romney will send congress a ill -- congress a bill on day one that cuts nondefense discretionary spending 5% across the board. rick perry, starting in 2010, we ask them to identify 5% savings in the 2010-2011 biennium and the 2012-2013 biennium. the bottom line is it works. the across the board cuts work. we know that the governors know that. the american people have grown so tired of the wasteful, washington, out-of-control spending. they want to see cuts made. let's do this for our children and grandchildren. let's cut one penny out of every dollar and have the bureaucracy do exactly what our small businesses are doing every single day, sitting down, making cuts, figuring out how

their goir -- how they're going to handle very difficult economic times. i ask exr the -- i ask for the support and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? . mr. frelinghuysen: our bill cuts $1 billion from the president's request and below 2009 levels. while difficult tradeoffs have been made, the bill balances our needs and cut out new spending on poorly performing programs yet the gentlelady's amendment proposes an crook cut on every one of these programs. that's not the way governor

christie does it in new jersey. he looks at each program, considers its merit and considers if it will promote jobs and unlike a state budget, we're responsible for nuclear security, for our nuclear stockpile and national security needs. this is not the way to approach budget cutting. i urge the house to reject this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i add my voice to the chairman in opposition. the gentlewoman talked to a 1% cut. several years ago, this nation spent more money in one city than we did in every water projects. the city was new orleans because we didn't make the proper investment up front. i don't think we should risk losing one life and i acknowledge we reduced the

corps' budget by $260 million. we have at least a third of the harbors in this nation that are not dredged to depth. every time a ship comes in or leaves, there is one job lost. there is one dollar of profit that is lost. those are the numbers that i'm worried about and i oppose the gentlelady's amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. blackburn: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 393.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas, page 56 after line 24, insert the following new section, section 510, none of the funds made available by this act for department of energy, energy programs, science, may be used in contravention of the department of energy organization act, 42 u.s. cr 707001. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i hope to offer an amendment that is a reflection of the time that i served on the science committee for 12 years and now almost a decade-plus on homeland security. when we speak about jobs, we

understand that jobs equate to education. and the education that is the key of today in the 21st century is science, technology, engineering and math. i had the privilege of participating in one of the largest robotic competitions among students from around the world, hosted in houston, texas, sponsored by the harmony schools. it was amazing to see the outstanding and talented young people, particularly from the united states, but hosting individuals from around the world. the comrades and how to use engineering, science, technology and math and improve the lives of all in who live in this world is is amazing. we must create a new generation of inventors, knowledgeable about science, technology, engineering and math. similar to what nasa did in

inspiring young people to go into biology and chemistry and a variety of sciences to become as fro nauts and doctors. and science, technology, engineering and math are key. the economic u.s. base has shifted. in this information-driven economy, the most valuable assets and human resources in science, technology, engineering and math. this can be bolstered. it is so important, then, to ensure that we prepare the next generation. this amendment is simply a restatement and affirmation of the importance of the fact of the department of energy, energy programs, science and that we reinforce the value of these programs. i have seen it firsthand and promoting and many members as well, science, technology,

engineering and math in their particular community. the national assessment of progress show that fewer 40% of students at every grade level tested are proper efficient in science and math. so i ask my colleagues to just reinforce our commitment to job creation, to science, technology, engineering and math, to world peace to the collaboration of young people in this generation moving forward to make a better quality of life for all. i reserve my time. mr. frelinghuysen: would the gentlelady yield some time? we are prepared to accept your amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from texas controls the time. ms. jackson lee: i didn't hear the gentleman. mr. frelinghuysen: we are prepared to accept your

amendment. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much and i thank the committee for its work. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: will the gentleman specify which amendment. mr. luetkemeyer: number 79. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill, before the short title

insert the following section, none of the funds available in this act may be used to conduct the study by the army corps of engineers pursuant to section a-1 of the water resources act of 2007. the chair: the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the the gentleman is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: families living along the missouri river left them under water. in 2012, tax dollars have gone toward environmental restoration programs while maintenance of our nation's infrastructure has gone neglected. president obama requested $90 million for the missouri river program which would go toward environmental, restoration

studies and projects. this figure should alarm my colleagues. in fiscal year 2012, the president requested $70 million. these are staggering increases from the request that was seen in fiscal year 2008. moreover, fiscal year 2013 request dwarfs the insufficient $7.8 million requested for the entire navigation program from sioux city to the mouth of the missouri. i do not take for granted the ecosystems. i grew up along the missouri river. we have reached a point in our nation where we value the welfare of fish and birds more than the welfare of ourl fellow human beings. our priorities are backwards. this amendment passed by voice vote during the 2012

appropriations consideration is supported by the coalition to protect the missouri river, the missouri and illinois farm bureaus and the corn growing association and proposes a plan. the end of the study will no way jeopardize the plan. is is one of the studies focused on the missouri river. the people who foot the bill for these studies, many of which take years to complete are the very people who lost their farms or businesses and their homes. this amendment will eliminate a study that has become a tool for the return of the river to its most natural state with little regard to flood control, trade, power generation or the people who depend on the missouri river. a vote will show our constituents that this congress is aware of the gross disparityy

between funding for environmental efforts and funding for the protection of our citizens. the house passed by a voice vote this exact language which was signed into law by president obama. it's time for congress to take a look at water development funding priorities and send a message to the federal authorities that take care of our waterways and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i seek time in opposition. i do rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. the water bill 2007 which was passed with a very bipartisan support, so much so that it overcame a presidential veto, authorized the corps to undertake the missouri river ecosystem restoration plan and

develop the missouri river recovery implementation committee to consult on the study. this authority provided a venue for collaboration between the 70 stake holder groups of tribes, states, public interest groups, federal agencies to develop a shared vision and comprehensive plan for the restoration of the missouri river ecosystem. at this time, by prohibiting the corps by expending any 2013 funds on the study and the committee, we would continue to delay that start. and i believe this would be very short-sided and lead to a further erosion of trust. while the corps will continue to comply with endangered species requirements through other activities, there is a role for a long term plan for this basin and would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. and i would yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk, 398. >> i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri is postponed. ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk, number 398. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, for an additional amount for department of energy, energy programs, energy efficiency and renewable energy as authorized by sections 131-c-4, 131-d-4.

207-c. 229-d. 322-f. 452-f-1. 625-e, 652 high d. 656-j. 703-and 807 c-2 a 1303-c of the energy independence and security act of 2007, section 712-c and 1008 f of the energy policy act of 2005 and section 399 hafe a-i of the energy and conservation act there is appropriated and the amount otherwise made available for atomic energy policies, weapons activities is hereby reduced by $10 million.

the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: for a number o ms. jackson lee: for a number of years i practiced energy law in the state of texas. i have worked with advocacy groups crying out for an energy policy in this nation, one that would respect the assets we have been blessed with in this country. texas has been blessed with a number of assets, including wind and solar, fossil fuel and shale. opportunities to ensure that america remains independent in the quest for energy independence. my amendment recognizes the holistic approach to energy, recognizing the various resources that our state has and many other states, it is a

very, very small contribution but important contribution for energy efficiency and renewable energy program. whenever you speak to the nult nationals, i -- multinationals, i will assure you all of them have within their companies an emphasis or section on energy efficiency and renewable energy. this is an essential office that invests in clean energies technologies created to strengthen our economy and our environment. it works well and simultaneously along with other various departments in the department of energy. this development program promises research providing funds to innovators to give them what they need to develop energy efficient equipment to be used here at home and in the transportation and infrastructure market. this can create jobs this program is designed to develop

cost efficient methods through the use of renurebl energy practices for the home. financial incentives are provided to builders who use method that result in reduction of energy use in construction as well. manufacturers within the transportation industry who research and design energy efficient vehicles. i've had the privilege of going through energy constructed homes. what a unique difference. build education -- builders across america are crying out for the opportunity to experiment with these very special unique tools. i would ask my colleagues to consider the job creation aspect of renewable energy and the role that it plays in a holistic energy policy. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve my time. i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman. >> i appreciate the gentlelady yielding and i simply voice my support for her amendment. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico.

mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in on sig to the bill. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: the amendment would risk our nuclear security activities to add renewable energy programs. our bill preserves funding for that account's highest priorities and those accounts that help advance american manufacturing, help our countries -- companies compete demrobally and help address soaring gas prices. additional funding for renewable energy is unwarranted especially when it comes at the expense of national security. so i strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the gentlewoman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: how much time do i have, mr. chairman. -- mr. chairman? the chair: the gentlewoman has two and a half minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: i respect the

gentleman and thank the gentleman from indiana very much for his support of the amendment and thank him for his leadership. i appreciate the chairman's commentary but that is why i attempted to be very responsible and balanced. this is a mere, though i take that word seriously, $10 million and let me tell you why it is enormously important. the u.s. department of energy report found that when energy -- wind energy could supply 20% of the nation's electricity by 2030. we are fast approaching that which could entail 300,000 mega watts of new producing power. states arn the united states would have a great funt for -- opportunity for increased job creation. again a holistic approach to energy. nearly $100 million would be saved if the energy improved. as a member of the committee overseing the homeland security

department, i know we look at all aspects to secure our nation. energy independence, despite our diversity in resources is important. that's why i believe a holistic approach is crucial. this helps the holistic approach. as we continue with states that deal with fossil fuel, this is equally important. 30% of build sgs used inefficiently or unnecessarily. ethanol is helping to reduce our nation's dependence on oil and offers a variety of economic and environmental benefits. again, i'm not too unappreciative if you will of the diversity of energy in this country, not to look at all aspects of it. and i do hope we can have a holistic approach. i think this contributes to that holistic approach, taking into account all aspects of energy and a unified energy policy. ski my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i would like a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further pr seedings on the amendment offered by the yom from texas, ms. jackson lee, will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk, i think it's designated number 78. chip the -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. luetkemeyer of modse. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds may be made available for the missouri river projects authorized in section 108 of the energy and water development and related agencies appropriation act, 2009, division c-public law 111-8. the chair: pursuant to thed orer of the house today, the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, and a member

opposed, each will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. chairman. last year, parts of the missouri refer pay sin faced some of the worst flooding in history this deaf station, combined with our dire financial climate means that now more than ever we must be deliberative, focused and responsible with taxpayer-funded projects and studies. my amendment would prohibit funding for the duplicative missouri river authorized purposes study, also known as mreps. this was passed in fisscats --physial keer 2011 and 2012 debates. mrapss a comprehensive study on the heels of a 35-year study -- 17-year study completed in 2004. some would say we need it to examine the causes and impacts of the 2011 flooding. that isn't the case. first and foremost, every member of the missouri river

basin is on record as supporting flood control as the most important thored purpose. it's something we take seriously. the last thing we need is another 17-year, litigious study to tell us flood control is important. thousands of missouri residents who lost their homes and businesses deserve action, not distraction. we need to take legitimate steps that focus on protecting life and property and improving the safety and soundness of our flood control system. it is also important to note the many commercial advantages provided by our inland waterway system. the missouri river plays an integral part in both the domestic and international trade. mraps puts the uses of the missouri and mississippi rivers in yep ar diwhich could result in devastating consequences for navigation along both. that's why the missouri and iowa corn growers associations and the missouri and illinois farm bureaus among others support this amendment this

study is duplicative and wasteful of taxpayer dollars. on this exact issue, we have spent 17 years and $35 million on hundreds of public meetings and extensive litigation. again, i offer identical language to the 22011 continuing resolution that passed by 145-246. in 2008 this exact lang wamming was passed by a voice vote and included in a package signed by the president. i thank my creags for their past support and hope to have their support again. there is no doubt in my mind that water resources receives too little funding. it is time for the federal government to refocus and reprioritize to key ate safer and more efficient infra structure for our waterways and stop spending unnecessarily. i ask for my colleagues' support of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. does anyone seek recognition? the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i move to strike the last word. my understanding is there is no money in the bill nor prompt. i don't know why the gentleman is offering but, but i have no objection to it and i yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule , further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? who seeks recognition?

>> i have amendment number 17 at the desk. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> mr. speaker, i have amendment number 17 at the deffing. -- at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cravaack of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to thed orer of the house today, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. cravaack, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized for

five minutes. mr. cravaack: i rise to offer an amendment that would protect universitys, nonprofits and businesses who receive federal grants from having to implement the light bulb ban. even though the department of energy has prohibited from carrying out the light bulb ban by last year's energy and water appropriations bill, this will, in this bill as well, in section 316 of f.y. 2012 omnibus appropriations bill, however, included a requirement that receipts of all department of energy grants in exezz of $1 million certify that they will replace all light bulbs in their facilities that do not meet the energy efficiency standards instituted by the 2007 nrnl bill. this requirement was driven by the senate. the house-passed d.o.e. spending bill that did not include a similar provision or debate and vote on this significant requirement. this is particularly burdensome provision that in some ways goes well beyond the actual

light bulb ban that prohibits manufacturer -- manufacture and sale of 100 watt bulbs and beginning in july 2013, 75-watt bulbs. rather than allowing the d.o.e. grantees to replace bulbs as they burn out this forces small businesses and universitys across the country to immediately replace existing light bulbs. this makes absolutely no sense. this forces extra cost on grant recipients and effectively means funds transfer otherwise intended for actual research activities must be dedicated to purchasing new light bulbs to replace perfectly functional ones this amendment allows the house to explicitly go on record opposing this unnecessary and burdensome requirement. i encourage my colleagues to support this common sense amendment and i reserve the plans of my time. i will yield.

mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to support the gentleman's amendment. mr. cravaack: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i firmly believe that the issues that inspired congress to enact energy efficiency standards in 2007 have not changed. if anything, they have gotten worse. families continue to struggle every day to meet rising energy bills and they're a rah -- and there are real savings to be had by moving to more efficient illumination. however if this bill is going to carry a provision prohibiting the department of energy from implementing and enforcing the light bulb efficiency standards, then it does not make much sense to hold d.o.e. grant recipients to the standard. i surmise that most recipients of d.o.e. grants who tend to be prepretty energy savvy, have already made the transition to efficient light bulbs and are

enjoying their energy savings as we in the house rehash and debate the exaggerated death of the incandescent light bulb. therefore, i do not oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman fromnd in and -- from minnesota and i yield back my time. . the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: 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 minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. cravaack: i have number 58 at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cravack of minnesota.

monday of the funds may be used to develop or submit a proposal to expand the authorized uses of the harbor maintenance trust fund described in the internal revenue code 26 u.s.c. 9505. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: in the transportation committee last year, assistant secretary for civil works testified that the administration was preparing to expand the scope of projects eligible to harbor trust fund money. while i support the funding of port security through appropriations, i oppose repurposing the harbor trust fund while our infrastructure is

in disrepair. eight out of 10 harbor ares are not dredged to their width and depth. this has a direct effect. when the american ships have to light load, american economic productivity is lost. for instance, every inch silted n per voyage leaves 8,000 tons of iron ore and that can produce 6,000 cars. this increases transportation costs for our exports and decreases our national economic competitiveness. every billion dollars in exports translates into 15,000 jobs. we must, mr. chairman, ensure that the monies intended for dredging are not put off for other programs.

