of the interagency to share and to work together and come up with strategies. our last meeting we brought in general frazier who is the commander of the south com. he has a deep and abiding interest on what goes on in central america. but at the end of the day you're absolutely right. we need to stop these drugs in the transit zone, where we can pick up that 6.6 million tons of cocaine at one time before

it gets ashore in central america, is broken down into thousands of packages to come across our border at various locations and across, also fueling the violence we're seeing down there in mexico. >> thank you. one more question. since 2008 -- and you've touched on this but i want to go a little bit deeper. 14 coast guard aviators have died in accidents while conducting routine missions. keeping the men and women of the coast guard i'm sure is your highest priority and i understand the coast guard has reviewed the cause of these accidents and the adequacy of aviation training operation maintenance but what recommendations are you making either in this budget or what have you made that we can support you in our efforts to keep these men and women safe on these routine training missions? >> thank you for that. i was asked a couple days ago what keeps me awake at night? i say we have good leaders to

keep the job done but one of the sleepless nights i can count is the loss of our helicopter 6017 very shortly after i became commandant. fortunately we had started our aviation study, our aviation safety study and we're well along -- and i want to thank senator lautenberg for calling me at the time and calling for an investigation that the army did on some helicopter losses. what we found out there was not a connection. the army was mostly mechanical. ours is really head work. what i mean by that is we've seen a lot of rapid cultural change within our aviation community over the last 10 years. we picked up additional new responsibilities. the wing interception i talked about and other things other than search and rescue we didn't do 10 years ago. you can't necessarily point it on that either. we've gone through a rapid progression of upgrades and

instrument and equipment changes within our helicopters so there's been change there. and then i think also perhaps a little bit of complacency that has slipped in to our aviation culture across the coast guard. perhaps a diversion of focus away from safety concerns. leaders getting out on the flight deck and spending time with their young pilots and having focused on their qualifications. crew management in the cockpit. there is a whole things and resulted in a very, very unfortunate accident under very routine circumstances and it was not mechanical. it was human failure. we're working very hard right now, taking our most senior aviators going around to every air station and we have a number of other things in the works to improve upon an aviation culture in the coast guard that has produced one of the best pilots in the world

and making them even better. there is no cost in the budget for this. it's something we have to take on as leaders and we're about the business on doing that. >> thank you admiral. senator coats. >> thank you. admiral, i'm aware that the navy has on every ship afloat and every sailor on that ship has a locating device if there is a man overboard woman overboard they have an instant alert and g.p.s. location. i mean, we all think of going out on a sunday, chesapeake bay and somebody falls overboard and somebody turns and and picks them up. obviously that's not the case in the open ocean. do you have a similar system in place?

with your garsmen? >> i'm not sure we have something similar because i don't know what the navy has employed and i haven't read anything about that. there are a small thing on the market. we just did a rescue because the one i talked about in alaska where an airplane crashed, somebody was able to send out an alert on their personal device. we have a number of personal protective equipment on our people whenever they're involved in dangerous operations. there are a full rafpk of things from signaling devices to strobe lights and other things. what i'll have to do is look at comparison of what the navy is issuing right now and see if there are any enhancements we can do for our people as well. >> yeah. i don't know the name of it or the company or what the market is. i just run into someone who told me about it indicated

that there's been a dramatic decrease of sailors lost at sea. >> i'll look it up and get back to me. >> talk to me about your living conditions what percent of your forces are married? >> we are one of the highest. and i don't have the exact figure but my recollection is it's up close to 50% which is -- we have the highest rate of people that are married compared to the other four services. >> married with children. i assume most of them? >> yes sir. >> so you mentioned your concerns about housing, adequate housing and childcare. where are you in that process and where do you rank? we all know that the air force has the best facilities, including golf courses. we all know that the navy does pretty well and the army has improved dramatically. marines are happy with a slab

of cement and a tarp. but where does the coast guard fit in the list of -- list of services here in terms of what you would call the kind of housing that your -- you're proud to have your people in? are you bottom of the ladder? >> we are clearly at the bottom of the ladder. we have fewer people that live on big bases. we are locally dispersed and it's very hard to come up with coast guard housing because we're at so many small stations around the country. we look at government leases. we, of course, have housing allowances for all of our people. and one of the things that we have picked up -- i've declared this during my state of the coast guard speech, this is the year of the coast guard family. my wife, lindh -- linda, and i have met with literally thousands of coast guard people and we've chosen to speak about

those things. housing, childcare and ombudsman services, spouses helping spouses. housing is a challenge for us because where we do have bases for instance zodiac, alaska, we have done ok in terms of trying to maintain them but they're very costly. the other services we're facing the same challenges and they got authorities and the money to enter into private -- public-private ventures. that is -- >> you have that authority? >> we do not have that authority. and also -- we had it in the past but it requires us to escrow a large amount of money which we never are able to get in our budget. so what we've done, sir, is we've leveraged off the other services. out in hawaii what we did was we creeded some of our land that we had -- ceded some of our land that we had for our

old housing and the army built houses which now our coast guard take part in. at the other end of the spectrum i actually lived in a privatized house over bowling air force base right now. we're selling the commandant's house which we owned for 40 years out on chevy chase because it cost a lot of money and we were able to take the proceeds of those sales and turn them back into housing for our service members. so we're selling the commandant's house and i've moved into a place that i pay rent on to a private company on bowling air force base and it is up to air force standards sir. but that's what we need to do for the rest of our work force. i'd love to be able those public-private venture authorities but it costs a lot. what we're doing is we have a mixture of coast guard supported housing. we're looking where we can leverage off the other services to take advantage of their authorities and we're coming up with a comprehensive plan on the way ahead. >> well, i think you should

keep us advised. morale and quality of service is directly related to quality of life as provided for family and children. you're out doing -- your people are out doing dangerous work away from home. they need to be -- have some sense of comfort that their loved ones are taken care of. >> yes, sir. absolutely. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. i'd like to follow-up on that as well and then i'll recognize senator lautenberg later. i hope to privatize the army housing which has been successful with the family housing and at one point, senators, it was estimated nearly at the rate we were going 200 years or more to provide housing for some of our men and women in uniform, according to what the budgets looked like. so we had to change the paradigm and this private housing has been phenomenally successful. i remember the military construction committee. -- i'm a member of the military construction committee.

