hearing on this, on the budget, in february of this year and the secretary of the v.a. testified that their budget request was held accountable for the program results and of course one of the issues that came up, mr. chairman, was the enormous bonuses and awards that were given out to v.a. employees and i think like many of us here in the house, we're concerned about bonuses when we have so much problems in this economy, high unemployment, and also we have a unmanageable backlog of cases, extreme -- extremely long wait for our veterans to see mental health professionals. for example, at the miami v.a. health center veterans may have to have been exposed to hiv-aids due to poor sterblization procedures down there and they're giving out huge bonuses for simple things like suggestions, foreign language award, travel, savings intendtifics, referral bonuses. in fact, on recruitment

relocation retention alone, almost 60,000 recipients received over $450,000 in cash bonuses so my simple amendment is saying enough is enough. what we want to do is say all of government should make a sacrifice, particularly the v.a. if they're giving out these huge bonuses, why don't they cut back on their senior, senior employees? we're not saying anybody -- mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. stearns: yes. . mr. dicks: could we take the savings from the gentleman's amendment and use that to pay the workers -- half of 1% raise that is denied. is there a way we can work this out? mr. stearns: i'm going to go with my amendment at this point and having an opportunity to look this over, i think we have talked to the veterans' committee and it is a viable amendment. as we go into conference, we could look at your suggestion.

mr. dicks: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. stearns: with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. stearns: could i ask for a recorded vote? >> no. no. no. no. mr. stearns: ok. i'm good. the chair: the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. culberson: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon the speaker pro tempore: the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5854 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena for testimony issued by the superior court for the state of north carolina in connection with a criminal prosecution currently pending before that court. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that the subpoena is not material and relevant, compliance with the

subpoena is inconsistent with the privileges and precedence of the house. signed sincerely, va foxx, member of congress. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days which to revise and extend their remarks and include ks train youse material and i may include material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 667 and rule 18, the chair declares the house and the committee of the whole house in consideration the chair apoints the gentleman from georgia to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house of the state of the union in hrgs of h.r. h.r. the clerk: a bill for fiscal year september 30, 2013 and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, and the gentleman from indiana, mr. advice close ki each will control 0 minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: it is my privilege to bring the energy and water bill before the house. let me thank the full chairman, mr. rogers, as well as the ranking member, mr. dicks, for their support of a very open process. i would like to thank my ranking member mr. pete visclosky for his dedication to our joint mission and our close working relationship. the bill is stronger for his

input and knowledge. i would like to thank the committee staff, our clerk, rob blair, joe levin, lorraine, angie, and trevor on the minority side, i would like to thank tanya and thank my personal staff, nancy foxx and katie and mr. visclosky's personal staff, joe devoug h. this supports programs to our safety, and economic competitiveness. it prioritizes investments in our nuclear security enterprise, programs to advance american competitiveness, including the key role of the army corps of engineers. the bill for fiscal year 2013, totals 32.1 billion. security and funding is increased by $275 million over

last year while nonsecurity funding is cut by $188 million. there are no earmarks in this legislation and we reclaim funds from previous congresses so this bill cuts spending by $623 million below last year forcing our agencies down to more appropriate sizes and operate with less money. the only significant increases over last year's level are the nuclear security and to develop a true all-of-the above strategy. we provide more funding to the corps, $1 billion for the harvard maintenance fund projects. it funds weapons activities to ensure that the secretary of energy has the investments he needs to certify to the president that our nuclear stockpile is reliable. we have heard from the public

frustration about stimulus fund investments into failed energy projects. this bill will move the energy department back to its core responsibilities, to serve americans by protecting their security and improving our energy independence. our bill will help improve that independence by sustaining fossil and nuclear energy research development, the latter is leading to investments in new nuclear power plants and developing small modular reactors. and unlike the president, we have always considered clean coal to be part of our national energy security. at the same time, the department of energy energy's program is cut by 6% by reducing programs which receive the largest of the largely failed so-called

stimulus program. no funding is provided for solyndra programs in our bill. all of our constituents are wrestling how to pay for higher gasoline bills. this bill does not provide a quick fix, since there is little that the department can do in its programs to immediately change. but the bill provides $36 million over fiscal year 2012 to strengthen the programs addressing the causes and impacts of higher gasoline prices down the road. within this, the recommendation funds a new program to promote shale oil recovery. if we could fully use this resource, our country's reserves could equal all global conventional oil reserves. this would make a major dent in oil prices and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

scientific research at the department of energy strengthens american competitiveness and enables true break-throughs in the energy sector and the bill preserves and protects it. it also protects public safety and keeps america literally a open for business by providing $4.8 billion for the army corps of gears, $83 million above the request but yet below fiscal year 2012. our bill maintains the constitutional role of congress in the appropriations process by ensuring that all worthy corps of engineers' projects have a chance to compete for funding. the bill provides $324 million in addition to the president's requested projects, investing in navigation and flood control, activities most critical to public safety, jobs and our economy. finally, a word about yucca

mountain. the recommendation includes $25 million for yucca mountain with language prohibiting activities which keep that facility with being usable in the future. the recommendation also denies funding for the blue ribbon commission activities which need legislative authorization. research and development activities to support yucca are permitted. this will ensure we will keep congress in the driver seat for nuclear waste policy. mr. chairman, this is a tight, fiscally conservative bill, which funds critical national security, jobs and infrastructure priorities while helping to fight future gasoline price increases. this bill see serves our members' support and i look forward to an open process. and i reserve the balance of my time. . .

>> i would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to chairman freely frelinghuysen for his efforts to be inclusive and transparent in addressing this legislation. the process has been clenalial and the chairman has ensured that the water and subcommittee continues its tradition of bipartisanship and cooperation. i would like to join the chairman in thanking the other members of the subcommittee and also all of their staffs for their exceptionally good and dedicated work. mr. visclosky: and finally this bill could not have been written without the dedication, hard work and sound judgment of our committee staff and the chairman has kindly enumerated them by name. given the constrained allocation that the subcommittee was dealt, i believe that chairman frelinghuysen has drafted a good bill. while i hope that we can modify some elements of the bill going forward, i would observe that our differences are marginal. as the chairman mentioned in his remarks, the allocation for the energy and water bill is $32.1

billion, which is d 64 million below the administration budget request and $88 billion above last year's level. as a result the bill makes dramatic reductions to vital energy programs to stay within the allocation. i want to recognize the difficult choices that must be made to address the nation's serious financial situation and i believe that chairman frelinghuysen has made a considerable effort to craft a balanced bill. this legislation is severely hampered by the shortsighted nature of the spending cap set by the house-approved budget resolution. the allocation for energy and water is simply insufficient to meet the challenges posed by our energy crisis, the need to maintain our water infrastructure and our national security requirements. that being said, i would like to point out some of the very positive aspects of the bill. i am grateful that additional funds for core, nonproliferation activities and vehicle technologies were included.

these are very smart investments. the first is vital to our national security as securing, removing and curbing the spread of nuclear materials is one of the great international challenges our country faces. i would argue the increased funding for vehicle tech normal is also a smart -- technology is also a smart national security investment. specifically the program researches the development of lightweight materials, high-powered batteries and electric motors. as the cars and trucks of our citizens and the ships, planes and tanks of our military rely heavily on petroleum fuels, technology breakthroughs in fuel efficiency are crucial to reducing our dependency on carbon fuels and crucial to improving our national security since so much of our current fuel mix is imported from unfriendly nations. additionally i truly appreciate the chairman's commitment to american manufacturing. this was a theme of many of our subcommittee hearings this year and he has included strong language in this regard. i believe we need to pull out

all the stops to support domestic manufacturing which remains one of the most important drivers of our economy. further, i see very little merit to use federal dollars to foster technological advances or breakthroughs for products that are not ultimately manufactured domestically. the bill upholds and continues many of the efforts to improve program and probably management at all of the agencies under its jurisdiction. i strongly support the committee in this effort and all the provisions, old and new, aimed at increased oversight in improved project management at the corps of engineers and the department of energy. i am disappointed, grievely disappointed, that the bill has to carry these commonsense provisions year after year after year. and i hope that the agencies begin to incorporate these policies into their management structure. that being said, with the recent

inspector general report detailing agriegious overpayments to lab employees by d.o.e., including an example of one worker receiving a taxpayer-funded per diem for more than a decade, i am not optimistic that domestics has yet been engrained in the energies culture. where were the auditors, where was the inspector general for the last decade? the bill includes continued funding for the office of health, safety and security and the defense nuclear facilities safety board. these agencies play important roles in oversight of d.o.e. and nnsa projects. their independent assessment and enforcement are crucial to worker safety and health at these facilities. with regards to the army corps of engineers i am pleased that the bill pros $83 million -- provides $83 million above the president's woefully, woefully inadequate request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will

not be terminated. however, the bill provides $188 million less than current year funding. we must invest in our infrastructure by making preventive and proactive investments. just last year this bill carried more than $2 billion in emergency funding to respond to natural disasters. i believe this again proves that it makes more fiscal sense to prevent a disaster than to respond to one. specific to the applied energy programs at the department of energy, the bill provides appropriate funding for fossil and nuclear energy which continue to provide the bulk of our energy needs. however, i am disappointed that renewable energy programs in this bill are reduced by over $400 million from 2012 and nearly $900 million from the president's request. this investment is a serious setback to our energy future. we know energy can achieve cost competitiveness but at this time a continued and sustained research and development program

is necessary and appropriate. lastly i would like to express my support for the chairman's inclusion of funding for the yucca mountain nuclear waste disposal probably -- project and for including the provision to prohibit the use of funding for the project. i agree with him and other members that administration's actions to close the project run counter to the nuclear waste policy ability of congress of 198 -- act of congress of 1 2. in closing i am glad we're considering this bill under an open rule and the appropriation committee continues to function amidst the turmoil that has stagnated so many other legislative efforts. much of this credit is daw to chairman rogers and ranking member dicks. i commend them for their efforts in this regard. and i would also like to reiterate my sentiments at the beginning of my statement, that chairman frelinghuysen has done an excellent job and i support the bill we are considering today. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from new jersey. >> mr. chairman, i'm pleased to recognize the full chairman, mr. ronalders, for any remarks he -- rogers, for any remarks he may wish to deliver and any time that he may wish to consume. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. rogers: i thank the chairman for that generous offer. mr. chairman, this is a good bill. this is a hard-fought bill. it's a tough bill. and i want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for hard work because the allocation to this subcommittee was not the greatest in the world. but chairman frelinghuysen and mr. visclosky i think have done wonders with the short allocation. funds the department of energy, the army corps of engineers, the bureau of reclamation, $32.1 billion. that's a cut of nearly $1 billion off of the president's request. and within the bill we've placed

the highest priorities on programs that shore up our natural security. help tackle skyrocketing gasoline and energy prices and support american competitiveness. we know this is a bill that can do a great deal to help promote job creation, improve public safety and regional commerce. and help relieve some of that pain at the pump in the future. so we've made those smart investments that will help boost

the american economy. nuclear security programs, as the chairman mentioned, are increased by $275 million over last year. we've made the key investments that are needed to modernize our nuclear weapons stockpile and its supporting infrastructure. advance our nuclear nonproliferation activities around the world and power the reactors that run our navy. all in order to maintain the safety and readiness of our national defense. to achieve this, the president's request of $7.6 billion for weapons activities is fully funded. in total, nonsecurity spending in this bill is cut $18 million over -- $188 million below last year. within this nonsecurity category, the committee prioritized programs that support energy security and american competitiveness. for instance, the corps of engineers' budget contains $83 million more than what the president requested. directing funds to ensure our waterways stay open, in support of commerce that will help our economy thrive. the committee also invests in finding ways to help america achieve greater energy independence, providing over $1 billion to strengthen d.o.e. programs, to help address rapidly rising gasoline prices. the bill also creates a new shale oil research and

development program and promotes advanced research into coal, natural gas and other fossil energy resources that provide more than 83% of our nation's energy. in order to strengthen defense programs and these other national priorities, the committee had to find cuts elsewhere in the bill. cuts that targeted inefficiencies and waste and did the least harm to our nation's infrastructure and competitiveness. we've also cut certain energy programs that aren't as valuable to manufacturing and commerce and we've rescinded prior year funds wherever possible. i want to stress that we're still able to find -- to fund important programs at adequate levels. in order to ensure the safety of our citizens and our future economic security. but as we face the dangers of unresolved debts and

skyrocketing deficits, we simply cannot fund everything at elevated amounts. we have to cut back. just as families know they have to cut back in these precarious times. as i said, chairman frelinghuysen and ranking member visclosky did an excellent job working together, as they distributed their 302-b suballocation in the most responsible and effective way possible. the subcommittee and its staffs from both sides of the aisle should be proud, as i know they are, of their hard work on this bill. and i want to thank them for their many hours they spent crafting this bill. mr. chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. i think any reasonable person looking at this bill will find that this committee did the very best that they could with the allocation that they have received. it gives priority to programs that boost our national defense, support competitiveness and

innovation and help reduce the volatility of gasoline prices. so i urge my colleagues to support this bill and with that, thank you, mr. frelinghuysen, mr. visclosky, members of your committee, subcommittee, and staff for a job well done. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i'd like to recognize ranking member of the committee, mr. dicks, for such time as he may consumement the chair: the gentleman from washington voiced for such time as he may consume. mr. dicks: thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i would like to commend chairman frelinghuysen who i've enjoyed working with, both here on the defense subcommittee and ranking member visclosky on their efforts to continue in the tradition of bipartisanship and cooperation. i knee all the members of the energy and water subcommittee -- i know that all the members of the energy and water subcommittee and their staff have worked hard to get this bill forward and get us to where we are today and want to commend our chairman, mr. rogers, for