my amendment would prohibit monies being used and develop a plan and draft legislation to expand the scope of projects eligible to receive money. american shippers are taxed specifically to maintain the channels they and our nation depend on. it is imperative that we ensure that the harbor trust fund money be expended the way they were intended. i'm thankful that the administration has dropped this misguided proposal, but the only way to ensure this doesn't return in a midnight rule is to prohibit the funding in this bill. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise in mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: while i agree with the gentleman from minnesota that the monies from the trust fund should not be diverted from their intended purpose of dredging, i think it is an overreach to prohibit the executive branch from even discussing the topic. i do think we are in a position where looking forward we ought to allow other branches of government to talk about ideas and concepts so they can be debated by this body. additionally, we all know that any proposal put together by the executive branch to expand eligible activities under the harbor maintenance trust fund without first addressing the surplus and dredging backlog issues would not be considered in either house of congress. again, i do not believe that the amendment is necessary. with that being said, i do not oppose its conclusion in the bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. cravaack: i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. harris: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. harris of maryland. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from maryland, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. harris: this amendment would prohibit the use of funds from international projects including

the president's plan to spend $600,000 on sustainable cities and projects in china and india. my amendment is identical to one i offered last year that was adopted by this chamber. i would like to congratulate the chairman of the committee for his own action regarding this issue. the chairman bill reduces funding by $428 million. and makes the hard choices required to address our spending problems. this amendment supports language in the report that accompanied the f.y. 2012 appropriations bill. in that report, the chairman was able to retain much of last year's amendment to fund projects that directly benefit the united states such as increasing american energy self-sufficient si and reducing domestic pollution. unfortunately the department of energy is failing to follow these clear instructions and

choosing to spend money in china and india on foreign sustainable projects even as we borrow money to pay our debt. we must take care in how we spend money. this isn't the best use of taxpayer money. there are greater needs that are unmet and an annual deficit that drags down our entire economy. i urge adoption of the amendment. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition in opposition? for what purpose does the gentleman from -- mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from maryland. the amendment would essentially create an energy renewable program for the u.s.-israeli

program by restricting the eere international program from dealing with any other country. i'm a supporter of the country of israel and it has a cutting-edge clean-energy industry, but i do not believe we ought to limit this program to one country out of many. and think that it will be a mistake to put all of our international program eggs into a single basket. this was to advance development of clean energy technologies and needs to establish relationships with multiple-partner countries in order to be effective. the activities help prime markets for us for clean technologies in major emerging economies. the program brings hard lessons learned from other experiences to share at the national, state and local authorities. the program can also promote

u.s. national security and potentially reduce price volatility of fossil energy resources by decreasing the influence of oil-exporting countries in mitigating demand for oil. this is an excellent program and i don't think it ought to be limited to one country and am opposed to the gentleman's amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10

offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. mr. burgess: the passage in this house back in 2007 of the energy independence and security act was something that has caused a great deal of difficulty across the country. iffer heard from tens of thousands of my constituents on how that language will affect their lives, take away consumer choice for what kind of light bulbs they use in their home. and you know what? they are exactly right. when the government passed energy efficiency standards, they never wept as far as they did this time, they lowered the standards drastically and the technology is years off in making light bulbs in complying with the law and affordable for the consumer.

light bulb companies have talked about their new bulbs that are compliant with the existing law and are available now but at what price? a four-pack cost $2.97 at a hardware store last december 31. now a single bulb will cost $20, 30, $40. opponents to my seament say the 2007 language does not ban the incan descent bulb, that's partly true but bans the sale of the 100-what the of the bulbs because they cannot meet the energy standards supplied in the underlying legislation. the replacement bulbs are far from economically efficient. but here's the deal we shouldn't be making these decisions for the american people and let them decide how much energy they want to consume and dollars they want

to spend on kilowatt hours, not the federal government. a family can't afford to replace every light bulb in their house at $20 a pop. this exact amendment wases passed last year on a voice vote and signed into law by president obama. it allows consumers to continue to have a choice and a say as to what they put in their homes. it's common sense and give relief to the american family at least bulbs can be marketted at a price that can be in -- reasonable. mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition. i would point out to my colleagues that this debate is not about choice or energy

efficiency, for that matter. it is about endangering american jobs and specifically american manufacturing jobs. we have a significant trade imbalance in this country. given that american manufacturers have committed to following the law regardless of whether or not it is enforced, the only benefit to this amendment is to allow foreign manufacturers who may not feel a similar obligation to export noncompliant light bulbs that will not only harm the investments made by u.s. companies but place jobs associated with making compliant bulbs. further, it represents a tax increase. it represents an equivalent of $100 tax on every american family, $16 billion across the nation through increased energy costs. the performance standard for light bulbs were established in 2007. at that time, the bill, as i pointed out in an earlier

portion of this debate enjoys strong bipartisan support that we were able to override a presidential veto of that act. as far as i'm aware, the issues that inspired this standard have not changed and i would argue have gotten worse. it is a common misunderstanding that the energy independence act bans the light bulb and requires people to have a limited choice of only a compact flourescent bulb and this is not true and i would repeat this is not true and i would repeat one last time, this is not true. it simply requires that they be more efficient, and i do not see what the harm is in that. . . claiming that the incandescent

bulb is dead make farce great sound bite but it is just that. i yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the pove -- in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i have an amendment at the esk. the chair: would the gentleman submit his amendment to the desk. clerk will designate the amendment.

we do have it. clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tipton of colorado. at the end of the bill before the hort title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to conduct a survey in which money is included or provided for the ben foist the responder. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer an amendment aimed at ending an egregious practice of wasting taxpayer dollars in this time of mounting federal debt this amendment specifically aims to eliminate the federal government's recent practice of sending out cash to encourage

survey responses favorable to agency goals. i whole heartedly agree with the general need for public input in our government but the practice of sending out american taxpayer dollars to encourage public participation or worse to buy public support where it might otherwise be lacking is a symbol of the lack of accountability and how out of touch our federal government has become. for generation the bureau of reclamation has served the western united states well. its dams, reservoirs and hydropower turbines have been the back bone of our communities. this was all based on rate payers paying for almost every cent of these projects with no expense to the taxpayers. yet that mission is changing. this couldn't be a better example of how much the -- how out of touch the agency has changed under this administration. there is a survey aimed at

getting input on removing dams. it was mailed to 1,000 households in california, oregon and selected households in the rest of the nation. each received a postcard telling them the survey was coming. then a large packet came in. a post age paid return -- postage paid return envelope and $2 bill was sent. to those who kept the $2 and didn't return it, a fedex package was sent out. to those who didn't send that

back, $20 was sent. let's take a look at some of the responses that the bureau of reclamation publiced -- published earlier this year. another waste of taxpayer money, said one. no wonder the u.s. is having money problems if the government has $2 bills to mail out randomly. wow what a waste of time. i have neither the time or interest about something i have not a clue what's happening clear across the country. p.s., they added, thanks for the two bucks. there were some positive responses but i think this comment says it best. send me no more, thank you. that's what this amendment does, mr. chairman. it simply prohibits the pew row of reclamation and other agencies covered under the legislation from funding a survey in which money is included or provided for the benefit of the responder. it doesn't say the federal government can't have public input or send out surveys which is necessary to the process.