so maybe we can use strategies that we might be able to employ the partnerships you suggested and other avenues to provide really stepped up housing opportunities for our men and women in the coast guard. and i'd like to commit to you to try to do that with your help and assistance. senator lautenberg. >> thanks, madam chairman. i can tell you this for the people in the coast guard in new jersey it's a wonderful place to be and it's -- if we could enlarge that facility maybe we could take care of more. and it's right on the beach so we could put up some tents and accommodate people. the rest of the year is wonderful. they deserve better, i can tell you that. when i look at the deteriorated

situation with the quarters there now, that makes me unhappy. i'm so proud that you're so able to do the recruiting that you have to do. as mentioned earlier. i want to go on to something touchy. the recent reports on the coast guard's response to the deepwater horizon oil spill found that the coast guard's ability to respond to environmental disasters had -- and i quote here -- extra feat over the past decade. how have the coast guard plan the -- how do you respond to that? and how do you -- what can you do to improve the -- your plans for better security missions, the need -- and the need to improve the environmental response? >> well, sir, i agree that it had atrifeat to probably the last decade to 20 years and

part of that is we've been very good at prevention. you have prevention and response. you hope that you don't have to respond because you prevented the spills from happening in the first place. and we've been so good at the prevention side that i think -- i don't know whether we just became complacent. part of it is complacency and once complacency slips in perhaps you're not as looking as far forward in terms of new technology and other things that you might be able to help you in the future for a response. i think that the oil pollution act of 1990 placed most of the responsibility for maintaining equipment with private industry. and i don't think private industry has looked that far forward either or considered the implications of a worst-case scenario spill like we experienced in deepwater horizon. so i think it's incumbent on us to look at what's the proper balance between federal and

industry in terms of maintaining equipment and preparation? ultimately the answer is working together. the coast guard has already started. >> that includes -- forgive the interruption. does that include developing better specs or drilling or and accident prevention? is that something the coast guard would be taking on? what you -- i don't know how you do the preventive side and make it -- make it the rule. >> well, organic to the coast guard we don't have the expertise in terms of drilling. i think we all learned an awful lot from that. i think that falls on the department of the interior. what we're doing is working very closely with the department of the interior to make sure we collaborate as we go forward. the coast guard has expertise in firefighting stability construction of the mobile platforms and other things, but

we've got zero organic technical expertise in the drilling operations, particularly in the deep sea. i'm unwilling to volunteer to take on additional responsibilities to bring that organic to the coast guard. i think it exists within the department of interior and what we need to do is do what we've done exactly so far is work with our partners. so you'll encourage them to be more actively in the prevention side? >> yes, sir. >> i want to ask you this -- we've seen incredible changes in our marine ecology as a result of changing temperatures. does the coast guard have the ability to either recognize changes in marine functioning fish, the undersea plants

coral, those kinds of things that all make up part of the ecology, is there any awareness of the coast guard about what is taking place as a result of what is obviously the climate change that we're seeing? >> well, we're certainly interested in it and, no, we don't have organic expertise or staff that have applied to that. we're more reactive in nature in terms of carrying out our current authorities when, you know for instance, in the arctic we have much more open water nuned the potential for commerce and shipping to increase up in those areas. we rely upon noaa and other government agencies that do have that focus of the scientific study of our waters and the changes that are happening. the results of those changes are something we have to deal with. >> it's just that you have so many people on the sea and

there are changes that are occurring and i don't know if you see these changes in makeup or quality or anything that things are just falling your way. i know when we put an embargo on stripess years ago and so forth, the coast guard had some part in maintaining but the rules for catches and it worked wonders. we replaced the quantity and improved the quality as well. i ask that because i, like all of us, are concerned about the -- what is taking place in the environment and the climate change. if there's any way that there is information flow without giving you another task because you're so close to the reality

on the sea. thanks very much, madam chairman. >> senator cochran. ok. thank you. i think we're about complete. if you all will be patient. one more question from me. if you need to slip out we'll end the meeting. you recently released the draft request for offshore cutters. this is arguably the most important acquisition. it's the backbone of the guard. the full combat investment funding for both o.p.c. and n.f.c. exceeds -- it reaches almost $2.3 billion. you never requested more than $1.4 billion in any year. can you just briefly comment and we'll use that question to close the meeting? >> yes, ma'am. it's an interesting turn of events because i watched commandants come up for years and and also being aused of not asking what they need or not asking for enough. we're asking for what we need and we need to be the business of designing and selecting and

using those offshore patrol cutters. 25 of them in our project baseline. they will provide the capabilities, the national security cutters, the high end with the most capabilities and then, of course, we have the fast response cutter or patrol boat which will be in-shore, doesn't have a flight deck. it is less capable. the o.p.c., or offshore patrol cutter, will provide the connection between those two in the outer zone of our defenses for security as you come to the country. it's got to be capable, though of, of operating in the north atlantic, in the baring sea, the gulf of alaska, which most of our medium endurance cutters do not. they are not stout or capable of enough of surviving those type of elements. so we need something that's going to probably perform and about sea state five, be able to launch helicopters and recover boats in more

challenging conditions. and the offshore patrol cutter is that ship. i've looked at the basic specs that we put out recently. i think it will be a very good ship to provide that -- fill that gap. we have to be mindful that ultimately with the eight national security cutters and the 25 o. pmpt c.'s, that's 33 ships replacing the 41 that we have right now. -- 25 o.p.c.'s that's 33 ships replacing the 41 that we have right now. my job is to identify what we need. and i'm hopeful we'll follow through on the plan. >> thank you, admiral. again, thank you for your testimony today. for your forthrightness, for asking for what you really need. we look forward to working with you. thank you for what your men and women do. amazing work every day. thank you. >> thank you. >> the meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> shortly, the u.s. house is expected to return from their recertificates. this afternoon members will continue work on a bill members began work on last week dealing with offshore drilling permits. also, haiti relief efforts. live coverage of the u.s. house when members return here on c-span. >> c-span's congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. inside, returning house and senate members. information on the white house, supreme court justices and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> up next, a look at the debate in congress over the federal budget and the debt ceiling. hear about subsidies about oil companies and energy

legislation from today's "washington journal." this is about 45 minutes. we will show you as much as this as we can before the house returns for legislative business. bob latta is our guest. he is a republican of ohio. he's here to talk about a lot of different issues. let me begin with speaker boehner's speech last night. "politico" frames it like this. "it is a risky proposition that could force john boehner to accept less." do you share that concern? guest: first and foremost, we need to do something about the debt ceiling. the president thinks we're going to of a clean bill. i think that is fantasy. if you look at the polling numbers, they are seeiaying they want a massive reductions in federal snding. host: are you standing behind your leader, speaker boehner?

will you also require $2 trillion in spending cuts? guest: i was stuck in an airport coming back so i did not hear the speech. the number one thing is that we do not have spending reductions. over the last several years under speaker pelosi, with $5 trillion added to the national debt, we need to continue on with that. host: it sounds like you're not ready to go as far as the speaker did last night. guest: without having exactly what the speaker said -- the people back home say we cannot keep passing this down to our kids and their kids. the top thing you have to do is reduce the spending. i'm not exactly sure what the speaker said his numbers were. he needs to set the bar somewhere. if you look back at the presidts several years ago --

it wasrresponsible to raise the debt ceiling. we'll have to do something. i think the american people understand that we will have to do something with the debt ceiling. at theame time, we cannot keep business as usual. host: if the debt ceiling number is $2 trillion, if that's what congress comes up with, a then you have $2 trillion to go along with that, how you do that in two years? >> guest: first and foremost, go back to the 2008 level. that's when all the massive spending started with stimulus and bailouts tear get you have to take those numbers back to pre-2008 and that's wher we set the base. host: "politico" says without changes to medicare it may be

hard to reach boehner's goal of trillions in spending cuts. should medicare be on the table as part of the debt ceiling vote? guest: the budget we came out with several weeks ago, first and foremost we said we have to save medicare. the projections are that by the end of the decade, medicare will be broke and we cannot have that happen. we said that first and foremost, we want to make sure that anybody 55 and older would -- we would protect everything they have right now under medicare and we have to make sure that the net generation can have something after that. if we do not people -- though not understand this. they understand the out-of- control spending. when i'm speaking to people, one of the questions i asked people -- do you believe your kids will have a better future than you have? 50 people or 100 people, i rarely have one or two people raise their hands.