again representing us with an open rule, which allows the members to have a chance to offer amendments. in an era now when we don't have earmarks, it is very important that members have an opportunity to come here to the florida and offer an amendment. i'm not trying to encourage -- to the floor and offer an amendment. i'm not trying to encourage anybody but it is a reality. despite the decision made by the republican leadership, unfortunately, to abandon the overall spending level contained in the budget control act, agreement reached last summer, i'm encouraged that this bill provides funding above last year's level. this -- the reality however is that if we do not return to the overall levels we agreed to in august, proceedings with -- proceeding with additional appropriations bills here in the house will be exceedingly difficult. many programs in the energy and water bill are sufficiently funded, however i do have concerns about the funding

levels provided to certain accounts. of particular concern to me are deep cuts in the energy efficiency and renewable energy program as well as productions in the aarpa-e program. these programs are vital to continue our nation's innovation in the energy sector. i would also like to reiterate mr. visclosky's concern over the funding levels of the army corps of engineers relative to f.y. 2012, particularly as the corps struckles with its aging -- struggling with its aging infrastructure. they're provided with $188 million less than 2012. we must invest in our infrastructure by making preventive and proactive investments and all the subcommittee mark does not fully fund the budget request for the cleanup at the hanford nuclear site in washington state, i understand that the funding level is sufficient for continued progress and a realistic work schedule for f.y. 2013. . i want to applaud the

chairman and ranking member for continuing the funding for the yucca mountain nuclear waste storage facility. during the amendment process, i expect to join in an effort led by chairman shimkus to increase funding in this account to underscore the strong bipartisan support in the house for moving ahead with the plan to open the nation's high-level waste storage facility. i believe as many do in the house that the administration's position to close the yucca mountain site runs counter to the letter and spirit of the nuclear waste act passed by the congress. with that, i yield back to the gentleman for the remaining time i have to mr. visclosky. mr. visclosky: i reserve. the chair: gentleman reserves. mr. frelinghuysen: i recognize a

valuable member, mr. womack from arkansas, for two minutes. mr. womack: i thank the chairman of our committee and the ranking member for their great leadership and as has already been mentioned in the limited discussion we have had already, great kudos have been given to rob and the staff team that have done a remarkable job. i'm just a freshman on this committee and this is my first trip on these appropriations processes, but when i go back to my district, i brag on the competence of our staffs that work so hard to ensure that the inat the present time of the congress and our committee is carried out. so to rob and his team, i can't thank them enough. and we mentioned chairman rogers and the ranking member, mr. dicks on the full committee, for the great leadership that they provide and hopefully tonight,

people can see that amidst all of our difficulties and all of our divisions between the congress that people can understand that there are things that we can gee on. mr. chairman, i believe this bill reflects the priorities of our country and no question that one of the great priorities is the fiscal condition we're in. and while we would like to see funding levels at greater than what we are marching to tonight, clearly, the fiscal condition of our country, money is an object and something we have to take into consideration. but i think as i said, it reflects the conservative values that guide and direct us but addresses key national security issues with regard to the national nuclear security administration and it does put money into programs that drive energy, commonsense all of the

above programs. i commend this bill to this congress in hopes that we can run rapidly through it. i know there will be amendments. the open rule is a great process and we are fully supportive of that. i commend the chairman and ranking member for the great leadership, their staffs and encourage support for this bill and look forward to the process with amendments. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i recognize the the gentlewoman from california to engage in a colloquy as much time as she may consume. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. matsui: i rise to engage in a colloquy. mr. frelinghuysen and mr. visclosky, on the army corps of

engineers policy on levees. mr. frelinghuysen: i would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentlelady from california. ms. matsui: i thank the gentleman from new jersey and indiana. mr. chairman, in many areas of the country such as the communities i represent, federal flood control projects are essential. sacramento, california is the most at-risk to catastrophic flooding. i'm a strong supporter of the work done by the army corps of engineers to protect our communities and strengthen our levees. it is therefore with some reservation that i rise to address a matter with the corps' good intentions could have adverse consequences. flood control levees function as

intended, the corps has issued draft guidelines regarding the presence of vegetation to flood control levees that could, if implemented without close collaboration without state and local authorities and without flexibility to take into account site-specific conditions and result in unwarpted and unacceptable loss of critical and environmental resources as well as missed application of limited federal and non-federal dollars. on may 18, i introduced h.r. 5831, the levee vegetation review act, a bipartisan bill which is co-sponsored by 30 of my colleagues. the bill directs the corps to review its current policy taking into account a broad array of factors to the national policy. it also provides flexibility to the corps to exempt certain areas from the policy where deemed necessary by the corps. mr. chairman, and mr. ranking member, i ask that you consider the objectives of our bill and the potential impacts of the

corps' current policy, not just on california, but on the nation. as you move to conference with the senate on fiscal year 2013 energy and water development appropriations bill. thank you and i yield to mr. visclosky. mr. visclosky: i thank the gentlelady from california for bringing this important matter to our attention. we have heard from a number of our colleagues and commend the corps to improve public safety for everyone. we also understand and appreciate that new policies have unintended consequences, we intend to have further discussion on this subject and i commend the the gentlewoman from california for her leadership on this issue. mr. frelinghuysen: i commend the gentlewoman's efforts to bring this matter to our attention and described well the conflicting

concerns regarding vegetation on levees and i look forward to work with her and our other colleagues interested in this issue to ensure that the corps gives serious consideration to their concern and perhaps conduct additional research if it is deemed advisable prior to finalizing its levee vegetation policy. ms. matsui: i thank the chairman and ranking member. mr. visclosky: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i recognize the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren. ms. lofgren: thank you for engaging in a colloquy, i would like to give special thanks to mr. visclosky and his staff and congressman dicks and his staff for their tremendous support for

fusion energy in this bill and i would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman. mr. chairman, since the need for a national ignition facility was first established in the 1990's, the project had a mandate of supporting expertise required for stewardship in stockpiles. basic science research has always been a central mission. in the 1997 facility use plan, the statement of mission projected that uses of the facilities fall into five major areas, one, ignition physician sicks, weapons effects, and the nation's fusion energy and five, basic science and technology. i want to affirm with you that the mission has not changed and that fusion energy and basic

science research and stockpile stewardship will be vigorously pursued. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank you for your concern about science, fusion energy, research and other activities at the national ignition facility. she is a strong advocate of science and i commend her for her attention and support. while this facility primary is to support sustainment of our nuclear weapons stockpile, it was envisioned to be a user facility. this will always remain an important part of the mission and i thank her for her work. ms. lofgren: thank you for that assurance and thank you, mr. visclosky. mr. visclosky: i thank the gentlewoman for her vision of our energy future, for her dug

he hadness and her commitment to basic scientific research as well as the issue of fusion. too often people lose sight that we have to be consistent. we have to be persistent and dogged and we are going to be successful primarily because of the gentlelady from california. i appreciate her remarks very much. i would reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i recognize the gentleman from california, mr. thompson for a purposes of colloquy and as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy and i thank the chairman and his staff, ranking member and his staff, for the help they provided on this very important issue. mr. speaker, and members, the

bureau of crecross-examination managings -- bureau of reclamation manages a lake in my district and they ensure that the facilities are safe and accessible to local residents and visitors. as part of this, they award concessions to third-party bidders for resort visitors. since the bureau of reck clamation began the bidding process, their performance has been disappointing at best. the concession contract was awarded in january, 2010 and the third-party contractor has not met the terms of that agreement. the bureau is the responsible agency for concession bidding and they conducted an inefficient process, provided lax oversight and refused to take action despite constant

requests from me and local government officials. now they are entering into mediation, which means more time to dispute the shortcomings and provide yet another second chance. mr. speaker and members, enough is enough. reassurances that they are fixing the problem are no longer enough. we need the matter resolved. the residents of the lake and the tourists who visit, deserve to have this situation fixed. recreational access to the lake has been restricted, tourism is down and the local economy has taken a hit. the summer season officially began last weekend, and there is no solution in sight to these problems. i expect the bureau of reck clam mation to right these wrongs and prevent steps from happening in

my district or any of your districts. i trust the chairman and ranking member share my concerns of the mismgment of the lake by the bureau and ask that you, mr. chairman, and the ranking member, work with me to correct the previous errors and amend the concession bidding process to ensure this doesn't happen again. mr. frelinghuysen: i want to thank the gentleman, mr. thompson for bringing this to our attention. we take seriously to make sure they maximize the taxpayer return on investment and i would be happy to work with the gentleman through continued congressional oversight that the lake specifically. mr. visclosky: i would be happy to work with the gentleman from

california to ensure that reck clam mation is securing its mission in the best interest of the taxpayer. i expect the bureau to take immediate actions to right these wrongs and prevent steps to have a similar situation in the future. i ask the gentleman today with me, do you share my concerns of the mismanagement of the lake by the bureau? i'm now down with >> mr. speaker, i thank the chairman and the ranking member for their commitment to work with me on this. it's a serious problem, the hurting people in my district and the surrounding area. i want it stopped and i don't want to see any of you have to suffer through this process again. mr. thompson: thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i would only add that i hope to avoid any further confusion in addressing support of the issue and i do appreciate the gentleman's serious concern. i would reserve my time.

>> mr. chairman, i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, for two minutes, for any remarks he may wish to give. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana voiced for two minutes. mr. boustany: mr. chairman, i want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee for working with me to try to rectify a problem that the harbor maintenance trust fund and the big-time short fall we've got in dredging funds going forward. our top 60 ports in the country are not being dredged to their authorized specifications and this is hurting commerce, it's inhibiting our ability to export, it's creating all kinds of problems. it's a jobs bill, a jobs bill, if we can get these ports and waterways dredged adequately. it's at a crisis level. for instance, the mississippi river, for every foot of draft we lose, it's $1 million per ship per day lost in economic activity. now, the harbor mant nance tax generates $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion a year, but a little over half of the being used for

the appropriate purpose. the rest is being put into other accounts. this is not fair to those who pay this tax, which in effect is a user fee, it was designed as a user fee and so i hope that the chairman of the subcommittee and full committee will continue to work with me to correct this inequity. this is not right and it's hurting american competitiveness. we can do better than this. this tax is a tax that was created as a user fee. it's a tax on the owners of the goods based on the value of the goods. this is supposed to be used for operations and maintenance dredging and as the chairman of the oversite subcommittee on ways and means where we have oversight over the tax revenue, i have a problem with the misuse of these funds. it's hurting american competitiveness. we can do better and i hope that the chairman of the subcommittee, chairman of the full committee will continue to

work with me to solve this problem. we can solve it without adding a single dime to the deficit. it will help create jobs, we've got numerous studies to show the job impact, the commercial impact, the impact on trade. it is imperative that we move forward on things that we can fix and it really is disappointing to me that we've not done better. i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: mr. chair, if i could ask how much time each side has, please, remaining, in general debate. the chair: the gentleman from indiana has 10 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from new jersey has 16 minutes remaining. mr. visclosky: i would reserve at this time, mr. chairman mr. chair. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to mr. harris. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three

minutes. mr. harris: thank you very much. mr. chairman, i rise with my colleague from new jersey to discuss the funding provided to the department of energy for unconventional fossil energy research and development. i first want to commend mr. frelinghuysen, the chairman of the subcommittee, for his strong support of the unconventional fossil energy research at the department of energy. as the committee report notes, the united states oil shale reserves are estimated to exceed two trillion barrels of oil. more than five times the proven oil reserves held by saudi arabia. however, additional research is necessary to enable economic and environmentally safe production from this incredibly plentiful domestic resource. in order to accelerate the safe and effective development of the nation's oil shale reserves, this legislation provides $25 million for oil shale technology research and development activities. as chairman of science, space and technology subcommittee on energy and environment, i recently chaired a hearing to examine the challenge chalings and opportunities associated

with expanding development and use of unconventional oil and gas production technologies. the subcommittee received testimony interest -- testimony from expert witnesses about the need for targeted government research to address specific issues associated with developing these unconventional oil resources. these research areas include but are not limited to oil shale resource characterization, minimization and reuse of processed water, the use of high-end computing applied to the physics and chemistry of oil shale production, modeling and simulation of oil shale exploration and production technologies, and surface and groundwater protection. it is my hope that the funding provided in this bill would address these and other key science and technology areas critical to enabling oil shale production and will be used to advance environmentally sound and efficient production of our resources rather than a regulatory agenda aimed at restricting such production or limiting access to oil shale

reserves located on federal lands. i'd now like to yield to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i'd like to thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding and for the additional and very centralble extra background information regarding -- extra -- very valuable extra background information regarding the shale oil. as the gentleman noted, our bill 's all-of-the-above energy strategy to address high gasoline prices includes $25 million for research to reduce barriers to the safe environmental and economic development of the united states' vast untapped oil shale resources. i strongly agree with the gentleman that this funding is intended for investments in technology and scientific research. not regulatory action. that can ultimately enable economic and environmentally responsible shale oil production. the gentleman has identified some very important, specific