it simply says no more giving away taxpayer dollars. the above amounts may not seem a lot in this day of trillion dollar budget bus it is symbolic of the waste and apuce going on here. to make matters worse, the bureau of reclamation has wret to fully answer and comply with the request made months ago by the natural resources chairman doc hastings and water subcommittee tom mcclintock aimed at answering the rationale about the survey, the overall cost of the survey and why taxpayer dollars were included. the american people deserve answers they deserve trands paraphernaliacy that apparently this administration will not give. in the interim, they deserve to know that their government won't be sending out their hard-earned tax dollars on a dam removal survey by an organization once dedicated to building dams. i urge my colleagues to end this blatant waist of taxpayer fraud and abuse by supporting this amendment. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. >> i move to strike the last word and indicate i am happy to accept the gentleman's amendment and yield back my to im. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the deffing, 396. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas, at thed on they have bill, before the short title, insert the following, the amounts otherwise prvided in this act are reduced by the amount made available by defense active it is, weapons activities and increasing the amount made available for corps of engineers civil department of the army operation and

maintenance by $52 million. the chair: pursuant to thed orer of the house today, the gentlewoman from texas -- >> i reserve a point of order. the chair: a point of order is reserved. puffer sunt to thed orer of the house today, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chair very much and i again ask my colleagues to support this amendment because anyone who has lived near a port understands what the army corps of engineers is going through. we've spent our time working with the corps on this issue of dredging and every port in the united states, millions of dollars are lost because of the inability of access and the difficulty of making sure that our nation's ports are ready for the increase in business. the transportation institute center for ports and waterways

indicated analyzing the direct economic effects of channel restriction and a los of one foot of drag from the houston ship channel as an example. the data was collected in 2008 and 2009. they determined that the direct economic impact of the loss of one foot over three years amounts to $373 million. this in fact is an account that has been authorized as evidence by the army corps which deals in particular with the army -- department of army operations and maintenance this infusion is to assist in making sure that jobs are saved and jobs are created. the impact from the study did not consider other effects that are very real but extremely difficult to measure but they can measure what the lack of dredging occurred can bring about. while i -- what i make the argument is, in ports competing with world ports, the fact of

accessibility is crucial. i ask my colleagues to be reminded that we're in the business of creating jobs. it seems ridiculous that we cannot add to an existing account to create jobs, to assist in one of the largest ports in the nation, ports along the west coast, ports along the gulf and ports along the east coast, all ports that are engaged in receiving large vessels that are bringing in goods and large vessels going out with manufactured and other goods from the united states of americaism ask my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of order? mr. frelinghuysen: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. frelinghuysen: i too am concerned about main taping our waterways. they contribute significantly to our national economy by providing a mens of cost efficient cargo transportation. to this end, our bill funds the operations and maintenance accounts, $2 ppt 5 billion, an increase of $109 billion above the president's -- $109 million above the president's request. in the earmark ban, the final bill cannot include funding to a specific project above the president's request. instead of increasing funding for specific projects, it includes funding for cat goirs of ongoing projects, including an additional $189 million for navigation gredging with the final project specifications, allocations to be made by the administration. the project my colleague is interested in would bele yibble to compete for this additional

funding. as an offset, this amendment strikes the funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile and its supporting infrastructure ensuring adequate funding to maintain our nuclear weapons is my highest priority for our bill. the increases provided in this bill for nuclear security have received strong bipartisan support. this amendment unacceptably strikes funding for both of these priority investments which are both urningt and overdue. i strongly urge my colleagues to make defense a priority and vote no on this amendment. mr. chairman, i raise a point of order against the amendment. the amendment proposes to increase an appropriation not authorized by law and therefore is in violation of clause 2-a of rule 21. although the original count for the corps of engineers -- civil

department of army operations and maintenance is unauthorized, it is permitted to remain in the bill pursuant to the rule providing for discussion of this bill. when it's permitted to remain in an appropriations bill, the amendment changes the am in order but the rules of the house apply a quote merely perfecting standard quote for the items that remain and do not allow the insertion of a new paragraph not part of the original text permitted to remain to increase the figure permitted to remain. i would further say the account continues funding for projects not entirely authorized. the amendment cannot be cop strewed as merely perfects and therefore, mr. chairman, i ask that the chair rule the amendment out of order.

the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? ms. jackson lee: i do. i thank the gentleman for his expression. what i would argue is what are members here to do? i would vigorously disagree that this is an earmark. i believe that there is authorization in particular in the operation and maintenance but the dilemma the gentleman is making an argument on is whether or not you can increase it versus reducing it. what my argument is that this is an a yen increase to operation and maintenance with no specific tie to indicate that it is an earmark. there's no monetary benefit to myself as a member of congress, publicly stated on the floor of the house, and therefore this is to increase millions of jobs in america in ports around america for an issue that is devastating to ports.

and that the army corps of engineers is being overwhelmed and that is a requirement of dredging. dredging equals allowing the quality of vessel to increase by tonnage, to bring in and take out goods that americans have manufactured and goods that americans are seeking to import. with our allies and trading partners. it is to increase jobs. and therefore i make the argument that we are bound by rules that have nothing to do with ear it is marks if you are in essence placing funding into existing accounts. to help americans, all of america, and to build our ports, all of our ports, making them more secure and making them more accessible so that the goods of americans can go to and free throw and that jobs can multiply. if one port alone, by one foot

of inaccessibility, lack of dredging, losing -- loses $373 million, multiply that by the number of major ports in the united states from the east to the southern coastline to the west coast. i make the argument that this is a -- an amendment that can stand on its own and should not be subject to a point of order. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the chair is prepared to rule. the proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of per sbationen -- persuasion on the question of whether it is supported by an authorization in law. having reviewed the inter-- amendment, the it is authorized by law. for example, some items promoted in the, quote, operation and maintenance, end quote, account are not modified by the phrase, quote, as authorized by law, end quote. under the precedence of july 12, 1995, and july 16, 1997, an

amendment adding matter at the pending portion of the bill to affect an indirect increase in an unaltogether riced amount permitted to remain in a portion of the bill already passed in the read something not, quote, merely perfecting, end quote. for purposes of clause 2-a of rule 21. the chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of order under clause 2-a of rule 21. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available under this act may be used for the u.s.-china clean energy research center. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, mr. rohrabacher and a member owe possed will each control five

minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much, mr. speaker. my amendment would prevent any funds in this bill from being spent on the u.s.-china clean energy research center. our department of energy is using our taxpayer dollars to help china develop their energy systems. this specific expenditure is $37.5 million over five years. china should be spending their own money for developing their own energy systems. with the miserable shape of our budget and our economy, the last thing we should be doing is depleting our resources to help the chinese become more efficient and thus more competitive. we are borrowing money from

china, paying interest on that money and subsidizing the development of high-tech manufacturing sectors in china that will take away more american jobs. this is as nutty as it gets. the department of energy is helping the communist chinese to build electric vehicles. over the next 20 years the electric vehicle industry may well be creating 130,000 to up to maybe 350,000 american jobs. and as of 2010 30,000 americans are already working in the electrical vehicle and advanced battery industries. tesla motors in my state is already do it -- doing it. why are we spending our a tax dollars to put these jobs -- our tax dollars to put these jobs in jeopardy, by improving the chinese ability to build such cars? why does our government want to ship jobs to china and subsidize the effort? the clean energy research center also shares american

know-how with china in advanced coal technology. the global value of electricity generated using clean coal technologies was $63 billion in 2010. by 2020 it will reach $85 billion. u.s. companies have the potential to capture the global market and can sell american designed and built technology to china. but if we give the chinese access to our research now, our lead in this area will be undercut. why are we undercutting ourselves? last month the u.s. department of commerce announced anti-dumping tariffs on chinese companies for unfair trade practices regarding solar panels. 66 chinese producers were named suggests this is a concerted effort on -- to undermine the united states market. in 2011 the u.s. imported over $3 billion worth of chinese panels and since 2001 our share