people back home understand this and they want washington to do something now. host: you voted for paul ryan's budget, which is a tenured to 12 year plan -- and-year to 12-year plan. can you cut without looking at medicare? guest: you have to start going back and looking at where the baseline is. a lot of people think that we can do things by sleight of hand sometimes. you cannot. you have to lead a true, honest discussion with the american people. how can we get this thing under control? if we do not -- again you have too back to the 2008 number. look at the massive spendg we have from 2008 forward. we have 24% increases for a lot of the federal budgets across

the board for the last two cycles. that is untenable. it's also untenable to say that some of them got over 80% increases. host: is that something you can agree to, if the debt ceiling vote came along the levels of 2008? guest: that's what we're talking about. go back to 2008 levels. that is where the massive spending increases occurred. host: how far does that get you? guest: if you go back to what we were spending during speaker policy -- you are looking at $5 trillion increase over four years during speaker pelosi. host: republicans are split on the medicare plan put out by paul ryan. what did you hear when you were home over the last break about this? guest: i come from the largest

agricultural district in the state of ohio and i represent the second-largest manufacturing district in the state of ohio. the people i represent -- i heard one thing -- gas prices. it is taking every extra dollar out of a lot of people's pockets. i spoke to a gentleman the other day who said he was filling up his car. he saw a woman who was filling up her car. he went in and paid for her. she came out and tried. she said that now she had money to get through the next week. a lot of people are living hand to mouth right now. fuel prices are one of the big coerns right now. host: you introduced new legislation last week. what would your bill do to reduce the price of the pump?

guest: this is almost like deja vu all over again. we were talking about this in 2008. the american people said we had to do something. and then we had the financial crisis occur later in the year and some things they did off when we were talking about gasoline and oil. i think gas prices per barrel went up over $5 per barrel yesterday at one time. we have to do several things. one, we have to get -- the president -- the permit moratoriumn the gulf of mexico. you cannot cut off everything that he saw going on in the gulf. we have to get these permitting processes going to we have to

make sure that folks can get leases. we have to make sure these lawsuits that come on the leases -- we cannot have those things going on. we need to make sure we have oil refinery capacity. if we produce more oil but you do not have any place to refine it, it is worthls. host: bob latta is our guest publican of ohio. we are talking about the debt ceiling the economy and gas prices related to the economy. on your legislation how do you streamline the process for these permits in the outer continental shelf? are you jettison in the reviews that were put into place after the bp oil spill?

guest: we have a three-step process. one is for more risky types of permits. there is a three step process. the number one thing we need somebody doing something. we cannot slow up the whole process. you can ok at the world economy, especially with china -- the number two or the number one consumer or user of energy -- we cannot have that. the united states has got to produce more oil so we can take care of ourselves. host: without additional reviews on these companies can you give the american people more confidence that the american people are prepared to respond to a summer oil spill that we saw last summer? guest: through the hayward testimony in energy and commerce

-- a long, long tapering we have a problem in two ways. one is from their side. also what was going on on the federal review cypriot who was checking? who were the regulators? did they do their jobs? host: if your bill was passed tomorrow when would the price of the pump go down? guest: it would almost be immediate. if the wld started seeing that the united states is taking care of itself, then you would see the price go down. then there would be more oil on the market. host: this about your regulation in "toledo b lade." why would they need this the taken away guest: if you look at who is out there drilling, you have the smaller companies. i think 95% of our wells are

drilled by smaller companies. that is -- there are a lot of small individuals drilling. in my home cnty, we used to be the area where oil was discovered. we are now finding -- yesterday i found that they are out pumping again in my home county. host: we will keep talking about this. first, let me bring in our viewers. leah an independent from georgia. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to quickly touch on some topics with the coressman, if you can give me a moment. first, concerning the debt ceiling you said you voted for congressma ryan's budget plan. is it not true that the numbers contained in his plan require

that the debt ceiling is raised? have a new and every house republican already voted to raise the debt ceiling? secondly, when it comes to oil production it does not matter how many leases grant and how many how much drilling is going on because that oil does not go on the american market. it goes on the world market. how is increased drilling going to bring down oil prices? aren' these higher oil prices part of speculation? host: congressman? guest: first and foremost, talking about paul ryan's budget, this is like the queen mary out there. we need to slow this thing down and it will not be overnight. you understand i'm looking at the graphs and charts that it will take several years to start to slow down this process before we say we can get the deficit under control and finally get the debt under control in the

years to come. yes, we understood that that's going to happen. we also understand that we are looking at reducing the deficit by about $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years and also having about $2 trillion in reductions in spending during that period of time. if you do not drill there will be a situation especially in china, and yesterday in "the wall street journal", there is a large middle class forming in china. we have to have a greater demand known as the chinese going across the globe looking for oil, especially in the middle east. we have to make sure we have oil right here in this country at the same time. host: democrat caller.

caller: my house has had a significant loss in income. we made cuts. we cut out $149 worth in cable. we do not get a premium meets. when that did not work, i got another job. i think you can correct our budget problems, with no increase in revenues, but only with tax cuts and cutting programs. i have one statement and one question. i do not know why we should trust the republicans to be doing the right thing, when you drove us into the ditch to begin with. ar you aware that in 2004, president bush passed tax madams moms -- maximums of war

contractors a 7%. could you collect the 16% that i pay as an impoverished american from these rich contractors? guest: if you are talking about raising taxes -- i come from ohio. if we say we will raise taxes and i do not care on what industry, you do not to do it during this time. i go through many companies a day, small and large. individuals put 25 years of their life io it. i ask one question. if you could ge me one sentence to take back to washington what would it be? one gentleman says tell

washington to quit killing the of entrepreneur worse. -- a entrepreneurof entrepron japanentrepreneurs. host: the argument he made about the fragility of the economy is the same that the democrats make. right now, our economy is still weak. you cannot stop the spending to affected the economy. guest: when we payoff, it will cost $1.20 trillion. now we are talking about incentives. stimulus is a bad word.

i talk to people that want job creators. we cannot raise taxes. we cannot have more of government regulations. they have looked at what has happened to the obama care legislation in the past. the federal government is not creating any jobs. we burn money down here. we have to g those dollars back home so people can reinvest them into their communities. host: republican line. caller: we do not act like americans anymore. it is a shame. we should grow together. raising taxes is ridiculous. we are not creating jobs but losing them.

guess who is raising the taxes on the rich? 47% do not pay taxes. the rich people are going to move out. i do my homework. the oil and everything else, send that money to brazil, while americans are sitting down, and they want a baby drill in alaska. we have so many resources. host: what would your legislation do? guest: it would open it up. we went up to the north slope previously. we are looking at opening up 1.5

million acres. they are looking at only using about two doz acres because of the different type -- 2,000 acres, because of the different type of drilling you can do. drilling would be done during the winter months. they put these eyes roads on the tundra. we have about 200 billion barrels of oil that is recoverable, onshore and offshore in the united states. it would last about 29 years. $1.20 -- 1.2 trillion in oil shale, we could be self- sufficient in this country. we cannot keep sending our dollars overseas.