research areas in his remarks and we will continue to consider these and other lines of work as we look to further shape the program. i look forward, the committee look forward to continuing to discuss with our colleagues -- i ask for an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. frelinghuysen: i look forward to our continual discussion with my colleague as we move forward in that process and thank him for his work on this very critical issue. >> reclaiming my time. i thank the gentleman and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: my understanding is we have one more speaker on this side and you do not have any more speakers on your -- at

this time i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for four minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. andrews: thrau, mr. chairman. i thank my friend for yielding. i glailt my colleague from new jersey and -- congratulate my colleague from new jersey and you, mr. visclosky, for your very diligent and focused work on tpwhill. i know it was difficult. we thank you -- mr. chairman, we thank these members for their leadership. today the people of the united states sent about d 1 billion overseas to countries from whom we bought imported oil. this is $1 billion that could have been spent to employ american construction workers. to give more activities to american research scientists, to reward the investment of american entrepreneurs and create domestic energy and american jobs here in the united states. one of the most effective ways to create a nearly $200 billion annual stimulus program paid for entirely by private sector dollars and not by government

would be to dramatically reduce the amount of oil we import into our country. this is an issue on which i think there is strong agreement and we obviously part company on exactly how to do that and i think this bill illustrates three of the ways that there is some disagreement. let me begin by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for what i view as a very wise decision, to make a funding investment in nuclear waste disposal at the yucca mountain facility. this is a very controversial issue, particularly in the other body. but i think that clean and well-managed nuclear energy is a key part of this country's economic future. sadly there has been a back peddling from years of research and investment in the yucca mountain facility. i think that the geological evidence is compelling, i think that the national security arguments are compelling, but the best way for us to dispose of nuclear waste is at one site

that is isolated from any population center and geologically insulated from any water table that would be nearby . i think that the yucca mountain site has been proven to be the right move, i think for unfortunate political considerations we've not invested in that and i commend the chairman and the ranking member for reversing that decision to the extent possible in this bill and moving forward with further exploration of that option. one area of the bill i would agree with mr. visclosky is somewhat disappointing is its relatively meager investment in alternative renewable energy. now i do think as the president has said, as our speaker has said, that an all-of-the-above energy independence policy is the right choice for ours -- for our country. so, we must understand that investing in wind or solar or geothermal or hydrogen is not meant to be completely in lieu of more traditional fuels.

it's meant to be a supplement and a transition. i think that the transition here is insufficient. the possibility of powering our country through wind, the growing solar industry, our state, new jersey, is actually number two in solar energy in the country. which is i think a tribute to our innovation, give our relatively climatelogical disadvantage relative to other states. there's promising research in hydrogen, other areas. i think that we are being frankly somewhat shortsighted and pennywise and pound foolish by not making a more robust investment in these areas of alternative energy in this bill. which leads me to my third point , that i understand the justification, not by the subcommittee chairman and ranking member but by the budget resolution that was passed, that the justification for what i view as an unduly meager

investment in alternative energy is because of the budget allocations adopted by the house several weeks ago. i would ask for another minute. mr. visclosky: i'd be happy to yield the gentleman another minute. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for another minute. mr. andrews: i thank the chairman. that budget allocation was short of the agreement that the majority and minority and the house and senate struck last year on august 1. we've adhered to that agreement in so many other ways. i think the right thing to do is what the other body slikely to do, and fund these appropriation bills at levels consist went that august 1 agreement. i believe, mr. chairman, that we will and should be back in this chamber at some point this year enacting final legislation that's consistent with that august 1 agreement. that meager increase, that small increase in allocations, would

in my view go a long way toward funding the wind and solar and hydrogen and other alternative energy that we should be seeking. but let's continue to try to work together as the author of this bill had. let's try to truly have an energy independence policy where instead of sending $1 billion a day to the middle east, we're investing d 1 billion a day of -- $1 billion a day of private sector money in manufacturing, innovation and economic growth here in the united states. this bill i think makes an important step in that direction. i commend the authors, but look forward to even a better result later in the year when the bill comes back from the other body. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana. mr. frelinghuysen: the gentleman's ma remarks would note we have no further request for time. we would conclude by thanking the chair, all of the subcommittee members and staff for their very good work that has brought us to this point. mr. visclosky: and would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: let me associate my remarks with the ranking. we thank all those who have come

forward we look forward to a vigorous couple of days ahead as we consider the rest of the energy bill and i thank the gentleman and all those who participate and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it they have motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of

the whole house on the state of the union -- the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 5325, asked me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5325 and has come to no resolution thereon.

pursuant to house resolution 667 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5854. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. roybal -- mr. woodall kindly resume the chair. the chair: the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5854, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for military construction and veterans affairs and related agencies for fiscal year ending september 30, 2013. the chair: when the committee rose earlier today, an amendment offered by mr. stearns had been disposed of and the bill had been read

through page 66, line 10. proceedings will now resume on those amendments, in the following order. an amendment by mr. grimm of new york, amendment number eight by mr. franks of arizona. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any vote after the first vote in the series. the question is on the unfin -- the request for a vote on the amendment offered by mr. grimm. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grimm of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 218 and the nays are 198 and the

amendment is adopted. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 on the amendment from the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. franks of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and remain standing, a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 180, the nays are 237, the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: this act may be cited as the military construction and veterans affairs and related agencies

appropriations act, 2013. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. culberson: -- the chair: the secret from texas. mr. culberson: i move that the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the

house with sundry amendments with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 5054 and come to -- and -- the speaker pro tempore: the chay of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5854 and reports the bill back to the house. under the rule, a previous -- the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any question from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair pill put them

engross. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for mill care construction, the department of veterans' affairs and other agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposeded to the bill? >> i am opposed in its current

form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will remedical report the motion. the clerk: mr. barrow of georgia has a motion to recommit, with the following amendments, page 11, line 17, insert after the dollar amount he follow, reduce by $56,656,000. page 52, line five, increase by $328,625,000. the speaker pro tempore: house will be in order. the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. barrow: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to offer one final amendment to the military construction and veterans afairs and related agencies appropriations bill. three days ago on memorial day, i held town hall meetings at the american leon posts in

augusta and states hill fwea. during these meetings, veterans pressed two -- expressed two of their most pressing concerns for our country. first that increasing debt threatens our national defense and the promises we've made to veterans and seniors. second, they're concerned that the men and women returning home today after fighting for our freedoms are not receiving proper medal care -- medical care for the injuries they face, like post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury and loss of limbs. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman from georgia may ro proceed. mr. barrow: after my town hall meeting in awe gause to ta, an a vietnam veteran came up to me and expressed how he had suffered from undiagnosed ptsd for a long time and it caused

his life to be a struggle. this is what we already know new york too many cases we fell short in proiding vietnam veterans the care they deserve after giving the best years of their lives to our service. we cannot make the same mistakes today we made then. my amendment will do two things to try to be responsive to the veterans i represent. it takes $56 million of pre-existing surplus money from the brack closure account and applies half, just $28 million, to veterans' medical and prosthetic research and the other half to deficit reduction. this figure doesn't come out of thin air. that's the unanimous recommendation of the v.f.w., the paralyzed veterans of america, the disabled veterans of america and amvets in their annual, independent budget recommendations as the additional amount necessary to provide for appropriate program growth and cover anticipated

inflation. this money will go directly to research and the unique needs our soldiers face today. this is the final amendment of the bill. it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will proceed to final passage as eand amended. i urge my colleagues to support this motion and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia yields back his time. the gentleman from texas. does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. culberson: yes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed? mr. culberson: i rise in opposition to the amendment. this is not an amendment ott bill, this is a procedural stunt that the public and members should not be confused about. this is a last-minute a very sad, i think, and shallow and disappointing political stunt that the members of the -- this

bill, more than any other -- mr. speaker the house in is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. mr. culberson: we have been on the floor -- the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. mr. culberson: our subcommittee -- sanford bishop, your colleague from georgia, our entire subcommittee has worked arm in arm since early this year, he will numerous hearings, sought testimony from every organization from the veterans administration, from any veterans organization, we have all worked arm in arm in producing a piece of legislation tonight that fully funds every need of every veteran and every active duty military member of the united states anywhere in the world. we funded every request, we've

met every need, we've left no gap unfilled and in fact, not only during the committee process but also tonight, we've been on the floor from 4:30 until 8:00, anyone could have come to the floor and offered an amendment, frankly you could have walked down and drafted it right here on a yellow note pad and given it to the clerk and offered an amendment at any time. so this is not an amendment. this is a procedural stunt, it's disappointing and disheartening to see it offered at the last minute when we on this subcommittee more than any other subcommittee have worked arm in arm in an absolutely bipartisan way in support of our troops. it is important for the members to know that our committee has fully funded the request of the veterans administration, we've given them everything that they needed that they asked for, $583 million for medical and

prosthetic research, we've increased funding for the v.a. by $2.3 billion to make sure that the needs of our veterans are met. we have increased veterans' administration research by almost $1.9 billion and we have throughout this entire appropriations season been open to any member at any time to bring us any good idea on any subject that would help our veterans. so this is not an amendment, this is a procedural motion that has nothing to do with the more rits of the bill and in fact, i want to stress to my colleagues that if during the -- if during conference, if the veterans' administration, if anyone can demonstrate to mr. bishop and i and the subcommittee that there's a valid need a demonstrable need that the v.a. comes to us and says, we need additional money for more research, of course we'll find room for it. there is no gap between any of us on this house floor when it comes to supporting the needs of our men and women in

uniform. we on this committee more than any other have worked together in a bipartisan fashion and i urge the members to reject this last minute procedural motion to recommit and we will work together in conference if there's truly any additional need for funding but members, we have left no gap unfilled when it comes to our men and women in uniform and i urge members to vote no. >> parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman. mr. culberson: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> my question is, is there a motion before the house or is there a stunt before the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry. >> is there a motion before the house? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. >> mr. speaker, parliamentary inquiry. what is before the house? the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a parliamentary inquiry?

>> yes, mr. speaker, what is before the house? the speaker pro tempore: the house is entertaining a motion to recommit. >> a motion to recommit. did the chair say -- did the speaker say a motion? thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. barrow: i request a recorded vote on the motion as made. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a vote by recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any vote on passage. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the

u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 188, the nays are 230, the megs is -- motion is not agreed to. the question is on passage of the bill.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 407, the nays are 12. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. guinta of new hampshire for wednesday, may 30

and the balance of the week, ms. velazquez for today and tomorrow june 1, and mr. young of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are grant granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move that the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the house adjourning. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

energy and water programs bill. live coverage of the house when members return on c-span. remarks by former presidential candidate john edwards. the former u.s. senator think the jurors and his family after a mistrial was declared. from the -- greensboro, north carolina, this is five minutes. >> i wanted to say, first, thank you for the jurors and the incredibly hard work and diligence. they took their job very seriously. as we said during the trial, the

attention they paid to the evidence, the presentations of the lawyers, and the fact they have spent almost nine days deliberating, trying to reach a fair and just result. all i can say is thank goodness we live in a country that has the kind of system we have. i think the jurors were an exemplar for what juries are supposed to do. the second thing i want to say a word about is responsibility. this is about me. i want to make sure that everyone here is from me and all i do not that', believe i did anything illegal, i did an awful, awful lot that was wrong. there is no one else

responsible for my sins. none of the people who came to court and testified are responsible. nobody working for the government is responsible. i am responsible. if i want to find the person who should be held accountable for my sins, i did not have to go any further than the mirror. it is me. it is me and me alone. the next thing i want to say a word about is the people i love. it has been an incredible experience for me to watch my parents, my dad just turned 80, my mom is 78, drive up here every day to be with me and to support me. i love them so much. they did such a wonderful job raising me and my brother and my sister who i also love dearly.

i also want to say a word about my own children. kate has been here every single day. she has been here no matter what. no matter how awful and painful. a lot of the evidence was. it was about her dead. evidence about her mom. -- dad. evidence about her mom. she never once flinched. she said, that, i love you, i will be there for you no matter what. i am so proud to have had her with me. finally, emma, and 14. ho turned 14, and jack, who turned 12. see them in the morning, i get their breakfast ready.

we get home at night. i love them both so dearly. they are such an important part of every day of my life. finally to a, of more than any of you could imagine. -- finally -- who i love more than any of you could imagine. i am so grateful for her. i am grateful for all of my children. including my son wade, ostia's ago. i do not think god is through with me. i believe he thinks there are good things i can do. whatever happens going forward, what i am hopeful about is that, all of the kids that i have seen, in the poorest parts of this country, in some of the

poorest places in the world, that i can help them. in whatever way i am still capable. i want to dedicate my life to andg the best dea i cana bed to helping those kids who i think -- best dad i can be and helping those kids who i think deserve help. >> coming up tonight, george de b. bush -- george w. bush was at

the let us today. after that, david axelrod speaks in boston on mitt romney's term as governor. later, the -- a hearing on international internet regulations. thursday, the official portraits of george w. bush and laura bush were unveiled. at the ceremony, president obama said "we may have our differences politically but the president transcends those differences." president obama hosted a private lunch. it included former president george h. to the bush and barbara bush. this is 30 minutes. host: [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [applause] [laughter] =

♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and mrs. obama accompanied by george w. bush and mrs. laura bush. ♪ [hail to the chief playing]

[applause] >> could f. been in. i am chairman of the board of the white house -- good afternoon. i am chairman of the board of the white house historical -- association. the association was founded 50 years ago with two specific missions, the first is to educate and inform the public about the history of the white house and the distinguished groups of americans who have the -- inhabited it.