of the global market in these panels has shrunk from 27% to just 5%. over 100,000 american jobs depend directly or indirectly on thesome south carolina of the u.s. solar industry. why -- on the success of the u.s. solar industry. why are we subsidizing the chinese development of this technology? china's not playing by the same rules that we're playing by. the office of the national counterintelligence executive released a report last year which states, chinese actors are the world's most active and perist sent -- persistent perpetrators of economic espionage. among the technologies they have the greatesttry tr in is stealing -- greatest interest in is stealing and what they're interested in steal something the cutting edge energy technologies that we're developing with our expertise. let's stop paying the chinese to give them access to our best scientists, research centers and technology. they are already stealing

enough intellectual property to enhance their own economic and military power, they are robbing us blind, but we are not blind. this is happening right in front of our face. america's high-tech industry, whether in energy, air space or any kind of manufacturing, should be way out in front of competition. why with we helping china close that -- why are we helping china close that gap? this amendment would put a stop to over $7 million annually that is being used to bolster the efforts of our chinese adversary. transferring tech normal or funds to help develop that technology to a strategic rival makes no sense whatsoever. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and put an end to it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition and to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: thank you, mr. chairman. i certainly share some of my colleague's concerns. we should not be spending -- sending department of energy money overseas, it doesn't benefit our citizens or undermines our own competitiveness. we cannot assume that all energy cooperation is,ble -- objectionable and -- is objectionable. and it would eliminate both a proper role for federal funds and directly benefits america. let me first point out, these research centers are not a donation to china. they are funded in equal parts by china and the united states. they actually support three consortia centered in west virginia university, the university of michigan and the lawrence berkley national lab in his own home state. they fund research at seven american national laboratories, five american universities and 40 american companies, institutes and other organizations. there's nothing nutty about that, mr. chairman. i certainly share the concerns

we keep intellectual property and manufacturing here at home. to address these concerns, these research centers sign aid agreements to protect -- signed agreements to protect american intellectual property while allowing us to take advantages of new joint discoveries. eliminating centers altogether would harm american returners, american scientist, american innovation, american job creation and i oppose his amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. rohrabacher: how much time do we still have? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds. 30 seconds. mr. rohrabacher: 30 seconds. well, i'll make this very quick. we're not talking about all cooperation. i'm not opposed to all cooperation. i'm opposed to cooperation with the adolf hitlers of our day. the people who are murdering christians and other religious people as we speak no, we should not be cooperate waiting -- speak. no, we should not be cooperating with that

government. and all these diven groups that are cooperating with them, this is part of a group that also has research going on throughout our universities in the united states, that makes it even worse. because you have chinese nationals there who are taking as much of the information as they can and taking it back to china from our universities. we should be opposed to this and stand up for the american worker and what's right. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the preponderate of the chair, the noes have it -- in the opinion of the chair, the noes have. it pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i ask unanimous consent that the request for recorded vote oned first amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri be withdrawn, to the end that the chair put the question de novo. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. sorry, the clerk will designate the amendment. did the gentleman submit the amendment to the desssnk mr. engel: yes, it's engel, 072. did the gentleman submit another copy to the desk?

-- the chair: did the gentleman submit another copy to the desk? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. engel of new york. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of energy or any other federal agency to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles for the executive fleet or for any agency's neat inventory except in accordance with presidential memorandum federal fleet performance dated may 24, 2011. the chair: the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, and a member opposed will each control 10 minutes. the gentleman -- the chair

recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, very much, mr. chairman. on may 24, 2011, president obama issued a memorandum on federal fleet performance that requires all new light duty vehicles in the federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles. such as hybrid, electric, natural gas or biofuel, by december 31, 2015. my amendment echoes the presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds in the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act from being used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles except in accord with the president's memorandum. i've introduced a similar amendment to five different appropriations bills in the past including last year's energy and water appropriations bill and each time my amendment was accepted and passed by voice vote. my amendments have also been accepted to the commerce, justice and science appropriation bill for f.y. 2013, and the agriculture, defense and homeland security

appropriations bills for f.y. 2012. yes, thank you very, very much. i just want to say before i sit down that this is truly a bipartisan effort and i want to pay tribute to my good friend, the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, who has been working on me on this open fuel standard. we've introduced a bill, h.r. 1687, which requires 50% of new automobiles in 2014, 80% in 2016, and 95% in 2017 to be warranted to operate on nonpetroleum fuels in addition to or instead of petroleum-based fuels and i wanted to say that compliance possibilities include the full array of existing techlogical -- tech nothing -- technologies including flex fuel natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, plug-in electric dive and a catch for all new technology. i thank the gentleman from new

jersey for accepting this and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ace have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. 135, i believe it is. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of energy to subordinate any loan obligation to other financing -- to other financing in violation of section 1702 of the energy policy act of 2005, 42 u.s.c. 155-12 or to subordinate any obligation to any loan or debt

obligation in violation of section 609 .10 of title 10 of the code of federal regulations. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: i rise an amendment on behalf of myself, mr. scalise, ms. adams and mr. broup of georgia. this amendment will prohibit the department of energy from using any funds included in this bill to subordinate nature any loan obligation in violation of the energy policy act of 2005. that was the original intent of congress. as chairman of the subcommittee on oversight and investigation, i have led the investigation into the administration's rush decision to loan solyndra, a california-based solar

manufacturing company $335 million that was ultimately lost. during this investigation it was uncovered that shockingly the department of energy knew as early as august of 2009 that they would go bankrupt in september of 2011 but simply proceeded to risk more taxpayer funds throughout that time. the investigation also discovered that following meetings with outside investors, d.o.e. made the unprecedented decision on december 10, 2010, to subordinate $75 million of taxpayer money so more private capital could be injected into solyndra. it gave them money over taxpayer's money meaning in the event of bankruptcy, they would be paid back.

secretary chu wasn't allowed to subordinate and it states that the loan guarantees are not to be subordinated to other financing and it was clear that the intent of congress was. d.o.e. went out of its way to violate the will of congress and sought the opinion of outside council on the legality of subordination and based upon this opinion they made a decision to subordinate and all hinged on the word is, the meaning of the word is. in a 17-page draft memo obtained by the d.o.e.'s private attorneys they said they were

guaranteed funds. however this draft memo was never finalized and a memo was stated that the subordination was quote, it makes the best possible case on a reasonable interpretation supported by restructuring policies end quote. secretary chu ignored the important parts of the law. it required him to notify the attorney general in the event of a default. december 13, 2010 letter, then executive director of the loan program notified solyndra but secretary chu did not notify the attorney general as required by law. the emails indicate they believe d.o.e.'s justification for

placing taxpayers at the back of the line was inconsistent and advised d.o.e. to seek a legal opinion from the justice department. an email to the assistant secretary of financial markets, sent an email to the deputy director of o.m.b. says the regulations and statutes require that the guaranteed loan should not be subordinated loan or any other debt obligation. it is clear that the department of energy ignored the law and did whatever they wished to push through the subordination. our investigation continues. i and my coletion are working or legislation to ensure that taxpayers are never struck and stuck paying hundreds of millions of dollars because obama's decision to put taxpayers to the back of the line. i will yield. >> i would like to get my colleague. how much time do i have left? the chair: 30 seconds. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to support the amendment and i