we have creditors at 4.4 trillion. one of these days, the country is going to say we are not going to buy any more american debt. we do not have to rely on someone from around the world. host: there was a second vote on raising the debt limit under democratic control. it comes around this time clean will you vote to know? guest: absolutely. a majority of democrats will probably vote no on something like that. one of the greatest things i get to do is go to schools and to talk to kids. 50 to 100 kids are standing out there.

they will have the same opportunity that my generation has had. it is not what you did for us but to us. host: here is a question for you. a cursory picesdo republican leaders bring a cola increase especially for seniors? guest: we have not gotten an increase. i think the first thing you need to do is look at the inflation out there. some of these reports could be checking on if prices are going

up in a second area. when they are looking at it, they are not getting the right numbers out there. host: michael independent in dc caller: i do not hear anyone talking about a solution. my solution is why don't you give china a 14 trillion worth of american real estate to pay them back. what was put up for collateral? why don't you give $14 trillion worth of property to china? guest: it was a $4.40 trillion.

we are looking at the american taxpayer paying it back. there is in good faith that we will pay these debts back. host: north carolina, a democrat line. caller: some do not wanto waste taxes. they say all of these tax breaks create jobs. why aren't we trying job creation to past debts -- ta breaks? host: more tax breaks for companies that create jobs? caller: right. guest: that is a good question.

let's say a company says they will go in and create a certain number of jobs. we have to make sure they create it. if not we have to give the money back. if you did not create the tax -- if you did not create them, give the money back. host: maryland. caller: when i was 63, and uninsured drunken driver hit me. i was on medicaid. when i turned 65, they put me on medicare. i pay $97 a month. i have a copayment on all of my prescriptions. if i go to a doctor other than my priry i have to pay copayment. why? when you say you are going to

help seniors. i live on less than $700 a month. my sons have to help me. guest: the medicare problem is -- program is for seniors. we are working on legislation that passed out of the house. we want to make sure they aren't guaranteed under the program. if we do not to do anything by the end of this decade, we will have a program that is broke. so security wille probed by the year 2027. we need to make sure these programs are around for the future. host: here is an e-mail.

[unintelligible] guest: >> we're leaving this to go live to the house. the members are returning to debate offshore drilling permits. they'll debate the measure and 11 amendments to the bill. live on c-span. objection, so ordered with. pursuant to house resolution 245 and rule 18 the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1229. the chair appoints the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1229 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the outer continental shelf lands act, to facilitate the safe and timely production of american energiers ares -- resources from the gulf of mexico. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, families and business withs across the country are struggling with skyrocketing gasoline prices that in many places have already passed $4 per gallon. everyday activities such as commuting to work or taking the kids to soccer practice have strained family budgets, forcing americans to make tough choices

and sacrifices. unfortunately rising gasoline prices are not the only energy crisis currently hurting our country. for over a year communities across the gulf of mexico have suffered through a real and a de facto moratorium on offshore drilling imposed by the obama administration. the administration's intentional slow walking of drilling permits has cost 12,000 jobs according to their own estimates. according to a economist, dr. joseph mason this could cost over 36,000 jobs nationwide if businesses and their employees are not allowed to return to work soon. over the past month, the natural resources committee has heard from numerous small businesses in louisiana that have had to lay off hundreds of people, eliminate benefits and diminish their savings just to try to stay afloat. the bill being considered by the house today will help address all these concerns.

it will put the people and businesses along the gulf back to work by with requiring the administration to act on new drilling permits in a timely manner. for americans across the country who are suffering from rising gasoline prices, this bill with acts now to expand american production to help lower costs. h.r. 1229, the putting the gulf backs to -- back to work act, sets a firm timeline for the secretary of the interior to act on permits. let me be very clear, action does not necessarily mean approval. action simply means that the secretary must make a decision either to approve or to deny a permit. the bill gives the secretary 30 days to act, along with two 15-day extensions. this time frame is consistent for approving exploration plans which are far more complicated. deadline is necessary in order to stop the endless, bureaucratic delays and

inaction that are currently taking place and to provide companies some certainty. there are over 50 permitted projects in the gulf of mexico that were under way when the obama administration imposed the moratorium in may of 2010. nearly a year later nearly 40 of those same 50 projects have yet to resume work. this bill would give the secretary 30 days to restart these projects that have already been approved. i want to stress that h.r. 1229 will have an immediate impact on jobs and energy production. each drilling platform supports 800 to 1,400 jobs. each permit that is issued translates to several hundred people returning to work. in addition, there are production wells just waiting for permits to resume work, meaning that more american energy could come online within months of a permit being issued. perhaps most importantly, h.r. 1229 also makes significant

safety improvements. u.s. offshore drilling helps create american energy and american jobs but it must be done in a safe and responsible manner. the bill reforms current law by requiring a drilling company obtain a permit to drill from the secretary. currently such a permit is not required by law, only by regulation. the bill further reforms the law by requiring the secretary to conduct a safety review. the bill ensures that all proposed drilling operations must, quote, meet all critical safety system requirements including blowout prevention and oil spill response and containment requirements unquote. finally, this bill establishes an expedited judicial review process for resolving lawsuits relating to gulf permits. this law ensures that ending debt facto moratorium isn't replaced by paralyzing and

frivolous lawsuits that could take years to resolve. what we'll see today during the course of this debate are two very different approaches to america's energy future. republicans are pursuing an all-of-the-above approach to american energy production, to create jobs, generate revenue lower gasoline prices and strengthen our national security. the obama administration and congressional democrats on the other hand want to make energy more expensive. their agenda is to raise taxes to make energy production more difficult and costly. we saw proof of this last congress when they did everything they could to push through the job-destroying waxman-markey national energy tax. they're trying to increase taxes on american energy producers. while americans are looking for solutions to lower gasoline prices, the democrats' proposals would increase prices even higher. how in the world higher prices and taxes on energy would help

americans at the gas pump is beyond me. it's time for congress to take steps to end the economic pain in the gulf by allowing people to return to work. it's time to ease the pain of high gas leap prices by expanding american energy production. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to create jobs, to lower prices including the price at the gas at the pump and to strengthen our national security. thank you, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from new jersey. >> mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1229. need i remind the members of this body that one year and 19 days ago the deepwater horizon oil rig exploded killing 11 workers and creating economic and environmental havoc?

for 87 days following the explosion more than four million barrels of oil spewed from the blownout well coating nearly 1,000 miles of gulf coastline, temporarily closing over 88 square miles of some of the nation's most productive fishing grounds. yet, this congress has mott enacted a single legislative reform to improve the safety of offshore drilling. instead, the majority now brings forward in the name of spurious claims a bill to encourage more domestic offshore drilling without applying the lessons learned from the gulf blowout. with the spurious claim that more domestic offshore drilling will lower gas prices, they

claim that we have to grease the skids, we have to open the doors, we have to give further breaks to the oil companies. now, sadly, it seems their motto is ignore the spill drill, baby, drill. frankly, the majority's trio of offshore drilling bills were written as though the deepwater horizon disaster had never occurred. that's why i refer to them as the amnesia act. collectively they will make offshore drilling less safe while opening up vast new areas of our coastline without adding any new safety requirements or environmental safeguards on the oil and gas industry. so today we're taking up the second amnesia act, h.r. 1229 would impose artificial and arbitrary deadlines on the department of interior to improve permits to drill. specifically this legislation