it is an exciting time for us. we marked our 50th anniversary. to the north of the white house we have just launched the new national center for let us history. the next year, to the south, we will open a new white house this their center. it will give millions of visitors -- the visitor center. it will give millions of visitors a new understanding. if we acquire something on the east and west we will have the police surrounded. are proud to have provided funds for financial support. through the portraits of our presidents, it is a wonderful

tradition that here, our country honors those who have honored us. the tradition began with the acquisition of george washington's portrait in 1800. it was purchased by the united states government. it was viewed as such as an important national treasure it was the object of dolly madison 's concern we have been commissioned to complete the portraits of every first lady and president in the past 50 years. in our world, with so many images are flashes on the screen, these portraits by acclaimed artist are lasting tribute to our presidents and first ladies and will forever be part of the collection. today, the portrait of president george w. bush and laura bush will be added to the unique

collection of those who have occupied this house. to those great presidential portrait artists whose works include gilbert stuart, we now had john howard -- add john howard. at a great debate, strong arguments on both sides, not over issues, it is the debate as to whether of a portrait actually looks like the president and first lady. -- as to whether the portrait actually looks like the president and first lady. it is my distinct pleasure to introduce the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you. please, everybody, have a seat. good afternoon everybody. thank you for that introduction.

to the president and barbara, to all of the members of the bush family, it is a great privilege to have you here today. to president and mrs. bush, welcome back to the house that you called home for eight years. the white house is many things at once. it is a working office, it is a living museum, it is and in doing symbol of our with democracy. -- is an enduring symbol of our democracy. a few of us are blessed with the honor of living here. i think it is fair to say that every president is aware that we are temporary residence. we are renters. we are charged with the upkeep until our lease runs out. we also leave a piece of ourselves in this place.

today, with the unveiling of the portraits next to me, president and mrs. bush will take their place alongside men and women who built this country and those who worked to perfect it. it can be said that no one can understand what it is like being president until they sit behind the desk and feel the weight and responsibility for the first time, it is true. after three and a half years in office, i have a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by the presidents who came before me, including president bush. in this job, no decision that reaches your desk is easy. no choice you make is without cost. no matter how hard you try, you are not going to make everybody happy. that is something president bush and i both learned quickly. that is why, from time to time, those of us who have had the

privilege to hold this office turned to the people who know the feeling. we may have our differences politically, but the presidency transcends those differences. we all love this country. we all want america to succeed. we all believe that when it comes to moving america forward, we have an obligation to pull together. we all follow the example of our first president, george washington, who knew that a true test of patriotism is the willingness to freely and graciously passed the reins of power on to somebody else. that has been true of president bush. the months before it took the oath of office were chaotic. we knew our economy was in trouble. our americans were in pain. we would not know until later how breathtaking the financial crisis had been. still, over those two and a half

months, president bush, his cabinet, his staff, many of you who are here today, went out of your ways, george, you went out of your way, to make sure the transition was as seamless as possible. president bush understood that rescuing our economy was not just a democratic or republican issue, it was an american priority. i will always be grateful for that. the same is true for our national security. none of us will forget where we were on that terrible september day when our country was attacked. all of us will remember the image of president bush standing on the pile of rubble bullhorn in hand, the, when the strength and resolve -- rubble, bullhorn

in hand, and of the strength and resolve of the american people. my first call once american forces were out of harm's way was to president bush. protecting our country is knighted the work of one person with the task of one time, it is an ongoing obligation we all share. finally, on a personal note, michele and i are grateful to the entire bush family for their guidance and example during our tradition. george, i will always remember the gathering you posted for all of the living former presidents. plus, you left me a really good tv sports package. [laughter] i use it.

laura, you reminded us that the most rewarding thing about living in this house is not the title or power but the chance to shine a spotlight on the issues that matter the most. the fact that you enjoyed raised two smart and beautiful daughters, as teenagers preparing to head out into the world, that gives us tremendous help. -- hope. we will never forget the advice you give our daughters as they began their lives in washington. they tell them to surround themselves with loyal friends. never stop doing what they love. slide down the banisters. place settings on the lawn. meet new people.

enjoy all that. i can tell you that they took that advice to heart. it really meant a lot. one of the greatest strengths of our democracy is our ability to peacefully and routinely go through transitions of power. we have always had the leaders who believe in america and everything it stands for. leaders and families who are willing to devote their lives to the country they love. this is what we will think about every time we pass these portraits, just as millions of others of visitors will do in the decades to come. i want to thank the artist behind these beautiful works. on behalf of the american people, i want to thank president and mrs. bush for their extraordinary service to our country. i would like to invite them on stage to take part in the

presentation. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> thank you, sit down.

sit down. behavior cells. -- behave yourselves. thank you so much for inviting our rowdy friends to my hanging. we are honored to be here. mr. vice president, thank you for coming. we are overwhelmed. thank you for feeding the bush family, all 14 members of us. i want to thank our girls for coming. i thank mom and dad, brother, sister, in laws, aunts and uncles. i know you were as excited to be able to come back and thank the people who helped make this

house a home for us. the white house staff. i want to thank fred ryan and the white house curator. i am pleased that my it now starts and ends with a george w. [applause] when the british burned the white house in 1814, and dolly madison saved this portrait of the first door to the idea -- first george w. if anything happens there is your man. [laughter] [applause]

i am pleased that when the zero you are wondering these halls he would now be able to the is that this portrait and ask "what would george do?" [laughter] i am honored to be hanging there with the man they gave me the greatest give possible, unconditional love, no. 41.

i want to thank john howard for agreeing to use his considerable talents to paint my likeness. you have done a fine job with a challenging subjects. in the portrait there is a painting called "a charge to keep" that hung in the oval office for the eight years of my presidency. it reminds me of the wonderful people with whom i was privileged to serve. these men and women, many of whom who are here worked hard and served with honor. we had a charge to keep. it is my privilege to introduce the great as first lady ever,

sarorry mom. [laughter] would you agree to a tie? a woman who brought such grace and dignity and love in this house. >> thank you all. thank you. thank you everybody. thanks everyone. thank you very much. thank you president and mrs. obama. it was really gracious of you to

invite us back to the white house to hang a few family pictures. i am sure you know nothing makes a house a home. than its former occupants staring down from the walls. this is not the first time i have had the opportunity to confront an artistic likeness of myself. a few years ago after the 2008 election, a friend sent me something he found in the gift shop of the national constitutional center in philadelphia. obbleheadlaura bush baldhe doll he said he found on the clearance shell. i am grateful to know that this work as a permanent home and things to be masterful talent of john howard sandon.

you are terrific to work with. -- john howard sanden. you are terrific to work with. it is wonderful to know that these portraits will be on view at the white house and walking down the hall from my mother in law and that george's portrait will hang very close to his dad's. it is meaningful to me as a citizen. this is my family's home for eight years. it was our home but not our house. this house belongs to the people whose portraits will never hang there, the ordinary people whose

lives inspired us and his expectations guided us during the years we lived here. in this room are many of the people who stood by us as we face the tragedy of september 11 and to work with us in the years after. thank you to each and everyone of you for your service to our country. [applause] i hope others will see what i see, a woman he was honored and humbled to live in the white house during a time of great challenge and to will never forget ththe countless american faces who make up the true portrait of that time. thanks so much. thank you, michele.

>> i do not think we have enough tissue to go round. jenna and barbara are a mess. i want to thank you for joining us today. i would like to take this opportunity to thank laura for providing such a wonderful model of strength and grace for me to follow as first lady. it is an interesting job.

it has been amazing to learn from your example not just as a first lady but as a mother of two wonderful daughters. you are on the other side of where we hope to be in a couple of years, two daughters who sit up straight and cry and think lovingly of their mother and dad. we are working toward that gold. we cannot be more thankful for the warmth and graciousness that both of you showed our family. it is truly a privilege for us to occupy this house. the warmth is reflected in these

portraits. i promise you, i am going straughight for it. i am sure it will be closer down the stairs. i will get right down to it. i am thrilled for the visitors who will have the chance to enjoy it. i am thrilled for both of you as you join these incredible americans whose portraits are already displayed here at the white house. congratulations again. youratulations on the work have done in the example of what it means to be an american family. we are so happy and proud and honored to be a part. it is my pleasure to invite you all to join us for a reception right outside in the state room. now it is time to eat. thank you also much. -- all so much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> issues facing democrats including what to do about expiring tax cuts and the need to raise the debt ceiling later this year. our guest is john larsen of connecticut, chairman of the democratic caucus and a member of the ways and means committee. then steve will discuss how the

u.s. and international community should respond to this situation in syria. this is live every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> earlier this spring, at the supreme court heard arguments on challenges to the health care law. the ruling is expected by the end of june when the term ends. friday, a political post a discussion on how they are implementing exchanges. -- politico hosts a discussion on how they're implementing changes. >> ben bernanke live coverage thursday june 7 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> sunday, i think the problem is with walter cronkite people only see him as the friendly man. which she was. there is another side of him

that wanted to be the best. he was obsessed with ratings. he is probably the fears is competitor i only ever written about. i've written about presidents and generals and the desire to be the best. >> sunday at 8:00 eastern. >> david axelrod and leaders held a conference thursday in boston to discuss mitt romney puzzle economic record as governor of massachusetts. supporters attended to shout down the speakers during the 30 minute of it which took place in front of the massachusetts state house. >> good morning.

thank you for being here. i am the speaker pro tem of the house of representatives. it is interesting to see people here who do not agree with us and the props that they are using. just like the promises that mitt romney made to as. things that were immediately broken. and a former middle school teacher and chair of the committee on education. mitt romney i didn't care what it takes or he did not want to do its. i know firsthand that his view of education was that it was a luxury and not an economic engine for improvements.

under mr. romney who wanted to change the total way that we provided education, and he wanted to privatize two of our most important colleges. he wanted to tell people that it was a luxury to be able to go to mass maritime and that they did not contribute to our economy. how wrong was he? after only a year and office, all we have the largest cut to education in the country. we but teachers, librarians, policeman, out of jobs. that was another broken promise. he did not create jobs. he gave them away to the other parts of the world. he put a call center in india.

when you think about the young people of our country, is that a job creator? he does not care about what it takes to build a future for our children. it is hard to get students to take part in this economy. if you want mitt romney, and then take him and bring him to the other parts of america. he did not do anything he was promised here. cost skyrocket under mitt romney. he wanted people to pay for higher education. our community colleges or among

the most expense of an america because he thinks people should pay to have a public education. you cannot let romney economics work nationwide because it will not work. you cannot afford is broken promises. >> that is right. [applause] >> as a candidate for governor, and he promised to reduce its debt, streamline government. what did he do? we have the highest debt of any people per capita in the country. that is what he left for our children, it the highest in debt they will ever see in their lives. he vetoed legislation that would guard the outsourcing of massachusetts state jobs. instead of hiring massachusetts people, and he put a call center in india. india is where your jobs went.

that is where you have to call if you were unemployed. while he was governor, ed jobs through six times faster in the private sector. america cannot afford to put on a personal credit card. when we had a structural deficit bigger than anyone else. you are going to get the same guy who never wanted to engage in the legislature. he never went to look for new jobs. romney economics did not work

then and will not work now. it is my honor to introduce one of the log% serving mayor is in massachusetts -- longest serving mayors in massachusetts, john. >> he did not take me down ben and he will not take is down then. -- he did not take me down then and he will not take us down then. having served the city, i think come and go.rs coming one of them did not understand and he never took the time to get to know us. as a blue-collar may hear from a blue-collar city, the problems

that we face as a loss of manufacturing jobs were enormous. the people of my city suffered. they struggled to make ends meet. they made sure their kids made it quality education. mitt romney never understood how to solve the economic problems. he simply ignores them. if he has spoken to the political leaders, he would have discovered that our work force was not being trained for the new job that was being created throughout the rest of the country. instead investing in more work force development, and he cut funding. this is of investing in job training, he was promoting an

agenda that would benefit the wealthy assistance in this commonwealth. he stated his business experience with the help of the middle class by creating more jobs when in fact the record will show that he failed miserably. he spoke of working with elected officials and creating new jobs. this is all it was. mitt romney met once with governors during his four years in office. he believed that a power point presentation would solve all our problems and get the economy moving forward. what he did not understand was that his policies were not going to improve work in massachusetts but slow it down. we understood that job creation does not happen with government involvement -- without government involvement.

despite our attempts mitt romney refused to meet with the mayors of massachusetts. they understood the needs of their community. we now have a governor who ignored as and did not want our input. my city was receiving recognition as a committee was rebuilding its economy. massachusetts was being featured in the national press. it was about how local government formed a partnership which led to an old factory complex being converted to the largest museum of contemporary art. one democrat and two republican governors make it happen. why did mitt romney think? he never set 1 foot in the city

of north adams. he did this at one other city. he said it was great to be in the city of springfield. three other times it was great to be in the city of springfield. there is the loss of hundreds of jobs while he was talking about improving the state's economy. he did not even know what city he was in. he promised there would be no taxes. i guess beauty is in the eye of the be holder. you will seeing that mitt romney increase the tax burden by $1,200. he increased fees from hospitals and nursing moms to motor

vehicles to buying a house. children of middle-class parents want to state colleges where they could receive a quality education. tuition and fees went up higher. it had an added burden on the middle-class. for the first time ever, schools were participating in the arts of the theater. students are being charged to ride the bus to school. mayor ronnie's response was i raised -- mitt romney's response was "i raised no taxes."