commend his legislation. mr. stearns: i yield to the balance to my colleague. mr. aderholt: i rise in support -- mrs. adams: i rise in support of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from -- the chair: 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. and the amendment is goode to. >> mr. chairman, i would like a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, will be postponed. for what purpose does -- does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have amendment number 399 the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the amount otherwise provided by this act are revised by reducing the amount made available for atomic energy defense activities, national nuclear, weapons activities, increase the amount made available for the army corps of engineers, civil department of the army by $10 million. the chair: pubt pursuant to the

order of the house today, ms. jackson lee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. jackson lee: this is my all can't we all get along amendment. and i thank the chairman and ranking member for their work. my amendment would be helpful to the army corps of engineers in their work on our east coast, our gulf and west coast because it deals specifically with restoration and sends a strong message to the importance of restoration as an issue of national importance and talks about the economic well-being of the regions along the nation's coastlines and provides an opportunity for restoration. there is no doubt that over the years, our coastlines have deteriorated. wetlands have not been protected. we have experienced a devastating spill in the gulf coastline and so many along that coastline from florida, toll

alabama, to louisiana, to texas and in between have experienced a negative impact on their wetlands and their coastline. this takes a mere $10 million and i say it with respect, to assist the nation in providing aid and improvement to the nation's coastline, which again, produced opportunities for economic development, tourism and various protections for a coastline that has suffered under neglect. the united states army corps of engineers estimates that coastlines along the gulf, 60% of eroding. the coast loses up to 10 feet of shoreline ayear with top soil washing to the gulf coast. funds are needed to protect the economic stability of that region. just a few months ago, i

introduced h.r. 3710, which would provide for added opportunity for protecting the coastline and as well as deficit reduction in the energy -- through energy security funds. the legislation would increase programs or provide pup coastal grant programs for addressing disasters, restoration protection and maintenance of the coastal areas and ocean. i hope -- including research and programs in coordination with

state and local agencies. i look forward to hearing and passage of that legislation. today, i rise to support the nation's coastal regions and to provide those resources and i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. mr. frelinghuysen: i claim time in opposition. i oppose the gentlewoman's amendment and share the gentlewoman's support for smart investments in our nation's infrastructure and i understand the economic benefits. i would remind the gentlewoman under the earmarks the final bill cannot include funding in a specific budget in an amount above the president's request. it includes projects with allocations to be made by the administration. as an offset, this amendment strikes funding for the modernization of our weapons stockpile and supporting infrastructure. for that reason alone, i oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do so as well and i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from texas rise.

ms. jackson lee: this is on page three. i don't view this in particular as an earmark as much as i do putting resources necessary for the protection of our coastline. again, it is not excessive. it does not undermine the atomic program but helps millions of programs along the coastline and particularly those who experienced deterioration going from the east coast and to the west coast and this is one we can join together and support. it is instructtive and productive and creates jobs and creates an economic engine and protects one of our most valued resources, wetlands included and compatible with those who are fishing, those who are exploring and those who are enjoying and it is crucial that this amendment be passed by this house in a constructive way

create jobs and reserve the bounty of the environment we have been given to protect. i urge my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment which deals with the restoration of our coastline. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. ms. jackson lee: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? i have an amendment at the desk, number 58.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. insert the following, each amount made available by this act other than an amendment to be made available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 24%. b, the reduction in subsection a shall not apply to the following account. one, corps of engineers, civil department of the army. two, department of energy, energy programs, nuclear energy. three, department of energy, energy programs -- mr. mulvaney: i ask to waive the reading. the chair: is there objection?

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . pursuant to the order of the house today, mr. mulvaney and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. mulvaney: one of the things i told folks back home i would do when i got here was to try roll back discretionary spending to 2008 levels. one of the things i have done here is work on the republican study committee budgets that try to make an effort to get our spending addiction under control and balance our budget in a reasonable amount of time. as encouraging this bill is and as much work, it doesn't accomplish those things. and i draw attention that this bill as much an improvement it has made over previous bills spends more money than we did last year. the amendment, mr. chairman, is fairly simple. i seek to cut $3.1 billion from this expenditure, that represents 10% of the overall bill. . . we're spending over d 1 trillion in the discretionary budget this year. more importantly and i think folks back home would like to know, it's only 1/6 of 1% of

the overall federal ex peckstures. it's only one penny out of every $6 that we spend. it is our effort to try and bring some sanity to the spending side of the equation. it is not an across-the-board cut. we have tried, mr. chairman, to be smart and sensible. where we've cut these funds and for that reason we do not cut the u.s. army corps of engineer accounts, we do not cut the, in nsa accounts. we do not cut -- nnsa accounts. we do not cut defense, nondefense environmental, nuclear disposal. what we've cut, mr. chairman, are things that need to be cut. we've cut federal research on energy efficiency and renewable energy. we propose to cut fossil energy research and development. yes, a republican is here, mr. chairman, arguing that we should get rid of what my colleagues across the aisle would call subsidies for big oil. we're trying to get rid of all of the subsidies. imagine that. a world where the federal government doesn't actually subsidize energy production at any fashion but that the market

takes care of the supply and the demand and the prices for those products. we also get rid of the -- excuse me, we cut on the app lashan commission, the denali commission, the northern border regional commission, the southeast correspondencent regional commission. some of those are probably in my district but we probably have enough commissions in this government already. mr. chairman, this is the reasoned and a sensible approach to try and cut as much spending as we possibly can, especially in light of today's c.b.o. report that says the debt situation, the debt difficulties that we face are even worse than we've been talking about for the last 18 mobblets in this congress. so for that reason, mr. chairman, i ask for the support for this amendment and i ask that my colleagues vote yea. with that i yield back the balance of my time. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to seek opposition to the amendment, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment.

our bill already cuts nearly $1 billion from the president's request. we're below 2009 levels. we're actually pretty close to 2008 levels and the last time i checked we're in the year 2012. spending levels for nonsecurity related accounts are brought down by more than $800 million from last year's level and while difficult tradeoffs had to be made to get to that level, our bill did the hard work to balance our highest priorities and serve the nation's most pressing needs. unfortunately the amendment proposes an across-the-board cut on many programs, not all programs, as the gentleman from south carolina states. but on many programs that actually serve pressing needs. our bill cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy by 24%, but preserves programs that can address gas prices and help keep manufacturing jobs here at home. that's the focus of the bill. lower gas prices in the future, keep jobs here at home.

this amendment would jeopardize those objectives. our bill funds fossil energy research that ensures a secure domestic supply of electric and lower gas prices in the future. the amendment cuts many of the activities, many programs. our bill funds science research, which is a key component of keeping america competitive. the amendment would do serious harm to that program. the amendment even cuts funds to the operation, to our strategic petroleum reserve. severely curtailing our government's ability to respond to real emergencies. these are not acceptable cuts. and i strongly oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recognition and rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

the gentleman during his debate mentioned a penny of savings out of a significant sum of moneys. i would point out in conjunction with the chairman's remarks that the nonsecurity programs in this bill for fiscal year 2013 are $188 million below current year level spending because the subcommittee and the full committee made discrete decisions account by account. dependent upon -- and i don't want to get into an argument, there may be some of these cuts that the gentleman proposes that touch what nominaly would be considered defense accounts but he also makes a point that he is going after nondefense discretionary spending. i assume because he has left defense harmless that he has never read an inspector general's report relative to any defense program in the united states. and he mentioned a penny in his

remarks and i find it curious that he cannot find one cent of savings out of one dollar spent in a defense account. and for that reason, among many , i'm strongly opposed to the gentleman's amendment. if we are going to in fact make an investment in this country and if we are in fact going to address our budgetary problems, everybody's got to be on the table, with no exceptions. the gentleman's amendment from my perspective is a mistake and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: very briefly, mr. chairman, i appreciate the gentleman from indiana's words. i would point out to him that there are those on this side of the aisle who have encouraged to us look at defense spending to find significant savings. i'd be curious to know, mr. chairman, how the gentleman from indiana voted last year on my amendment to do exactly that, to freeze military spending at 2011 levels.