would require the department to act on a permit to drill within 30 days. after 60 days, whether or not the safety -- whether or not -- let me emphasize that -- the safety and environmental review has been completed by the interior department, the drilling application will be deemed approved. need i remind my colleagues, mr. chairman, that offshore drilling in u.s. waters was determined by the spill commission, the bipartisan, independent spill commission, to be four times more deadly than in other parts of the world prior to the deepwater horizon tragedy? four times more deadly to drill in the gulf by the same companies than to drill in, for example, the north sea hardly an easy -- a comfort environment. now, under this bill, we could have actually less careful

oversight and review of offshore drilling than we had before the deepwater horizon disaster. this bill is a dangerous solution in search of a really nonexistent problem. since the implementation of new safety and environmental standards of john of last year, the department has added -- june of last year, the department has added 52 permits, only six more permits are currently pending. since the oil industry demonstrated the capability to contain a deep-water blowout in mid february, we think, the department has issued permits for 13 new deep-water wells. there are only 12 permits in the cue for approval. yet, the majority is claiming we got to grease the skids. we've got to remove any impediments for the oil companies. we have to drill, baby drill. ironically, enactment of the h.r. 1229 could halt this

progress. the bill could hamper new permits being issued or stop new permits altogether because the department might be forced to deny permits if the safety and environmental reviews are not completed in the arbitrary 60 days. moreover, mr. chairman, this legislation would issue a blanket extension of existing leases. in contrast to this across-the-board approach, they are working on a case-by-case basis where such action is warranted. not on a blanket basis, but on the basis of the actual facts the actual evidence. h.r. 1229 would give a free ride to companies even if their leases are many years from expiring. and with regard to the comment that has been made already in this debate that this is about

prices at the gasoline pump, need i remind my colleagues that in 2008 -- now, this was under the george bush administration -- the energy information administration said that if all drilling over the entire east coast continental shelf were opened up the effect on oil prices would be quote insignificant. h.r. 1229 contains language designed to close the doors to the courthouse to citizens who believe that the federal government is not complying with the law. imagine that. citizens who are trying to be diligent citizens would not be able to make sure that the law is being applied. citizens from florida or alabama would be forced to bring any lawsuits regarding energy projects in the gulf of mexico to louisiana or texas

courts. in addition, h.r. 1229 contains language that would prevent attorneys' fees from being awarded in cases. a deterrent if i ever heard of one. it is aimed at environmental plaintiffs but almost certainly impair the legal rights of many other potential plaintiffs. including other oil and gas companies. in the wake of the deepwater horizon disaster, the principle s in guiding offshore drilling should be smart and safe. if h.r. 1229 is enacted the guiding principles will be fast and loose. this is the wrong response to the largest oil spill in u.s. waters. we should not rush to allow drilling permits to be deemed approved without the appropriate safety and environmental checks. we should not provide blanket extensions to existing leases. we should not close the doors of the courthouse to american citizens.

we should not pass this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, at this point i would like to yield one minute to a new member of the natural resources committee who is jumping in and making an immediate impact on the need for increasing our energy production, i'd like to yield one minute at this time to mr. johnson of ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today we're talking -- taking up the putting the gulf back to work act, which will accomplish two very important goals. create jobs and help lower energy costs. it will end the obama administration's de facto drilling moratorium in the gulf and a way that is safe, transparent and responsible. a study from the louisiana state university predicted that keeping this per mitt -- permier toum in place could cause the loss of more than 36,000 jobs nationwide. we simply can't afford the obama

administration's job-killing policies. rather than putting americans back to work, they're seriously impacting america's energy production. the march 2011 short-term energy outlook from the energy information administration noted that production from the gulf of mexico is expected to fall by 240,000 barrels per day this year. if we're going to become energy secure we need to increase our energy production, not limit it, and we need to commit ourselves to developing our own resources. the putting the gulf back to work act will help do that. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: ate this -- at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana who is doing an excellent job of pointing out the need for bringing jobs and production back online in louisiana and in the gulf, mr. fleming of louisiana. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two

minutes. mr. fleming: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak on this important issue, h.r. 1229. as you know, it's one of a trieffecta of bills that we're passing out of the house to once and for all, after 40 years, begin actually putting together a cogent energy policy for this country. now, before i talk about it, i do want to make a couple of comments. our president has been saying over and over again that our energy production, our oil production is at the highest level it's ever been with. ed markey, the ranking member of the committee, said the same thing. mr. salazar, the interior, mr. brown witch, just the other day mrs. water man chicago bulls just said the same thing. why are you saying this? very clearly right now we're producing oil at a level of six million barrels a day, down from a high in 19972 of nine million barrels a day -- 1972 of nine million barrels a day and off

the gulf coast, where you claim production is the highest ever, we're down from 1.7 million barrels a day last year to 1.5 million -- 1.59 million today and going down by another 225,000 barrels of oil per day by next year. so for heaven's sakes, there's a reason why we have a structural increase in costs of our energy. it is very simply we're constraining the output of oil. so let's get on it, let's start producing oil finally in this country. and let's become energy independent once and for all. but louisiana's being hurt in two ways. number one, of course, is the increasing price of gasoline. but also jobs, as the gentleman just mentioned, mr. johnson dr. joseph mason from louisiana state university from my home state, said that we're looking at a loss of 36,137 jobs over an

18-month period out of the gulf coast alone. in february, seahawk drilling, which owned and operated 20 rigs in the gulf coast, filed chapter 11 due to the obama administration's de facto moratorium. mr. lamborn: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from louisiana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman. we have lost 12 rigs so far to such countries as nigeria, egypt, the congo and brazil. and guess who we just gave $2 billion to drill oil in brazil of all places? so we gave them the rig, we gave them the money, so they can drill oil to sell back to us and to put tax money into their coughers. for heaven's sakes, this is crazy. so, in conclusion, i'd like to say today, let's get our louisiana and texas and other people back to work, let's invest in our energy across this

country and let's get the gas prices down. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i thank the chair. the gentleman used the term trifecta. it's a curious selection of words because indeed you could see the oil companies right now lining up at the ticket window to cash in their trifecta winnings if this goes forward. the oil companies are currently sitting on $6 -- 60 million acres of public land, onshore and offshore, in which they are not producing. the oil industry is sitting on more than 11 1/2 billion barrels of oil, nearly as much as they could ever get from drilling up and down the east coast and the west coast. this is where they should be directing their attention. but instead where are they directing their attention? as they bring in profits that

for this year look to be something like $100 billion they are using those profits not to provide more resources for the american people but to buy back stock, exxon, which had about a $10 billion profit in the first quarter of this year, just the first three months, used most of its money, more than half of it, to buy back stock. so, it is curious that my colleague used the phrase trifecta because indeed this is a bananza. a big winning ticket for the big oil companies. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, at this point i'd like to yield one minute to a new member of the committee who represents a district right on the gulf coast and is passionate about what is happening and not happening down

there and should be happening, mr. landry of louisiana. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. mr. landry: thank you, mr. chairman. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should listen to this story, it's a true life story, very well. it talks about the face of big oil and i'm going to tell you what it is. there's a little community in my district named cota homes which has been around since the cajuns were kicked out and settled down into louisiana, it's a fishing village. there's a gentleman down there who graduated high school in 1968 and began to work in the oil and gas industry and for 30 years he worked in the oil and gas industry. he raised two children in that oil and gas industry. never asked the government for anything other than to apply his trade. the experience he gained in the gulf of mexico led him to work in one of the first deepwater projects in the gulf of mecks