when mitt romney claims this will be good for america, he is hoping they did not look at the evidence right here. mitt romney never understood what government is all about. he proved that government is not about powerful presentation. it is about helping people. for 26 years i served as mayor of the city and north adams. i am a democrat who supported republican governors as well as democrats. i wanted the best for my city.

as did the other mayors. one mitt romney left office in 2007, i tell my fellow mayors that it would take five years for us to rebuild for the damage she created during his tenure here. the people have to look closely at the romney record to better understand what each release stands for. in never change the stripes on a zebra. -- you never change the stripes on a zebra. he was back for massachusetts and he will be bad for america. it is my pleasure to introduce to you one of the great mayors from the city of somerville. >> thank you.

it is great to see everybody out here. this is democracy in action. thank you for the bubbles. it is better than the smoke mayor ronnie blue. i am grateful to the office and is opportunity to talk about his record as governor of massachusetts. as an elected official during his only term and his last two years in office, i had hoped that he would follow through on his campaign. i wanted to believe that he would work to improve the efficiency.

the record show people what we got in massachusetts was a series of state budgets fa that cost more and budgets and force them to raise the budget. for a liter there is a very serious republican. it is curious to know it that that they had a rate of private sector jobs. if those well behind the national average. gov. romney -- we rank seventh in the nation for growth on the

side of state government. massachusetts ranks only 47 in private-sector jobs. i am not opposed to hiring more private sector workers. i am not claiming to be a severely conservative republican. it cannot jump start our economy. i asked the voters to contrast the performance of mitt romney in massachusetts under the state's records under our current governor. thanks to the governor and president obama, making grow the economy.

massachusetts under obama had a kind of performance that bush and romney tried to promise. they were by the same kind of radical fiscal policies. governor romney said he supports massachusetts. our unemployment level is at 5.9%. it is well below the national average. why are these reason for our success? we are fortunate to have received state and federal investments in transit and other basic infrastructures.

back when he was our governor, we learned that there was a huge gap between his promises about economic growth and the ability to deliver. we're learning there is an even bigger gap in values and performance between the governor who presided in massachusetts from 2002-2006 and the portrait that he is trying to sell to the voters across the nation. take note america that met romney was all about shifting costs. it was the approach that did not do much for our cities and town. it is my privilege prin.

>> thank you. treating local officials as though they worked for him. that is the not surprising. we look at why where growing jobs. it is partnership. when you look at who is here, it is about working together.

this was the first new building built on the campus in 40 years. now we have a president to believes in investing in education. it'll stand up for the middle- class. he understands the do not do this by e date and releases. it is the blocking of government. it is engaging in people. it is understanding there are different parts of the state fair lead the conversation began. we cannot have a bigger contrast for senate up to the middle-class. but it began.

-- let it began. we can tell you who stands up for the middle class. president obama is all about that. thank you. >> it is great to be in massachusetts, obama country. i get tweets from some of these folks. at the close of them.

it is hard to get to sketch -- eatch tch a sketch the truth aw. we are here because the governor romney's claim to the presidency in view him with insides that will grow our economy and create jobs, reduce the size of government and reduce debt. if that sounds familiar, it is because the people of massachusetts have heard this before. 20 rolls of his candidacy a few miles away -- after he rolled up his candidacy a few miles away, he spoke for 50 or 20 minutes and never mentioned that he once had been the governor of massachusetts. the one elected office the ever

held. there is good reason for that. after selling himself to massachusetts as a savior, the record was alarmingly weak. as you have heard, the state was 47th in job creation, fourth from the bottom. manufacturing jobs of vanished at twice the national rate. house incomes fell. the government actually grew at a clip of 6.5% a year. public-sector jobs grew at six times the rate of private sector jobs. in his first year as governor, he raised in various fees on marriage licenses and cars and home purchases and everything keep it think of. he raised more than any other

governor in the nation. he still added a mountain of debt. he added $2.6 billion to the state debts, an increase of more than 16%. when he was done after one term, scholars release a study on the years. this was one of the worst economic performance as on all key labor markets. it was not happenstance that massachusetts stumbled under governor romney. he brought the orientation of a financial engineer whose career has not been about careers but about short-term profits and

taking what he can win will can. he cut education. fees rose 63% 4 colleges. maybe for some young people here. he privatized state budgets and set by as the call center was there. he borrowed to pay operating expenses and of the tab for the next governor. -- and let the tab for the next governor. it is not how you build a future. these may be the only voters right here for mitt romney.

it is a harsh one. it has been a century since a person was elected president of the united states wallace neighbors were rejecting him. -- while his neighbors were rejecting him. fool me once, shame on me sh. full me twice, shame on you. romney economics did not work then and it will not work now. if there are members of the news media who want to address questions to us, we are happy to entertain them.

you can handle the truth. that is obama. he talks about how well he works with the legislature. he raise spending by 6.5%. his proposals were for eight%. this group of people rein him in.

he vetoed 800 bills. >> do you have any concerns recently [inaudible] >> i had a chance to work with elizabeth warren in washington. i have no concerns about that. she is 100% of an advocate for in the middle class. she is going to be a great united states senator.

>> what would you have done countrywide? >> it is how you deal with them. you deal with them honestly our monies around the? do you take a no-tax pledge and push them around? >> you have made tremendous progress. if you look at all the

statistics of where massachusetts is a day versus where governor romney left, 47 out of 50 of his term, up massachusetts was fifth in the nation on job creation under this governor. there are an array of things reoccur debated. it to a behooves them to look at iran a's record and pull back the curtain. the record is very clear on this. -- it behooves them to look at mitt romney's record ample back

the curtain. the record is very clear on this. >> patrick endorsed elizabeth warren. did the white house have anything to do with that? did you have anything to do with that endorsement? >> no. that was his endorsement. i am not here to engage in discussion of the primary. >> do you have any comment on this issue? >> the issue is on the principles but work in private equity. do they transferred to

government? the principal there is to maximize your problems. it is not about job creation that mitt romney has represented. there were a lot of jobs destroyed. it is about making money for yourself and your investors. that is fine. that is not a pressure for leadership as we saw in massachusetts. he tried to bring the same principles to massachusetts. the middle class numbers lagged beyond the rest of the country. this is what happens when you're trying to translate those values into the state or a country. thank you.

>> according to a price waterhouse cooper reports, crime accounts for 38% of crime related incidents. friday, at a house financial services committee weighs a cyber crime threats to the financial industry. >> saturday, we will bring the part of this year's telecommunications convention appeared the ceo's of comcast and viv discuss this. chris matthews is joined with don king. this is saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> writing is a transactional

process. writing assumes reading. it goes back to that question about a tree falling in the forest of there's no one there to hear it. if you have written a wonderful novel, the one of the parts of the process is that you want readers to be enriched by it. you have to pull out everything at your disposal to do that. >> anna quindlan will talk about her perception of life. lots of candles and plenty of cake. issue will be ready for your call starting at noon eastern on "in depth." >> no. remarks by john edwards. the former u.s. senator think jurors and his family after a mistrial was declared in his campaign finance fraud trial.

he was acquitted on one charge and a mistrial declared after the jury deadlocked on five other counts. from greensboro, this is five minutes. >> i wanted to say thank you up for the jurors -- for the jurors and they're incredibly hard work. they did their job seriously as we saw during the trial, and the attention they paid to be trial and the fact that they have now spent almost nine full days deliberating, trying to reach a just result. thank you wgoodness we live in a country that has the kind of system we have a.

i believe they were an example for what jurors are supposed to do. they were very impressive. the second thing i want to say a word about is responsibility. i want to make sure everyone hears from me and from i boys that while i do not believe i did not do anything illegal or thought i was, i did an awful lot that was wrong. there's no one else responsible for my sense. nobody working for the government is responsible. i am responsible. if i want to find the person who should be accountable for my sense, i do not have to go any further than the mirror. it is me. it is me and me alone.

the next thing i want to say a word about are the people that i love. it has been an incredible experience for me to watch my parents. my dad just turned 80. my mother is 78. they drove up every day from carolina to be with me. i love them so much. they did such a wonderful job raising me and my brother blake and my sister kathy he also love dearly. i also want to say a word about my own children. kate has been here every single day. she has been here no matter what. no matter of offal and painful a lot of the evidence was for her. evidence about her dad. evidence about her mom to she

loved so dearly. she never once flinched. she said i love you. i will be there for you no matter what. i am so proud to have her with me drop this process. finally, emma who turned 40 recently. -- 14 recently and jack who just turned 12 that i take care of every day. i have not been able to see the quite as much. i see them in the morning. i get them off to school. them get home at night and all the serveat supper together. they're such an important part of every day of my life. then it finally, my precious quinn. who i love more than any of you could imagine. i am so close to and so, so

grateful for quinn. ateful for all my children including wade who we lost years ago. i really believe got things there are some good things that i can do. whatever happens with this little stuff going forward, what i am hopeful about this all the kids that i have seen in the poorest part of these country, that i can help them in what ever way i'm still capable of helping them. i want to dedicate my life to being the best that i can be and to helping those kids who i think deserve help and i hope i can help. thank you very much.

>> coming up, the house energy committee holds a hearing on international internet

regulations. after that, leon panetta delivers the commencement speech at the u.s. naval academy. later, george w. bush and former first lady laura bashar at the white house for the unveiling of their official portraits -- laura bush are at the white house for the unveiling of their official portraits. then david axelrod speaking about mitt romney. >> friday, a look at issues ahead facing democrats in the house including what to do about the expiring tax cuts and the need to raise the debt ceiling later this year. our guest is representative john larsen of connecticut, chairman of the democratic caucus. then chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on the middle east and south asia will discuss how the u.s. and international community should respond to the situation in syria. "washington journal" live every

morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> friday, jeb bush and henry waxman testify at the house budget committee, looking at the regulatory portion of the rise in federal budget plan. live coverage starts friday at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> next thursday, and ben bernanke will talk about the economy at a hearing of the joint economic committee. >> despite the long tradition of extending copyrights to women and people of color and native americans and to younger americans, today a growing number of our fellow citizens are worried about the same disparities and problems that nearly five decades ago some

thought to address. i have heard a drumbeat of concerns from citizens for the first time have reason to believe that we're failing to live up to one of our nation's most noble ideals and the achievements that defined the civil-rights movement now and again in the balance. >> eric holder gave the keynote address tuesday at the inaugural state leaders summit on voting rights. what the rest of the address online at the c-span video library. >> republicans and the obama administration are in agreement on their opposition to any proposal allowing the united nations international telecommunications unit to regulate the internet. they held a hearing on efforts to renegotiate internet regulations at the war conference on international telecommunications in do by this september. witnesses from the state

department and the sec testified. this is two hours of 45 minutes. -- two hours and 45 minutes. >> good morning. i want to welcome our witnesses. we appreciate the testimony. as this is the subcommittee on communications and technology. nations from across the globe will meet at a united nations forum in dubai. if we are not vigilant, it just might break the internet by subjecting it to a regulatory regime designed for old- fashioned telephone service. the internet is the single largest engine of global change is since the printing press.

relinquish theireally wishe grip and moved exponentially. with this came the recognition that the structure must evolve as well. of functions that have previously been managed by and for the government of light network addressing and a domains were spun off. this prevents the governmental or non-governmental actors from controlling the design of the network or the content it carries. it also provides flexibility, enabling the internet to of off quickly. this continues at a staggering pace. by 2016, 45% of the world's population will be internet

users. there will be more than 18.9 billion network connections. the average speed of mobile broadband will be four times faster than it is today, weakening the model. -- four times faster than it is today. this december, at the world conference on international telecommunications in dubai, united nations, international communications union will consider expanding jurisdiction to the internet, replacing the multi-state older model that served the internet and the world so well. the also consider imposing economic regulations on the internet. the itu was originally formed in 1865 for regulation of the telegraph. it finally updated its charter in 1988 by adopting the telephone -- the telecommunications regulation. but even then, the telecommunications world was

dominated by voice telephoning. users compensated each other for you it would be inappropriate to apply an international regulatory scheme developed for the 1980's telephone network to the vibrant and technologically diverse internet. such a regulatory regime ignores the reality of the architecture of the internet. unlike the routing of circuits were calls could be tracked, the networks that comprise the internet cannot adhere to political boundaries. any implementation of international regulatory regime would quickly become so complex as to be unmanageable. we also live in a far more competitive world paired making such economic regulation not only unnecessary, but also counterproductive. the internet has prospered under

the multi-state older model. that model has -- multi- stakeholder model. that model has allowed small businesses around the world to have a global reach, drives investment and innovation, and has even started a revolution or to put -- or to w. -- or two. >> i believe that the bottom-up stakeholder approach model actually allowed economic development and prosperity and all levels of the economy around the world. therefore, when i hear comments from prime minister vladimir putin saying that international control over the internet is one of the stated goals. we cannot allow this to happen.