but it's another discussion for another day. so with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mulvaney: mr. chairman, i ask for a take of the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section 519, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement, administer or enforce the requirements of subchapter 4, chapter 31 of title 40, united states code, commonly referred tooze the davis-bacon act. the chair: pursuant of the

order of the house today, the gentleman from iowa, mr. kirnings and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: tharme, mr. chairman. this is the davis-bacon act amendment and for the information, mr. chairman, it's this. that the davis-bacon act was an act that was signed into law about 1932. it was generated in new york to lock the african-americans out of the construction trades in new york. it is the last remaining vestige of jim crow laws in america. it's a union protection law and what it says is that any federal construction project with 2,000 -- $2,000 or more involved in it must meet these federal prevailing wake standards. we know and i've spent 28-plus years as a founder and owner of a construction company and a number of years prior to that so, over 30 years in the construction business, mr. chairman, and we know this amounts to a union-imposed wage scale and federally controlled

wage prices. and what it does is it increases the cost of our construction projects. now, our records over the years show that some place between 8% and 35% is the increase with davis-bacon wage scale imposed as opposed to competition setting those wages. some of the charts here that i'm looking at show between the% and 37%. i use the number 20% more. our probably costs us 20% more because of this federally imposed wage scale that's unnecessary and it cuts out competition. you can make the decision then on whether we want to build four miles of road or five. whether we want to build, mr. chairman, four bridges or fave or whether we're going to create and have these construction jobs, are they going to be four jobs or five? in many cases if we repeal the davis-bacon wage scale, would you have minorities, in fact you'd have a majority of those that would fill those jobs, would be minorities. it takes the department of labor 2.3 years just to issue a ruling on whatever the wages might be and i've seen th just

road. that's how far off it is. so what this bill does is it prohibits any funds from being used to enforce or implement the davis-bacon wage scale. and it gets us a lot more bang for our buck. it gets us the equality that we've always had and puts america back into competition. that's what's built this country. so i urge its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i appreciate the time. and would note at the beginning of my remarks that davis-bacon is a very simple concept and is very fair one. the law requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community in which the work

is being performed for similar work. large federal projects that can disrupt local markets if cheap imported labor is used. davis-bacon requirements ensure that local workers, citizens, americans have a fair chance at bidding for federal contracts in their own individual communities. additionally prevailing wage protections are not the reason we have deficits and doing away with them will not result in savings to the federal government. davis-bacon does not add to a project's total cost. a 2011 study of highway construction prongs -- projects in the state of colorado proved this point as it found no statistical significance between the cost of highway projects in the state which were subject to davis-bacon and

the cost of state highway projects which were not subject to davis-bacon. davis bakeren -- davis-bacon has not led to extravagant wages for affected workers. i would point out at this date, 2012, from 2000 and 2008, the real hourly wage rate for construction workers, carpenters, electricians, iron workers, plumbers, steel workers, they climbed -- declined, declined. despite a small increase in the hourly wage rate. i would point out when my mentor, congressman adam benjamin junior walked into this room in 1977, the real hourly wage for one hour's worth of a human being's work in the united states of america , it could have been laying

brick, it could be pushing papers in congress, it could be waiting on tables at a diner in the middle of the night, was more for one hour's worth of a human being's labor in the united states of america than it was in 2010 and we're here tonight trying to slam down that wage. you want to save money on contract, why don't we look at executive compensation for these construction firms? why don't we look there for some savings as opposed to going to the lowest common denominators? opponents claim that davis-bacon requirements are a union giveaway. however more than 75%, 3/4 of davis-bacon wage determinations are not based so hely on union wages -- solely on union wages. there are issues about the quality of work, get it done efficiently, get it done right, do not do it a second time, that is crucial to these

communities depending upon them. when local workers are hired, they're accountable to their employers and the communities in which they reside. if the work is shoddy and therefore is delayed or needs to be redone, their families, their friends, their communities have to live with the consequences. this is a throwback and i am strongly opposed to the gentleman's amendment and will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: mr. chairman, i inquire as to how much time i have left. the chair: three minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentleman's work in putting the statement together. but as someone who has lived this for 30 years, i don't accept the statement on its face and i can tell you that my hands-on experience tells me something entirely different. the statement that was made that says that 3/4 of these decisions are not based solely on union scale. it might be based on union scale in a union contractor sitting down in the room to

make an agreement with the department of labor. i he know how these deals are made. it is union scale and they sit there and decide we can drive up cost of these public projects and we can make sure that we can pay more in wages and benefits to anybody else and cut out the competition so that the entrepreneurs, the people that are founding businesses, that are trying to get into this market, are locked out of the market. davis-bacon locks people out of the market. it locks minorities out of the market. if you look around and you see the express, people doing work that americans won't do. well, if you look around, the unions have been locking minorities out ever since 1932. that was the purpose of this bill. by the way, it was a couple of misguided republicans that passed the davis-bacon act and got that started. i'm embarrassed about that. but one day we will have to fix this because the davis-bacon act is the last vestige of the jim crow laws in the united states of america and it does drive up the cost an average of 20%. somewhere between 9% and 37% for these costs. it cannot be either said that

there's a reduction in quality when we put competition in. competition increases the quality, it increases the efficiency, it brings about the skills and the work force and it allows contractors to bring people in at a scale where they can be trained. so we have more competition for the labor, we get better bang for our dollar, we build four bridges instead of five, four miles of road instead of five, under davis-bacon we can do it the other way around and reverse it and i would reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i would mention that if the gentleman from iowa is suggesting that labor unions in this country tr discriminating on a racial basis, he hasn't attended union meetings lately and i would be happy toll yield the remainder of my time to the woman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the the gentleman from texas, if my good friend from iowa was joining and trying to make sure that federally-funded construction

jobs went to companies were based in the united states, i would be celebrating with him to avoid the incident that happened in california where it was built by a chinese company built by chinese nationals who came over to the united states. in this instance, i would like to ask the gentleman where he finds this present-day discrimination. as he well knows, opportunities for minority contractors have come about because of members of this congress who have fought seen the t-asides but increase of construction companies. unions have engaged in apresence tiesship programs. prevailing wages are a hard day's work and it is paycheck

fairness. i disagree that we aren't making extensive efforts to make sure there are diverse populations working and being trained under the union label and umbrellas that there are young men and women benefiting from these training programs but mwbe and if the gentleman wants to work with me, he would have me aligning with him today. but not denying the davis-bacon wages. i ask to oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: in response to that, i would say again, i have worked in this trade for a lifetime. i have been in the room. i know how this works. this is union scale imposed through the department of labor.

it is not prevailing wage. there is a study in front of me that shows if we repeal davis-bacon there would be more minorities working in the construction business. some trades there are many, some trades there are few. it isn't balanced across the countryside. you don't have competition and don't have efficiency and don't get the bang for your buck. it cuts down on the efficiency because you have people on the projects that are looking for the highest paid scale that are there and will drive up and down the road rather than the rough bulldozer and won't pick up the saddam hussein shovel because it pays less. you can't get efficiency out of people when you have the federal government deciding what they are going to pay. we have studies that show when they audited the report, 100% of those reports were wrong. i urge adoption. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word.