could he. he worked for shell oil and gas, big oil, and guess what? when he retired he was making in excess of $1,750 a day. he put two kids through college. now -- mr. lamborn: i give the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. landry: if this is not the american dream that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim to t out so much, what is -- tout so much, what is? this is a gentleman who doesn't have a college education who actually his children were the first in -- the first generation in his entire family ancestry to ever make it to college. answered could not have paid for them to go to college if not for the opportunity to drill in the gulf of mexico. my colleagues should understand that down there we create jobs, we create good paying jobs, not

minimum wage jobs, the type of jobs that provide for the american family and allow the american dream to be a reality. i thank the chairman. i yield. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: we are indeed concerned about jobs. for the example that my friend from louisiana gives about someone whose livelihood is at stake, we could come up i could produce dozens of others, maybe a shrimp fisherman, you know, my friends maybe remember the "forrest gump" movey, they've seen those pictures. my friend from louisiana has probably been out on one of those shrimp boats. they were sitting idle, they were sitting idle for weeks and weeks. the breeding grounds, the fisheries were and still are in jeopardy. people all over the country are

not buying the fish. that drank of this black gold. in fact, 88,000 square miles, as i said earlier, of fisheries were polluted by this tremendous spill. and need i remind my colleagues that the coastal communities of the gulf of mexico, the heart of offshore drilling, that the jobs that are dependent on tourism and fishing exceed all the natural resource extraction and mining jobs by a factor of five, five times as many jobs dependent on tourism and fisheries. yes, we should learn the lessons, rather than hurrying through these permits, we should learn the lessons of last year's oil spill. and protect those jobs.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona who is the new member of the committee and understands these issues well, mr. gosar. mr. gosar: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. gosar: the people in my district are hurting. rising gas prices are cutting deep into family budgets. food prices are skyrocketing. communities are home to destination locations like the grand canyon are bracing themselves for fewer summer visitors because, simpley, families cannot afford to travel. main street america can no longer afford inaction from the president and his administration and that is why i stand here today in support of h.r. 1229. the bill not only would put thousands of americans back to work, it would increase our production of oil here at home and lower the cost of gas.

it is time we put our country back to work and use our resources here at home instead of abroad. and it is time the government make a serious commitment towards energy independence and al an all the above d -- all-of-the-above approach that america wants. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i'm pleased to yield to the gentlelady from california three minutes to the gentlelady from santa barbara, california, who has experienced firsthand the economic cost of oil spills. mrs. capps. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for three minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague from new jersey for recognizing me, mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1229. a year ago b.p.'s deepwater horizon rig exploded in the gulf

of mexico leaving 11 people dead. and over 1,000 miles of shoreline oiled. it also left the local economy in shambles. the once lucrative businesses were devastated by this bill with. many gulf residents are still struggling and yet the oil industry would have us believe it suffered greatly, it suffered greatly, during the temporary moratorium on new drilling. the fact is the gulf produced 1.6 million barrels of oil per day last year, an all-time record, and still the industry is clamoring for more. today we're considering another bill on their wish list, that side steps safety and environmental safeguards. h.r. 1229 forces this administration to unreasonably rush the permitting process for drilling activities. these permits are a final review opportunity for the federal government to ensure that everything is in place before an oil company drills deep into our

ocean's floor, but the majority is using the strain of high gas prices to push americans into thinking that drilling is safe and that hurying these permits will bring down -- hurrying these permits will bring down costs. it's like we learned nothing from the b.p. oil disaster. mr. chairman, we cannot say drill something safe when congress has not taken necessary steps to strengthen protections for rig workers and the environment. we cannot say drilling is safe when the industry has yet to prove it has better means of preventing or cleaning up a spill than we saw that it did a year ago and we cannot say drill something safe when the government lacks the resources it needs to police an industry that for years policed itself to perilous ends. while the balkts has started working -- obama administration has started working on the lessons of the tragedy, one told "the new york times" that his agency, and this is a quote, still lacks the resources, personnel, training, technology, enforcement tools,

regulations and legislation that it needs to do its job properly. mr. chairman, we know how to reduce the risk of oil spills. the president's oil spill commission laid out a list of recommendations for how congress can prevent another spill from occurring. many of my colleagues have amendments to put those recommendations in place. i hope that the house will adopt them so that we could say that drilling is safer. vote no on h.r. 1229. let's not promote reckless drilling that will fail to lower gas prices and endanger oyou are coastline. let's instead strengthen safety and environmental safeguards for offshore drilling and support a quicker transition to cleaner, safer energy policy for america. i thank my colleague again for yielding and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i want to inquire from the chair how much time remains for both sides.

the chair: the gentleman from colorado has 18 minutes and the gentleman from new jersey has 16 minutes. 18, 16. mr. lamborn: then i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, when i was listening to the gentlelady from california and her colleagues, i was reminded of mark twain's warning that we should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that's there and stop less we be like the cat that sits on a hot stovelet. the cat will not sit on the hot stovelet again and that's good. but it will not sit on a cold stovelet. the reaction of this administration to the what was in essence a mechanical failure of a blowout preventer is horrific. it's measured in unemployed families, higher energy pry

ises, lost businesses to shops throughout that region and lost royalties to the nation's treasury. it said that the economic damage done by this administration done by the oil spill can be far greater than the oil spill done itself. i believe it. i suggest a little common sense would go a long way and this bill provides it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: mr. chairman, earlier the gentleman mentioned bra scomblill. the bill before us -- brazil. the bill before us would have leases in the gulf about to expire. according to the interior department this bill would extend 100 leases that costs about $6 million over 10 years. well, 12 of those leases that would be extended automatically belong to petro bras, the brazilian oil giant. it would indeed provide a

windfall given from american taxpayers to the state-owned brazilian oil giant petrobraz. yes, this bill in front of us now. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to representative castor from florida. unlike some of the debators today, someone who actually lives on the gulf of mexico. the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for three minutes. ms. castor: thank you. i thank my colleague for yielding time. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1229. this proposal, this republican proposal is very poor public policy. and as a member who represents a community that is dependent on the gulf coast economy, it frankly it is appalling for my republican friends to press, to eliminate safety standards on oil companies who want to continue to drill and come closer and closer to our beautiful beaches really is

beyond the pale. i have to ask, did my colleagues not learn anything from this disaster? our economy on florida's gulf coast we depend on clean water and clean beaches. and when you bring up a bill like this it feels like a direct challenge to our economic recovery. we have not recovered. the hotels and motels on the beach, the seafood industry, all those mom and pop shops who are dependent on the tourism economy, we are still struggling to come back. we want to adopt the recommendations of the oil spill commission that recommends stronger safety standards. something like that was passed on a bipartisan basis in the house last year. now, to add insult to injury, my republican colleagues recently passed a budget against taxpayer subsidies to the big oil companies. in the face of a burgeoning debt and deficit and in the face of huge profits by the oil