this will diminish economic prosperity. this conference is about telephone and should not encroach into any discussions into regulation of the internet, whether it is disguised by phone numbers or ip addresses or cyber security. i want to put those on notice who want -- from rush-hour from china or from other countries -- that, when it comes to i regulating the internet, the answer is nyet. >> the ranking democrat on the subcommittee for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to everyone. thank you for having this important hearing. the internet continues to grow and to flourish thanks to its

open structure and multi- stakeholder approach to governance. we have worked hard to make sure that these are the atmosphere for it. it is one of the great sources of pride to our nation, the role that the government originally played, how it went out to the private sector, and it is one of the great success stories of american history. and i am very proud that so much of it resides in my district. according to a recent study commissioned by the new democratic network and the new policy institute, every 10% increase in the adoption of 3 geof 4 g wireless technologies have the potential to add more than 431,000 jobs to our

national economy. as the world conference on international communications prepares to meet later this year to review proposals that could radically alter the internet's future, it is more than fitting for our subcommittee to convene this hearing to hear from some of our nation's leading experts and your also a pride to us -- and you are also with pride to was in the public and private sector. we have gone from dial-up modems to high-speed internet powered by fiber-optic. with this dramatic increase in speed, consumers can experience high-definition video, social networking, video conferencing, and much more without regard to where this content is posted in the world. and i think that is the way it

should be. there is no question that there are real threats facing the potential growth and stability. yond just imposing new regulations on how to internet traffic is handled, several nations are set on asserting government will controls over the internet. we have had some real battles here over the issue of net neutrality. it seems to me that we are calling on the international community for hands-off, and international net neutrality, as it were, when it comes to the

internet. it could bring about censorship and make that the norm. "the decisions taken in dubai in december have the potential to put governments handcuffs on the net." the adoption of these proposals is a very serious threat to the free, transparent, and open internet as we know it today. this is reflected in the by part of some -- bipartisan legislation i introduced with my colleagues yesterday. this is an opportunity to discuss these issues and send a strong message that intergovernmental control over the internet will uproot the innovation of transparency enjoyed by 2.3 billion users around the world and we want to

keep it that way. we want that to double. we wanted to quadruple. we wanted to keep growing. it seems to me that this is of great importance. i also think we need to inoculate other countries with the ideas that will help take them away from where they are now. i don't think this can be america against the rest of the world pair of hiking queenie to form coalitions around the idea that -- arounrest of the world. i think we need to form coalitions around the idea and i think i have one second left. i don't have any time to yield to mr. matsui and i apologize. >> we now recognize the gentleman from michigan for five

minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the international community will meet in december to decide whether it will be regulated under rules designed for the 1980 telephone networks. under the resist -- under the -- moving away from the current multi-stakeholder governance model that has fostered the modern internet. also at issue is whether to impose rate regulation across international borders appeared both of these are terrible ideas. in a time of economic uncertainty and turmoil, the internet does remain a job creation and in that fosters innovation, brings the folks of the world together in new ways to address global discussion of important global matters. the internet has become this juggernaut not because certain actors mated be so, but because the government took a step back.

the model allows the internet community to guide its evolution and is provided the flexibility the internet needs to flourish. the itu were designed around old-fashioned telephone networks and services when there was less competition. the internet is a different technology and this is a different era. international regulatory intrusion on the internet would have disastrous results, not only for the u.s., but for folks around the world. how would strongly years the administration to continue u.s. support for the multi-state older model. i yield back to the gentle lady from california. >> we need to provide the delegation with a clear and unmistakable mandates -- keep the internet free of any government control.

at the discussions, a new treaty of internet durrance will be debated. -- " internet governance will be debated. i have introduced house resolution 127. i would like to thank my co- sponsors. in many ways, this is a referendum on the future of the internet. for nearly a ticket, the un has angling kiley to become the epicenter of -- the un has angling quietly to become the epicenter of internet regulation. if this power grab is successful, i am concerned that the next arab spring will become a russian winter where speech is killed and not allowed to

flourish. we simply cannot let that happen. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> we now recognize mr. stern's. >> thank you, mr. chairman. following up with your comments and chairman up and about the monopoly of the 19th century that we do not want to go back to, is there anybody in this room that thinks that the united nations could competently manage the internet? please raise your hands. at the call the witnesses will testify this morning that we must maintain the current multi- stakeholder decentralized approach. the international telecommunications union is a part of the united nations and would require other countries to fund and build out the communication network and give them full jurisdiction. i don't believe that we want to point this to the u.n. this approach is a fundamental attack to the approach we have

presently. i want to promote the unified bipartisan message against international regulation of the internet. that is why we're here today. i want to emphasize that such an approach that receive from others is a nonstarter for the united states. >> ms. blackburn. >> welcome to our witnesses. we're glad you're here in this room. i have no doubt that, all around the world, people are streaming this hearing because they want to see what our posture on this will be. as you have heard, there is agreement on both sides of the aisle that come my -- that giving authority to an international body puts us at risk. i think the obama administration should be commended for hoping for to this power grab. i think we also need to -- for helping thwart this power grab.

i think we also need to recognize this administration's efforts undermining congress' efforts against the regulatory schemes on the internet because this administration move forward with regulations over the management of internet networks here in the united states. we will continue to work to rein in the regulatory explosion at the fcc. we will deal with those who will put politics before a prosperous internet. having those policies decided that the international level would be the worst thing that could happen for the future of the internet. again, welcome to everyone. i appreciate the time. i yield. >> the chair recognizes the

ranking member, mr. waxman, for five minutes. >> thank you for holding this hearing. it is an important hearing. as we look down the road to the international conference were some of the proposals would fundamentally alter the way the internet operates today, undermining the decentralize multi-state over approach internet governance that has allowed the internet to flourish and become such a powerful engine for social and economic progress. as we will hear from our witnesses today, people can also take from the opening statements, there is a strong bipartisan consensus throughout the administration and congress. we must resist efforts by some countries to impose a top-down command and control management regime on the internet. this bipartisan consensus is reflected on a resolution introduced yesterday by

chairborne a mac and co- sponsored by myself and others. simply put, this resolution affirms that democrats and republicans both want the administration to continue advancing our national commitment to the multi- stakeholder model of internet governance and a global open internet. we have two distinguished panelists today working on this issue. i want to welcome the ambassador will be one of the administration's lead negotiator on the treaty known as the international telecommunications regulations at the world conference on international telecommunications in december. and i believe that ambassador for the year -- ambassador verveer's experience will serviette ministers and well.

-- will serve as the administration while. -- administration well. david gross and sally wentworth both serve to the previous administration and has significant information on the elephant camp -- on telecommunication networks. dr. cirque will be able to provide us a unique perspective on how some of the proposals threaten the security and stability of the internet. we all agree that the current and past administrations deserve credit for preserving ideas and information and commerce.

while we're largely focused on the upcoming world conference, we should not lose sight of the fact that more centralized control of the internet is happening through other international efforts as well. i yield the rest of my time for ms. matsui. >> thank you for yielding me time. i also want to welcome the panelists for joining us today. as we know, in today's global economy, with well over 2 billion users, the internet has become a necessity and not a luxury. that is why i believe that a free transparent and open internet must continue. the current multi-state colder approach has allowed the internet to flourish here in the u.s. and around the world. an international authority over the internet is troublesome,

particularly if those efforts are led by countries where censorship is the norm. i agree with many of our witnesses that -- and interfere with many fundamental principles that allow the internet to be an ecosystem for innovation and growth. i am also pleased that the administration understands these concerns and believes that such an international mandated framework would simply not work. we need to continue to promote innovation and openness of internet around the globe. i believe that the multi-state colder approach must continue to -- multi-state colder -- multi- stakeholder approach must continue. >> we will proceed with the witnesses. we're delighted to have you both

here. ambassador verveer, thank you for being with us. we look forward to your testimony. you need to push the little button. >> chairman walden, ranking member issue and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity. i am particularly pleased to appear with my friend and i am happy that the subcommittee will hear later from my predecessor david growth and sally wentworth who played a significant role during her service in the state department appeared to end of kirsch -- state department. over the years, a relatively small number of governments have made proposals to change today's

successful approach to internet governance been typically, it involves the united nations and one of its many manifestations, including the general assembly, the commission on science and technology development and the international telecommunications union. the proposals have been successfully opposed, but it is important to recognize that this will be a continuing debate. from the privatization of the internet in the mid-1990's, the unity -- united states has been committed to a federal approach prin. -- they are internet dirimen noteworthy for two things. the first is their expertise, exclusivity and openness.

the second is the remarkable success that they have achieved. this is one of the reasons we wish to preserve these institutions as instruments of internet governance. they worked remarkably well. there are two other reasons underlying our commitment. first, it would inevitably diminish the dynamism. for reasons that cannot be overcome, intergovernmental controls would prevent this. second, intergovernmental controls could be recruited in censorship and repression. the u.s. is deeply committed to freedom of expression and free flow of information. we particularly wish to preclude any developments that threaten to reduce internet freedom that

would impair freedom of expression, assembly, or association online. as an alternative to intergovernmental controls, the u.s. encourages governments to adopt multi-stakeholder transparent conditions. with respect to the world conference on international communications, in december, representatives of 193 nations will gather to consider revisions to the uti regulations. there was a concern that it would be a battle over investment in itu with explicit internet governance authority and it would be confronted -- confronting wholly new stand- alone text. in response, the united states said vance and disadvantages of

the basis for treaty negotiations. i am pleased to say that the majority of the members have agreed with us in this regard. the existing itr's has been an existing framework for negotiations. instead, thus far, provisional telecom issues have taken center stage. the state department's preparations for it have been in progress for about 18 months. on an ongoing basis, we host the international telecommunications advisory committee, a forum for all interested parties to review and advise on the regional and national contributions as they are submitted. earlier this month, we established a core delegation, consisting of u.s. current officials. in september, we will complete the delegation with the addition of private-sector members. earlier this week, the president

advised the senate that this election a terry kramer as a united states had a delegation and of his intention to confer rank with this assignment. in a great deal of work has been done, but a great deal more remains to be done. in our work, the u.s. has the significant advantage of unanimity of purpose. the resolution which was introduced this week, which has been mentioned today, is a very important contribution to showing that unanimity. we look forward to continuing to work with the congress as we approach the wicket and other matters of internet governmentg.

i would be very pleased to respond to any questions you might have. >> thank you. we appreciate your testimony and the work you're doing for the country. we now turn to commissioner mcdowell. and we welcome your son as well. do you want to introduce your special assistant there today? >> one of my many supervisors, mr. chairman, my son is 12. it is his first day of summer vacation. but he wanted to see how this tax dollars were being spent. [laughter] >> wow, you brought him appear for that. >> yes, he will have a press conference afterwards. thank you to the members of the subcommittee. it is my pleasure to be here. it is also an extreme honor to be seated next to my friend and colleague ambassador verveer.

first, please let me allowed to dispense quickly and intently any doubts internationally about the bipartisan resolve of the united states to resist efforts to expand the itu's authority over internet matter's been some officials have dismissed their concerns in this issue as mere election-year politics. and nothing could be further from the truth as evidenced by testimony,veveer's as well as from the white house, democratic and republican members of congress, and my friend and colleague jewess jankowski. second, it is important to define the challenge before us. the threats are real and not imagined.

although, they admittedly sound like works of fiction sometimes. for many years now, scores of countries led by china, russia, iran, saudi arabia, and many others have pushed for, as vladimir putin said almost a year ago, international controls of the internet through the i.t. you -- the itu. hi think we should take mr. putin's designed very seriously. six months separate us from the renegotiation of the treaty. what proponents of internet freedom do or don't do between now and then will determine the fate of the internet and effect global economic growth as well as determine political liberty

proliferation. during these negotiations, the most lethal threat to the internet freedom may not come from a full frontal assault, but through insidious and seemingly innocuous expansions of intergovernmental powers. the subterranean effort is already underway. while the influential member states have put forth proposals for over tort -- for overt legal expenses over the internet, itu officials have declared that it does not intend to regulate internet iran's while also saying that any regulation should be light touch variety. but which is it? it is not possible to insulate the internet from new rules also establishing a light touch regulatory regime. either a new legal paradigm will emerge in december or it won't. the choice is binary.

additionally, it is curious to thatitu members have been opining on the outcome of these treaty. i remain hopeful that the diplomatic process will not be subverted in this regard. as a matter process and substance, patience and persistence, incrementalism is the internet's specifically, some officials and members states have been discussing a phone number crisis. things the world may be running out of phone numbers. today many phone number s are used for voice over internet protocol services -- phone sure properly, the services translate traditional phone numbers into

ip our internet addresses. the russian federation has proposed that the ip -- be given jurisdiction to remedy the phone number shortage. potential ip jurisdiction over ip addresses would enable us to regulate internet services and devices with abandon. ip addresses are a fundamental and essential component to the inner workings of the net. taking their administration away from the bottom up, and placing it into the hand of international bureaucrats would be a grave mistake. other efforts to expand the i.t. reach into the internet are seemingly small but large in scope. it would include processing or computer functions. the change would essentially swallow the internet functions

with only a tiny edit to existing rules. when i.t. leadership claims that no member state has proposed absorbing intergovernmental entities, the arab state commission alone demonstrates that nothing could be further from the truth prevented the number of avenues exist to accomplish the same goal it is camouflaged subterfuge that proponents of internet freedom for years to come. other examples come from china. china would like to see the creation of a system whereby. users are registered using their ip addresses. last year, china team up with russia, uzbekistan and others to propose to the un general assembly that it create an international code of conduct for information security to mandate international norms and rules standardizing the behavior of countries concerning

information in cyberspace. does anyone here today believe that these countries proposals would encourage the continued proliferation of an open and free enhancing internet? or would such constructs make it easier for authoritarian regimes to identify and silence political dissidents? these proposals man not technically part of the wicket negotiations, at least not yet, but they give a sense of where some of the i.t. member states would like to go. still other proposals that have been made personally to me by former government officials include the creation of an international universal service fund of sorts, whereby foreign telecom companies would use international mandates to charge a certain weather destination on a berkeley basis to fund the bill out of broadband infrastructure across the globe. estimates of that start at $800 billion. google, itunes, facebook, and

netflix are mentioned most often as prime sources of funding. in short, and in conclusion, the u.s. and like-minded for bonds of internet freedom and prosperity across the globe to resist efforts to expand the powers of intergovernmental bodies over the internet, even in the smallest of ways. with my supplemental statement and analysis that explains in more detail, such a scenario would be devastating to global economic activity as well as the political freedom, but would hurt the developing world the most. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and i look forward to your questions. you said it would put a political deal makers in charge of the future of the internet.