companies. why should the american taxpayers be subsidizing the bottom line of the most profitable corporations in the world? instead, it is time for a meaningful comprehensive energy strategy to lower gas prices. because it appears that's what we're all -- we all are in brement to do, but to do that it's -- we all are in agreement to do but to do that it's -- we should end the giveaways to big oil. eliminate the $5 billion in subsidies and loopholes that the oil companies receive each year. let's prohibit wall street speculators from artificially driving up oil prices. let's develop superefficient cars and clean alternative energy that will create good jobs in america and then bring down gas prices. mr. speaker, finally, i caution the oil companies and their friends in congress that the b.p. deepwater horizon blowout was only one year ago. most of the necessary safety

standards and recommendations of the bipartisan oil spill commission have not been adopted. no one should be pressing for unbridled drilling without ensuring that another blowout disaster would never happen again. otherwise, many of us on the gulf coast view the blind eye push as a serious threat to our multibillion dollar tour itch and fishing industries and our coastal and voormental resources. florida's long-term and economic health is dependent on clean water and clean beaches and clean oceans. our economy is struggling right now. i am confident that florida's economy will recover but florida's long-term economic outlook will suffer immensely if we have to suffer through another blowout disaster. mr. speaker, we need an honest dialogue on energy solutions based on facts. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. castor: americans are clamoring for long-term energy solutions to we are less dependent on foreign oil. the chair: the gentlelady's

time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: anyone who reads the bill on the bottom of page 1 on the top of page 2 safety review required. the secretary shall not issue parliament under paragraph 1 without ensuring that the proposed drilling operations meet all critical safety requirements including blowout prevention and, b, oil spill response and containment requirements. so when we look at the facts we should start with the text of the bill itself. at this point i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from the state of louisiana, mr. fleming. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fleming: i want to spon to a couple of -- respond to a couple of things on the other side. first, mr. landry and i are from louisiana. we are not potted plants. we are actually from a state that's on coast. mr. landry actually lives on the coast. so i think we speak from experience and knowledge on that. with respect to seafood. yes, there is a problem with

the seafood. it's a perception problem. seafood in louisiana is the safest seafood in the world. we just got to get that message out to the american people. let's talk about subsidies. we hear about subsidies. well, you know, there is a profiteer when it comes to oil. 36 cents to 63 cents per gallon is swept off the top. and who profits from that? the government profits from it. and what does the government do with much of that money? puts it into so-called alternative energy with so-called phony green jobs that we're yet to see being produced. wind, solar, etc. now, it's also been suggested, well, perhaps we should punish these profiting oil companies and -- can i have 15 seconds? mr. lamborn: i yield 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 130ekds. mr. fleming: perhaps we should

punish these evil oil companies by taxing on them. who pays the taxes? it's the consumers, it's the american people. you add 10% tax to oil exploration or gasoline or whatever, and it's us. it's we. we're the ones who will have to pay for that. not the oip companies. like any company they pass these prices on to the consumers. i want to see these prices go down, not up, like the other side. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from massachusetts, the ranking member on the full committee and someone who has done as much as anyone in this body to create green jobs in america over the decades. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. holt: mr. markey. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman from new jersey very much, and i thank him for his

leadership on these issues. and for being -- we're partners in this effort to try to move towards a new energy direction. now -- so last week we had a debate on the issue of whether or not the $4 billion that the oil industry gets in tax breaks per year from the american consumer should be taken away at this time when exxonmobil reported $10 billion worth of profits in the first quarter. that's just january, february and march. shell reported $8.8 billion. b.p. $7.1 billion. chevron, $6.2 billion. conocophillips, $3 billion. that's in the first three months of this year.

you know what the argument is from the republican side is that they would be punished if the consumer -- if the taxpayer didn't also give them an additional $4 billion in tax breaks. so let's just look at this chart. this is how much they made. as people are pulling up to the pump paying $3.80, $4 $4.20 all across america. you know what the oil companies could do. you know what, i think we need too much, i think what we should do in the first quarter is just lower the price at the pump so we don't make so much. maybe we don't have to have the consumer paying $4 a gallon. maybe we exxonmobil, maybe we could have made $9.7 billion. maybe shell could have made $7.8 billion. maybe b.p. could have made only $6.1 billion.

maybe chevron could have made $.-- $2 billion. maybe they make $1 billion less. no. they decide if the war in libya is going to take $1.2 billion barrels of oil off the market, if the saudi arainians are going to take 800,000 barrels off the market -- but, that's a free market. if the price goes up to skyrocketing heights we have a right to take all that extra money out of the consumers' pockets. that's the free market. the war in libya is a free market. saudi arabia taking 800,000 barrels off the market, that's a free market. now, the marn consumer they -- now, the american consumer, they say, that's not a free market. the american taxpayers and they look at it and say that's not the free market. we're sending over more

bombers. we're sending over more troops. we're adding more to the defense budget of the country. why would we do that? what does that have to do with the free market? what does this increase in defense expenditures and the number of young men and women that we send over to the middle east to protect these oil tankers coming into the united states protect the free market? nonetheless, that's the argument of the republicans and, by the way, exxonmobil and shell and b.p. by the way you can multiply each one of these numbers by at least four. at least the next three quarters of 2011 as well and project exxonmobil making $40 billion this year and shell $34 billion or $35 billion. etc., etc. but the republicans say they still need the extra $4 billion

from the taxpayers' pockets so they dip into one pocket, the consuming pocket, and they tip the consumer upside down and they take all this money out of their pocket and you don't see any restraint on the part of the oil companies taking advantage of the war in libya, and then they want to dip into the other pocket of the consumer, the consumer as a taxpayer. and they say, you can't take away those tax breaks either. that's a very interesting position. to have to defend at this point in time. especially since they're saying that they want to cut back on the benefits for grandma on medicare. they want to cut back with the budget by 70% on wind and solar on geo thermal and biomass. they want to cut back the budget to help grandma stay in a nursing home with alzheimer's. but one thing you should never touch and that's the $4 billion for exxon mobil and shell and

b.p. from the taxpayersment even if they're reporting the -- taxpayers. even if they're reporting the largest profits in the world that any gas company has made. and now today they have the temerity to come out on the floor and they're look for more -- looking for more. what this first bill is that we're about to consider does is it legislates possible intimidation of federal safety reviewers and puts a time clock on looking at the most controversial leases. now, mind you, just one year ago in the gulf of mexico we were looking with amazement at the worst single environmental disaster in american history and that is b.p. with no idea about how they were going to stop four million barrels of oil going into the gulf of mexico.

they had no idea how to stop it and the american people, the world, was tuned into the spill cam almost, you know fixated on this complete lack of safety, complete lack of preparation to protect the life and the livelihoods of the people who live in the gulf of mexico. so what's the response of the republican party one year later? is it to pass a safety bill is it to implement the recommendations of the b.p. spill commission, this blue ribbon panel of experts that identifyified that there are systemic failures in the -- identified that there are systemic failures in the drilling in the united states? is to deal with the fact that they identified that there are four times higher fatalities on american rigs as there are on european rigs drilling off the shores of europe? no. all that legislation is stopped dead in its tracks. what they argue is we've got to give, you know, kind of a shot

clock, you know how in the nba when you're watching tv and you only have 24 seconds to shoot a basketball? so that creates a real intensity or else you lose the ball? well, that's kind of what they want to say now. we're putting you on a shot clock. you have 60 days, you have 60 days to decide, is that drilling rig safe? have the precautions been put in place to ensure that a catastrophic accident can't happen? if you don't make a decision in 60 days, the department of interior, on a rig that's out there at 3,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 feet and off the shore of miles and miles and you can't figure it out, department of interior, now, mind you, this is the same company that couldn't figure it out a year ago and they're amongst the wealthiest companies in the world. if you can't figure out what we can do, we the company, can do in 60 days, we get to have the

lease and we get to go ahead. kind of like, you know, the nba except the consequences aren't that your home team loses it's that your home team loses its job. your home team loses its environment because another catastrophic accident has occurred. that's what they do with this bill. they put a shot clock on it. so i think that if the american people are looking at the absurdity of the situation with these companies, look at the companies that are lobbying for this, exxon mobil, shell b.p., chevron and conoco phillips. these are the companies that one year ago said that they could e-- could evacuate wol russes from the gulf of mecks -- walruses from the gulf of mexico. they had an emergency response plan in the event of a spill. the problem is of course that they had each put it in writing and an application to the department of interior to drill in the gulf of mexico, but walruses, as every sixth grade child knows, has not lived in the gulf of mexico for three

million years. so these are the companies that we're now supposed to trust. put it on a shot clock they say. just let the department of interior, you know, try to figure out everything that we're planning for florida, for l.a., for louisiana, for texas -- alabama, for louisiana, for texas, and the way the gulf stream works is pulling a lot of that pollution, if it's bad, you know, and god knows how many directions and the fish that get exposed to it put into the food chain with cancer-causing agents potentially harming families but 60 days is all you've got. kind of like the nba. we think that's how oil drilling should be, too, because we trust these companies. they're obviously the most safety conscious companies that this world has ever known. because we can see how really responsible they are in dealing with consumers. they had a chance not to charge

$4 a gallon because we're having a war in libya and the saudi arabians took 800,000 barrels off the market, believe it or not, our friends, the saudis over the last six weeks, but now we're just going to pretend that they're really good and responsible companies and for them, so they can get all the leases that they want, they're on a shot clock, 60 days. good luck to the department of interior, good luck to the environment, good luck to the consumer, good luck to the taxpayer for -- if another accident occurs. so, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to have an incredible debate here on this issue. because these are the same people that just passed the budget that cut the wind and solar budget by 70%. if you're a kid in america and it's 2011 and you're looking at this debate you're saying to yourself, they cut the solar and wind budget in 2011 by 70% and

they're giving the oil companies unlimited profits on unlimited tax breaks and unlimited access after 60 days to wherever they want to drill off of the coast line? that's an upside down agenda. and you've already heard some of the denigrating comments about wind and solar, which does reflect, hate to say it, you know, a deep-seeded attitude about these renewable energy resources. but, you know, politics, and i think america is all about the future and the future is about wind, it's about solar, it's about movement for all electric vehicles, it's about the agenda that they just defunded on the budget they passed. i would urge we defeat this piece of legislation and really have not -- and their legislation is really -- they say it's all of the above but you want to know what it is? it's oil above all.

that's really what it's all about. give the oil companies everything they want and slash the budget for renewables, slash the budget for all of the other new technologies that we need to enhance our future. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. their side has exhausted their time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i'd like to inquire how much time is remaining to our side and if any remains -- remains on the other side. the chair: the gentleman from colorado has 15 minutes remaining. the other side has zero. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i would like to say i've been listening very closely and i still recent heard a clear answer -- haven't heard a clear answer as to how $4 billion of additional taxes on energy companies will translate into lower costs at the pump. now, i don't think it can be done but i haven't even heard a cogent argument to establish that and so i'm still listening and maybe i'll hear that later.

at this point, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana who haas lives on and represents a district on the gulf of mexico, mr. landry. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. landry: thaur, mr. chairman. i do, i live on the coast, i represent most of coastal louisiana. and what i wonder is where were my colleagues in 2008? i was not in this body, they were they worried about my shrimpers in 2008 almost every shrimp boat from venice was at the dock. why? because they had run diesel to just about $5 a gallon. you see, it takes energy for those shrimpers to grow g out there on the gulf of mexico -- go out there on the gulf of mexico. they worry about the tourism in florida? there are already multiple articles in the paper that say that high gas prices are killing tourism in florida.

this is a responsibility bill. you see, they want to punish those who make a profit while they give taxpayer money to those who fail, who are too big to fail, they punish the companies who make profits in this country while they give our money to those who fail to make a profit. it amazes me because what really matters here, what really creates jobs not only in my district but in everyone else's districts is affordable energy. affordable energy is what powers the u.s. economy. if they want to bring the profits of those four big oil companies down, they should vote for this bill. because when we drive the price of oil down and when we drive the price at the pump down we're going to drive those profits down. and we're going to take away our

dependency on those foreign countries that are making way more profits than those private companies. so i urge my colleagues to remember that the responsible thing to do is to vote for this bill so that we can bring the price at the pump down. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to address shoot of safety, that's been raised a couple of times here. i quoted from the bill text earlier to show that there indeed is a lot of safety requirements -- there are requirements that have been put into the bill as part of this h.r. 1229. the secretary will not issue a permit unless critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and containment requirements -- requirements, have been satisfied.

at this point, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to another gentleman from louisiana , mr. scalise. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, meerk, i appreciate my colleague yielding to talk about this important legislation. because, mr. speaker, as i just got back home from new orleans over the weekend, of course people all throughout the gulf coast, people all throughout the country are frustrated and angry about the high gas prices we're paying at the pump. and of course in south louisiana you don't need to look any further than the area that i represent to see the devastated impact of this administration's policies not only on high gas prices but also on jobs. we've lost over 13,000 jobs in south louisiana just because of this administration's refusal to let our people go back to work. a people that worked drilling safely, exploring for energy in america, that are literal onthe verge of being put out of business because this administration won't let them go back to work where there's known barrels of oil, billions of

barrels in some of these areas, in the courter continental shelf, that are closed off, because of this administration. they say there's no moratorium anymore but we call it a permitorium because they don't allow for companies to go back to work hiring people, creating jobs, allowing our country to become energy independent. if you look at the results of their policies, not only has it yielded higher gas prices at the pump and for anybody on the other side to suggest that cutting off the supply has nothing to do with the price of oil then, they need to go back and take a basic economic source. i don't think opec could have developed a better policy than what they've got right now because it says, basically, we're not allowing our people to go back two, in the united states but the president wants the country to drill in brazil. he encouraged drilling in brazil. he asked the saudis to produce more energy. we have billions of barrels in america and our people can't even go back to work. so this legislation says enough of all of this delay, enough of the foolishness of the games and

blaming everybody else while gas prices continue to skyrocket. prices have more than doubled at the pump since president obama took the oath of office. it's his policies that are causing. this i'm glad this leadership is bringing legislation to the floor to do something about it, we're not going to look the other way, our plan isn't to raise billions more in taxes so people pay even more at the pump, so we're even more dependent on foreign oil. we're going to make america energy independent by saying let's let our people go back to work. mr. lamborn: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker, and i'll conclude by saying this, if you go throughout south louisiana and you see the 13,000 jobs that were lost, you talk to families who are hanging on by a vine you talk to small business owners who barely can make ends meet and they're just struggling to hold onto their business and they want to go back to work. the administration says no but they want to drill in brazil. there's a better way, th