this would slow the pace of innovation, however global economic development, and lead to an air of unprecedented control over what people can say and do online. would you elaborate on that statement for us and then perhaps make a comment or to as well, mr. mandel? >> i would be glad to, mr. chairman. basically, the anxiety we have about top down arrangements involves both the economic performance of the internet in terms of its dynamism, in terms of its ability to react to opportunities. technology changes -- we also are very concerned about whether or not top down, intergovernmental controls would eight in center trichet -- in censorship or repression. that is would aid in any particular country that is concerned about the content that comes into its country, that

crosses its borders, whether or not these kinds of changes might permit it to claim that it is entitled to the aid of other countries and to prevent its -- to prevent unwanted content. we believe both for reasons of economics and reasons of the broader political, cultural, social wealth of the internet, it ought to be kept in operating as it is today. >> mr. revell, any comment? >> -- mr. mcdowell, any comment? >> i cannot really improve upon his answer, but as i said in my opening remarks, i agree with that. >> we have to be a little careful not to hold up multi sm as a coin.is som

the you agree that it is the government's role to make decisions about how the internet operates and to enforce them? >> to answer question directly, no, i think it needs to reinforce the multi stakeholder model. >> i think we agree once again that we want very much to keep the multi stakeholder model as the front and center basis for which -- on which we engage in internet governance. >> it seems like many of the proposals before we get our attempts to internet the regulate as if it is the old- fashioned telephone service? it certainly feels like that to some of us. >> yes, and then some, perhaps with the regulation of content and applications as well, we could go well beyond the old phone service regulation of youre.

>> it is important to understand that these contributions that come in are things that have the kind of implications in many instances that commissioner mcdowell mentioned in his testimony. a lot of them are probably also motivated by an effort to preserve or reinstate the kind of arrangements that existed under the days of boyce great international telephone service. these are possibly in many instances sincerely presented, not intending any more than that. for the reasons the commissioner mentioned, these are probably also mistaken in terms of efforts to find new approaches to regulation. >> in fact, a daughter testimony was very well done, and raises some of these points, just held in city as they can be, and yet

look as if they are not the problem creating. what are the most troubling small changes that have been proposed? >> certainly the arab states' proposal is very troubling. small, definitional change that hopefully no one would notice, then suddenly swallows the internet and expands the i.t. jurisdiction in a tremendous way. it could be something that comes through the phone number in issue or some other issue. it seems like almost every week there is a new issue or a new angle or front that has opened up, a new argument that is tested. it could be any number. >> i have no further questions. i will turn it over now to the ranking member of the subcommittee for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. not only for being here, but for your very strong, knowledgeable voices and advocates on this issue as well.

ambassador, you mentioned in your testimony that many other governments have joined with the united states in pursuing an outcome that would limit the idea involvement in internet governance. can you tell us what the extent of this collaboration is and how are these other governments working with the u.s. to achieve this goal? it seems to me that we have a lot of people, a lot of countries, nation states -- let me put it in a more positive way, that don't share our view of the internet and how operates and how it can continue to operate. how is our coalition doing, and can you do a little bit of a dive on telling us where you think we are with other

countries, which is so important. then i would like commissioner mcdowell to give a state would get 1 01 b g8 to give us a wicket 101. is there time frame on this? is there a discussion that begins this year and extends the next 24 years? the last time that that was almost a quarter of a century ago. i think maybe some already know, i am not so sure i understand how itu exactly going to work when we show up. so if you could handle that one. >> the principal activities to this date in terms of preparation for the conference are being undertaken in regional groupings, of which there are six. our regional grouping of the americas is about something called ctel. the europeans operate in

something else and there is an asia-pacific tel community. i think it is a fair summary that in those three regions, you have a largely consistent set of views about how we should proceed. that is to say that we don't want secrecy one conference become the occasion for any kind of intergovernmental control of the internet. we will, in our preparations with the leadership of our new head of delegation, terry kramer, and we will engage in a great many bilateral discussion. our head of delegation and that the head of delegation engaged in about 50 bilateral discussions, leading up to the conference itself. so we are very actively engaged

in discussions with friends and those who may have differing opinions. that is going to continue on right up to the conference itself. >> where would you say we are? is there still a split? is there consensus that comes around our view more than other views out there, of the regions that you just mentioned? >> i think one way to describe the state of the activities at this point would be to think of this conference as potentially having involved to tracks. the first track would have been an effort at direct regulation of the internet. something that was a source of concern a year or more ago, but i think is less a source of concern now. the only really direct effort i am aware of was a proposal by the russian federation to create

an entirely new framework for the negotiation of entirely new regulations. that effort has been turned back successfully. >> that is very good news. i want to get to commissioner mcdowell. thank you. >> when it comes to the process , we play a supporting role. >> how many are on our team? >> there are 193 member states in theitu and they each have one vote. >> kind of like the senate. >> the idea of every 24 years on the one hand, on the other hand this is almost an annual issue. the itu has many different

conferences. i want to make sure everybody listening understands this is not just about this december, this is just the latest been yet in this drama. we have to -- the v theignette. -- the latest vignette. >> thank you, i recognize myself for questions. mr. upton was supposed to be next, but since he is not here, i will take his time. i am trying to get more up to speed. i am concerned about the secretary general and his relationship with russia and

vladimir putin, and couple that relationship with putin's comments where he is very blunt about his desires to regulate the internet and take control of the internet. so i ask you, is that an unfounded concern, or fear that i have of this relationship when the secretary general of the itu has this relationship. isn't unfounded? is the relationship of concern? what steps are we taking to be able to counterbalance that relationship? >> my view is that the secretary-general is, in fact, very effective and honorable international civil servant, elected to this position and then reelected unanimously the last time.

he is very well respected. he has been very effective. i don't personally have any serious misgivings about his ability to be fair, to be helpful in terms of helping to see that the congress and the ongoing activities take place. he is a man who has a very strong and personal connection with the united states. he lived here for 12 years. >> he has family year? >> to his children are u.s. citizens and i believe resident here. he exemplifies, i believe, a very decent international civil servant in what is a very important and frankly, very complicated job. he has to attend to the legitimate needs and requirements of the united states, but also of the russian federation of china and every other of the 993 countries in

the world. but i don't think we need to have anxieties about his integrity. >> it was a question of his integrity, but that may be his beliefs were close to what prime minister putin had expressed. mr. mcdowell, do you have any concerns or fears about the relationship, other than it puts us behind the eightball, so to speak? >> i will take that analysis at face value. he is more of an expert on it than i am. more important in looking at his background is looking at his public statements on these issues. i think when you read them, they speak for themselves. i don't know, mr. ambassador, soon to be ambassador kramer,

will you walk for your level of confidence in mr. kramer and what preparations he should be taking to make sure that we draw a hard line? >> mr. kramer is a retired senior executive who had worked very extensively, particularly in the wireless business. his career in bald very significant -- in of very significant -- it spun off into a company called air tough which eventually was acquired by vodafone. he spent a good many years of his career as a senior executive. he spent about five years in the united kingdom and in the netherlands involve

invodaphone's extensive international activities. he has been a member of the executive committee of the gsm association. he has spent some time since his retirement teaching at the harvard business school, and he is about to undertake teaching assignments at ucla business school. it is a man of very considerable experience, that in the international communications arena, i think it will prove to be something that is very valuable from our point of view. there will be a learning curve. we are embarking now on terms of helping it. >> i am worried or concerned about whether the learning curve in the few months before the december conference, and i will let somebody else ask that question. at this time, i recognize mr. markey.

[unintelligible] >> tim currently, the inventor of the world wide web, urged us to make sure the web itself is a blank canvas, something that does not constrain the innovation or around the corner. a wonderful thing about the internet, he also reminded us, is that no one needs to ask permission to inundate, could that --, to get their voice heard, to launch a new service or business enterprise. that is the magic of the internet. the internet is the most level playing field for commercial opportunity ever. it is the most successful medium in history. it is the lifeblood of the world economy. last week, vince, who is going

to testify on the sell -- on the second panel, was hired along with several others back in the late 1960's to develop a package which networked and eventually became known as the internet. he wrote just last thursday in the new york times, the decisions taken in dubai in december have the potential to put government handcuffs on the net, to keep the internet open and free for the next generation, we need to prevent a fundamental shift in how the internet is governed. do you think that happen in dubai? >> i think it could happen, but it is very unlikely to happen. many of the countries of the world are very alert to the kind of concerns that were mentioned in the hearing in 2007. the internet is enormously bible

to everyone in the world, and i think it is a fair surmise that almost all of the countries in the world are going to be anxious not to do anything that might damage it. that is a large part of the effort we have made and will continue to make, that there are things that damage it. >> what is the implication behind what china and russia might seek to accomplish if that were successful in what they had been proposing? both of those countries have a concept they call information security. the concept of information security is what we would call cybersecurity, the physical protection of their networks. it goes beyond that to address content that they regard as an unwanted. as much as anything else -- involve regime stability, -- --

redeem preservation, which involves preventing unwanted content from being made widely available. >> commissioner mcdowell, how do you view this threat from china and russia and others, that seek to retain regime stability and can only really pursued it through an international control of the internet. >> for those countries that are offering such ideas that are of authoritarian, like the ones you cite, i don't think it is to start to say their visions of the internet is to have a tyrannical burden. there are a variety motivation throughout the 193 member states to might find a variety of things appealing. it might be telephone companies charging web destinations on a perfectly basis, things that might be a good economic incentive.

i think the primary purpose is to snuff out political dissent. >> we had a hearing in 1987 when the federal communications commission was considering a proposal that would have permitted charges up on the core of the screen on the internet, rather than an all you can the kind of proposal. mr. ambassador, are you gratified by the response you are receiving from other countries in their line and with the united states? are these proposals coming from totalitarian states? cracks by and large, we are gratified by the responses we have seen. we find a significant number of our allies have been prepared to step up to also oppose what we regard as a fundamentally bad

idea. i am very confident that if we have the opportunity over the next six months to continue these discussions, we are likely to end up with what we will all find to be adequate strauss- -- in many instances, they do agree with us. they seem to value the internet as a mechanism for economic and broader improvement. >> do you have a list of a few countries that agree with us? >> we get a good deal support from japan in terms of activities in the asia pacific tel community. we are getting a good deal of support from not only canada and mexico, but other countries in our hemisphere in terms of some of the proposals that we make. many of the european countries are very well line with us in terms of the issues and values

that we think are most important in terms of preserving. so we see very substantial support for the broad use that we have about the internet. which is again, not to say that this is fully resolved. there's a great deal more work that needs to be done at this conference and into the indefinite future. >> congratulations to the obama administration for their excellent work. >> mr. ambassador, with these 193 countries meeting in dubai, and mr. markey touched upon, how many support us. how many boats are we short of having the majority support our position exactly -- how many votes are we short. you don't know?

idyllic concern that you don't even know. i understand we are about nine votes short. do you think that is an accurate representation? >> no. if i could explain. the conference will follow theitu -- >> there'll never be a vote krista mark critz if you don't mind, i would like to answer yes or no if possible, just because i do not have the time. there will be no vote. so we don't have to worry about who is for us and who is against us? >> we do have to worry about that. first, it is important to understand it will be many different contributions. >> i understand. do they work on the basis of consensus? the move forward without a vote? is that what happens? >> that is, in fact, what happens. but so it will be a vote but it

will be secretly through a consensus, and based upon that report will be written, in that report will be issued, and that will be the heartfelt answer to the by conference. is that a fair estimation of what will happen? >> there will be negotiations over individual proposals in terms of international telecommunications regulations. those will yield presumably some agreement on words and phrases in terms of the regulation. >> so we as legislators have an understanding, can you give me today how many votes we are short of a consensus? >> i cannot tell you brubecks 10 votes short? 100 votes short? can you not just give me a broad brush? >> i think it is impossible. >> commissioner, in comments you want to say on this? you might suggest what as a legislator, i and my colleagues

could do here, based on this evolving consensus where it appears we are nine votes short? >> going back to the dialogue with congressman markey, it is important that it not be an issue of the united states -- >> i think we need to cultivate allies in the developing world and have the most to lose if this goes forward. that is where we need to be working up the votes. >> is there anything the fcc is doing right now that would impact this itu restore >> we have an international bureau that works on this closely through the state department. they are working with members states throughout the world. >> you mentioned in your extended testimony the potential outcome of a balkanized internet. could you perhaps expand on this? what would be the consequences for the united states and other countries. >> whether it is december or

sometime in the future, i would like to suggest that maybe we do a post quick hearing at some point to see how things went and what is going to happen in the future. what i mean would be, are there countries that would opt out of the current model and shoes this top-down regulatory regime, in which case the network is a -- the internet is a network of networks without borders. at a minimum, it would create chaos, confusion, and economic uncertainty. that always leads to increased costs. these are always passed on to consumers, at a minimum. at a maximum, we would see a wilting of the proliferation of political freedom and prosperity abroad and we would see innovation snuffed out in the cradle. we will never know what innovations might have come to fruition. the great thing about the

internet is you just need access to computer and internet connection in order to create the next great idea. that could come from somewhere in the developing world to >> what are the other top three or four countries that want to put this under the heat un auspices -- under the un auspices. >> there are certain arab states. >> can you name them? egypt? >> egypt has certainly taken some position, but not complete steps in that direction. there have been efforts -- >> tunisia? saudi arabia? >> saudi arabia has from time to time taken steps were taken positions -- >> it would be fair to say that

other nations other than israel are supporting this? >> we see support from some of the arab states, yes. the thing that is critically important to understand is that in terms of the genuinely hard- line opponents to the arrangements as we see them today, they tend to be states that we have already mentioned, that otherwise there are subtleties and nuances that are substantial. >> my time has expired. it is just ironic that with the arab spring, a lot of these companies want to put it into a malt -- into a monopoly type operation. >> ambassador, i want to talk wicket.out the wea

you mentioned that have not been revised since about 28 years ago. it is worse than the taurus and hair. it is more like we are at work speak -- warlike keep talking -- more like the tortoise and the hare. is there a schedule to examine them again? >> first, it is important to understand that there has been .ressure to reexamine the itr's the u.s. has taken the view of many years that it was not necessary to do this. in 2006, the decision was made that it would happen this year. the idea behind that, more than any other, is something that has been made plain at this hearing,

which is that the world has changed so dramatically that it seemed like it was time to review the itr's. they do have a great many things that continue to be of value and should be preserved. with those scheduled beyond his upcoming conference to revisit the itr's on any basis. generally, this is not something that has achieved a great deal of momentum. >> once discussion begins, as it has, and the country, because of recent history, have become involved in the internet, and seeing the positives as well as the-earth as far as some of these countries that really look toward censorship. isn't it possible this will be a

continuing process and we should be on alert now that the collaboration must continue because as we know, and technology just keeps rapidly expanding. we are not sure exactly what the next big thing is. is there an opportunity, and i suppose it is a multi stakeholder process, to open it up war to more stakeholders, to non-governmental stakeholders which i believe has been spoken about. do you agree on that, and how can the u.s. government advocate for greater transparency in this process, since that is sort of a sounding a lot for some of the other countries? >> it is certainly true that there has been criticism, and i think it is legitimate criticism about the ability of the nine members of the i.t. you to be

aware of the deliberations, be aware of what is taking place in terms of preparation for this conference, and more broadly. we are prepared through the itu council and the good efforts of are represented on the council for many years to propose to the council that its report, which is going to be very important document in the scheme of things, that its report in preparation for the week it be generally available. it would be very useful if we could find more ways to have more of the documents more widely available to all of the interested stakeholders in the world. >> this question is for both of you. there should be more openings in the process for knowledge,

increase of knowledge here even in the united states. we tend to take the internet for granted in this country. we see what has happened with the arab spring and realize how it has affected other countries. to a great degree we forget that -- what would happen if the worst scenario happened and things would close down. i am curious, what would happen if the worst happened here? what would happen here in the country with those resolutions -- with they immediately become law? what steps can the u.s. take to limit its participation and treaty? i kind of want to know what would happen, if either of you can answer that. >> this is a very important point that you are bringing to us tonight.

it is conventional, and we assuredly will take a very broad reservation from whatever is agreed at the conference. virtually every other country will do the same thing. so you have countries agreeing that they will abide by the provisions of the treaty, unless for some reason they will not. typically there reasons will be extraordinarily broad. the second thing is important to understand. there is no enforcement mechanism associated with this. these are preparatory, as many other aspects of international law or. so is not reasonable to assume that if something really ruin this were to be adopted as a particular regulation, you would see countries against our interest in forcing that regulation. there is no other way for it to be done.

this conference and all the executives are extremely important terms of establishing norms and expectations, and trying to help with respect to both the commercial activities and the free flow of information. they are very different from a law with the congress that might be adopted that would be subject to all the enforcement mechanisms that are available creek >> commissioner mcdowell, can you add to this? >> i don't think i could say it any better than he could, in the observance of time. >> thank you very much. >> the other gentle lady from california, mary bono-mack. >> thank you both for your testimony. there is no doubt that you feel strongly. it is hard to question witnesses when you are trying to make them agree with you more than they already do, but i will do my best to try to get out of here

-- to get out of your little bit of explanation. the biggest mission for the american people reject us started talking about this well over a year. people view me of in atinfoil hat on my head. we clearly understand the arab spring in what it means, and the internet is the biggest tool for freedom around or that mankind has ever seen. setting that aside, can you talk a little bit about the proposal and how it would impact u.s. business and what it means for the bottom line of business, should this occur? >> thank you for your leadership on this issue in the early days there were a lot of folks who questioned whether or not this was real. thank you for your leadership. at a minimum, it creates uncertainty and drives up costs. that alone can be damaging.

let's take an example. harvard and m.i.t. recently announced they are going to offer courses online for free. the concept could be put at risk if costs are raised. ultimately, consumers pay for those costs of one way or the other. they always -- at a maximum, you have some sort of bifurcated internet, cross border technologies such as cloud computing, which is becoming essential to creating efficiencies, bringing more value to consumers, and raising living standards ultimately. that could be jeopardized as it becomes harder to figure out how you engineer these technologies across borders, when in the past, the internet did not have to worry about that as much. >> i certainly would agree with the commissioner on that.

it is perfectly fair to observers that the free flow of commercial information is something that has added, as these studies have been cited this morning, has added immeasurably to the world's wealth. we are very anxious that there not be anything that would inhibit that. for example, there were have been some suggestions made by some countries that we ought to have a quick charge, the content providers ought to contribute to the cost of -- transmission companies. there are many reasons that seemed to us not to be a good idea at all. you see what could turn out to be marginal impositions on the internet. it would in fact interfere with the commercial value of it, and we are anxious to avoid that.

>> we do speak a little bit -- in your testimony you mentioned that their proposals were under consideration that would allow governments to restrict taunted and monitor internet users. is the u.s. working now to prevent companies from already censuring the internet? >> we are very anxious, as you might imagine, to overcome any suggestions if they are content related restrictions. suggestions of this time come as commissioner miguel indicated in his testimony, not especially in the context -- but in other forums as well. they tend to come from countries that have -- i suppose it is easy to say, nondemocratic traditions. as a result, on one hand, we are dealing with what are almost

certainly sincere beliefs that stability is very important, that there are, in fact, objectionable, either from a political perspective or from cultural perspectives. there is such a thing as objectionable so much that it ought to be excluded. this set of issues arises more extensively in the kind of suggestion that russia and the others had made in the context of the united nations. >> my time is up. i just want to thank you both very much for your hard work in this position. >> thank you. marion and i want to thank you for your good efforts on your resolution.

>> i am proud of the work you have done it with henry waxman to make it bipartisan. we are all in agreement on this one. mr. dingell? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your courtesy. i would like to welcome my old friend, the ambassador. he is a friend and resource to this committee. he was bureau chief under three bureaus back in the 1970's and served at the departure of justice before that. while i look forward -- i look forward to our exchange. commissioner mcdowell, we appreciate your service, and thank you for being here this morning. you are wise counsel has been helpful to me on many occasions. this is a yes or no answer. is it true that some members of the itu may propose revisions in

, for issues such as internet privacy and cybersecurity? yes or no regrets the answer is yes. >> you are both witnesses. do you believe it is wise for the u.s. to accede to international standards on matters not settle definitively? that is privacy and cybersecurity by congress. yes or no? >> it is on lies for us to get too far in front of the overall consensus. >> you find that to be rushing things, is that right? >> it should be a bad idea. >> i don't like to do that, but we have a lot of ground to cover. now, again, to both of our witnesses. i understand that some countries

like russia and china believed that "policy authority for internet related public issues is the sovereign right of states and not multi stakeholders. is that correct? yes or no. >> i understand their position, yes, sir do >> do you agree with their position? >> no, we do not. >> in your opinion, is it wise to maintain international multi stakeholder regulatory process that more closely resembles the act model that was used in the united states, as opposed to what china and russia proposed? yes or no. if i understand the question correctly, i would not want a

legal paradigm put in place of a multi stakeholder model. i want to make that point clear. >> it looks like we are in agreement then, at least on these matters. i would like to ask about an unrelated matter. i know your broker where the president has signed legislation which print -- permits an incentive option in which television broadcasters have elected to return their licenses in return for a portion of the option revenues. that legislation includes the amendment offered by mr. bilbray and i to coordinate with canadian and mexican authorities so that consumers in border regions will not lose access to television signals when the incentive option is over.

mr. ambassador, would you please bring this up a committee of to speed on where things stand with canada and mexico with respect to this very important matter, and particularly so to my constituents. that there are no additional frequencies available or playstation in my hometown detroit if the ban is prepack. i have to ask you to be brief on this and perhaps you might want to submit some additional comments to the record. >> there are treaty obligations we have with canada that are designed to protect broadcasters on both sides of the border. this is a problem not just in the area of detroit but also in new york state. >> there also in washington, montana, along the borders of minnesota and oregon and other

places, too. >> he likewise on the mexican border. these are things that have to be work dealt by agreement between the two countries. in addition, there is a legislative mandate that no one be disadvantaged if they choose to continue to broadcast. this is going to be a complicated engineering matter. it may or may not be something that will permit any changes in the status quo in the border regions. but both the readings and that statutory observations will be observed here >> commissioner macdonald, you are working on this that the commission, i know. can you assure me of the commitment to full transparency on this matter? yes or no. >> yes, i cannot speak for the chairman of the other side. >> i am little less comfortable about some of the other folks down at the commission.

i recognize that you speak for yourself. are you comfortable that everybody else at the commission shares your good will on this matter? >> i certainly hope so. >> i do, to. i am like the fellow walking down the street and asked him, are you an optimist or a pessimist. they said why are you running? >> he said because i am not sure my optimism is justified. >> thank you, and now we recognize the delayed from tennessee for five minutes. >> thank you all for being here. mr. ambassador, a couple of questions for you. when was the last time that the state department published a notice of an official meeting to prepare for the week 12 --the

wicket 12? >> i am not sure that we did. we have an obligation to publish notices. >> let me help you out with that a little bit. because the last notice that i could find was in january 11, the last public notice. but from what i have been able to find out, the state department is holding regular meetings of interested stakeholders on a regular basis, and you have done this all year long to prepare for the conference -- isn't that correct? >> that is correct. >> and is your staff holding regular conference calls and managing a list serve for stakeholders to circulate position and -- in advance of

the preparatory meeting? >> that is also correct. >> so first of all, how do you get on the listserv so that you are aware of what is going on, and secondly, how can my constituents that are not just the largest and wealthiest companies on the internet, or the intellectual elite, to participate in the process if there is no way for them to know how to participate in that process or when the meetings are going to take place, or how to get involved. how do we advise them on this? >> first, you are obviously raising a very important and very legitimate question. the notices that were made, and my recollection of the guys we got from lawyers at the state department was that we could notice -- provide a general

notice as a legal matter for these regular meetings. it is very easy to get on the list serve, but you have to know who to contact. anyone who wishes to be on the list certainly can be. >> i would like to make certain that we take care of this, because this is going to be the most transparent administration in history. here we get to an issue that is very important to a lot of my constituents. they feel blocked out of this process. i appreciate that you have been an outspoken critic of wicket 12 and i appreciate your efforts. let me ask you this. if you have been to nashville, we have done a town hall there in asheville. you know that i have a lot of constituents that want to participate in this process, and

you know they are very concerned about what international control of the internet would do to them and do to their livelihoods. how do we go about this, if the ftc does not have an open docca for comment? don't you think that would be a good idea, to have an opendoc it that these small business operators would be invited into for comment? at one. there was one, but there does not seem to be now. i think the early 2010, there was an opendoc it. tell me how we go about fixing this. >> the best vehicle for that would be something called a notice of inquiry that the sec could open up on what they

should be doing in terms of the state department taking a lead on week 12. let me ask you this. one of the things, as i looked at this issue with the docca, one of the things that concerns me is that the fcc still does have an open proceeding to reclassify the internet services. tell me this. how is that open proceeding different from the proposals and from ofitu, and should we not close that docca immediately? >> yes, we should. i have been very public about that for many years. at think it sends the wrong signals internationally and i think it should be closed as soon as possible. >> thank you for that. my time has expired. i thank you for the time and the questions.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome the commissioner and the ambassador, and thank you for your testimony. it's great to have such bipartisan support and i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for having this hearing as we approach the wcit. i am not sure that all the questions that needed to be asked have not been asked. some suggested the need for greater transparency and accountability in the process. do you agree, and if you do think there is a need for greater transparency, can be accomplished without regulations that hamper the free and open access of the internet? but the but i understood your question correctly about that as our ability a greater transparency, yes, it would be

desirable. we have recommended various measures along those lines over the years and have seen some of them come to fruition and some not. there are steps that we can and do take here in the u.s. to help understand what -- making materials available to us as members theitr. we are proposing that the council report, which will be a critical document, one of the most critical documents going forward, should be made public once it is, in fact, issued, following a council working group session in the next several weeks. >> commissioner, did you have anything to add? >> i have nothing further to add. i have heard time and time again i have heard time and time again fr