i would like to recognize my the gentleman from massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neal: i would like to refute the gentleman's last point. i worked 18 years as an iron worker and worked not only in the massachusetts area, new york, new mexico, louisiana. worked in indiana, a lot of the steel mills and worked a lot of jobs where davis-bacon has been in effect. what davis-bacon does and the gentleman's amendment would provide that none of the funds made available through this bill will be available to administer the wage rate chapter 4,. what davis-bacon was meant to do is prevent the wages in my area of the country and every area of the country from being depressed from bringing in low-wage workers. this was the practice before

prevailing wage, before davis-bacon was in effect. you would have large contracts and contractors paying low wages to their employees and move into an area where the cost of living would require those workers to get a decent wage. if we we peel davis-bacon, with is a bad idea, is we will group a low-paid workers and they will go into areas, whether it be houston, whether it be down in texas, louisiana or in the northeast, we will have low-wage workers and undercutting the workers' wages in those areas. that prevented that practice. the davis-bacon wage is established by a study in your

area, in the gentleman's area. specifically, they look at the wages for the trades, construction trades. i was an iron worker. they look at it for plumbers and electricians. now i'm sure we can find workers in mexico that will come in and work for less money. and that is supported by a lot of people in this body, unbelievely so. davis-bacon prevents that from happening. a contractor has to pay the wage for houston, the wage for tucson. the wage for new york. the wage for boston. those wages are different because of the standard of living and cost of living in those areas. this protects workers, whether union workers or nonunion workers. and i have worked on davis-bacon

jobs, the shell oil refinery. half the job was union and half was nonunion because that's the deal. they got enough workers to cover that job. and i have worked 18 years, strapped on the work boots every single day for 18 years. i have been a foreman and general foreman. i have seen how this work and i know the history here and why this law was put into place. this is a good law. it prevents undermining the workers in every state in this union. if you strap on a pair of work boots, union or nonunion, this is a good bill for you. they tried to repeal it after katrina in that area where katrina was affected in mississippi and louisiana and the president suspended it for a short while. he had to reinstate it because they couldn't get enough workers to come in because the wages were so low they couldn't get workers in there. so president bush repealed his

own executive order suspending davis-bacon. and when they lifted that, the workers came in. and workers from louisiana, workers from mississippi took those jobs. this is another attack on the working people. this is just blue collar jobs. if we don't support apprenticeship programs and decent wages, shame on us, shame on us, shame on us. mr. speaker, i yield back my time and i thank the gentleman for his courtesy. mr. visclosky: this is not davis-bacon, an attempt to increase wages. it is to protect those who labor in this country from having their wages undercut. i'm adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion the chair the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. king: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. jordan of ohio. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, none of the funds made available innovative technology loan guarantee programs may be used by the department of energy to issue or administer new loan guarantees for renewable energy indianapolis or leading-edge biofuel projects as defined in section 1705 of the energy policy act of 2005. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan,

and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: this is no more solyndra amendment. this amendment would prohibit any new loan guarantees for electricity systems and biofouls as defined in section 1705 of title 17. and complements what the house agreed to and passed earlier. let me quickly tell you about this program. this is a $15 billion program, 26 projects got your tax dollars. of those 26 projects that got american tax money, 22 of those 26, three-fourths of those were rated bb-minus junk status. no private capital there, but ok to put your tax dollars into these projects. and what have we got for this?

solyndra went bankrupt and beacon power received your tax dollars, first solar got $3 billion in loan guarantees and its stock its plummeted and abound solar has firet 580 workers. 1705 program was funded by the stimulus project and in this continuing resolution passed last year, in that bill there was language which allowed the 1703 program to continue to do what was done in 1705. wiffed enough taxpayer dollars wasted. we don't need anymore. the department of energy, the oversight committee has had several hearings. we don't need the department of energy handing out your money to

companies with bb ratings and this says enough is enough. we are in debt and this is one place to start saving taxpayer dollars. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the title 17 loan program has had its share of publicized problems but i do believe the department of energy has implemented changes to the program that will strengthen the management of it going forward. and while it is impossible to ensure the success of the loan gar and, these will reduce the risk borne by the department.

this is targeted at renewable energy projects pending approval under the 1705 program. some of these projects are ellzpwibble to have their subsidy costs covered by the department. given the current capital markets and project structure, it is difficult for renewable projects to raise sufficient revenues to raise loan authority. because we have several promising projects that remain in the pipeline and the companies behind these applications have invested a significant amount of time and financial resources to advance them, i do not believe that this amendment is fruitful. the amendment would make these efforts multi-year and further exacerbate the business environment and energy companies at this time. therefore, would be opposed to the gentleman's amendment and would yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: i would just respond. the gentleman talked about a couple of problems, i think the language he used referring to this program. feas hard to see when you have companies going bankrupt with taxpayer money and 22 out of the 26 projects were rated below investment-grade credit quality, in other words, junk status, hard to say there are a couple of problems in the history of this program. at some point, we are going to have to cut some spending. one of my favorite movies "1776" and it's a musical and when they drafted the declaration of independence and there is a great scene in there, but one of the ones i remember where they are going through the declaration that jeff son just written, marking it up and as they go through this, there is members of that congress who say i don't want to say this because it myself offend king george or

parliament might not like that. and john adams stands up and says, it's a revolution, damn it, we have to offend somebody. we are so in debt that we have to cut something. why not focus on a program that completely doesn't work, a program we know has failed. if the other party can't even cut a program where 22 of the 26 projects are junk status and no one would give you money and they went bankrupt, if we can't stop that program, how are we going to deal with a $16 trillion? this is as simple as it gets. and this party over here won't go there. unbelievable. the program speaks for itself. it is a fail tur and end it and take the taxpayer dollars and bring sanity to our fiscal situation and i yield back and

urge a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. . for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. graves of missouri. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today in support of my amendment which modestly reduces funding for the missouri river recovery program. since 2006, the federal government has spent more than $468 million on the program. this program is primarily intended to improve the ecosystem for the piping mover

and others in the missouri river basin. projects funded through this program include shallow water habitat and other habtits -- hab taps -- habitats. it also supports unknown fms -- numbers of departments. it generates thousands of pages of documents and pays for numerous conferences and conference callless. many of my constituents along the missouri river have been flooded for the last several years due to mismanagement and misplaced priorities of the federal government. congress practically writes a blank check for the missouri river recovery program by providing far less than sufficient funds for levee maintenance and repair. this is unacceptable. it's also important to note that many projects funded by the missouri river recovery program increase the chance of flooding by weakening flood protection systems. further a recent independent review of major initiatives in the missouri river recovery

program concludes that the current mitigation strategy does not mitigate losses. so congress is elentionsy spending millions of dollars on projects that run proven. and at very least these funds are diverted away from critically important and proven flood mitigation programs. my amendment won't prevent future floods, but it will show those located in the missouri river basin that congress is serious about getting its priorities straight. what my amendment does is it simply doesn't gut the missouri river recovery program, it's only a small reduction from the amount provided in the underlying bill. the underlying bill provides $71 million and my amendment reduces that to $50 million. which is consistent with the levels funded in 2008. i believe conservation is important but we should not overlook what it is we sometimes sacrifice to achieve conservation. and in this case it is the

livelihood of businesses, farms and families. i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: i to move strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i rise to express my opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. i would certainly agree him that we are not making sufficient investments in our infrastructure. but this amendment would do nothing to resolve that problem. but it would introduce a host of other detrimental impacts to the basin and will lead to a failure to comply with requirements of the endangered species act. the $90 million which was in the president's budget is the corps' best assessment of the minimum required to maintain long-term biological opinion

compliance. there is in the bill an $18.6 million cut already. which reduces the corps' ability to maintain required progress on emergency sand bar and habitat construction and shallow water habitat, yellowstone intake and real estate acquisition. while the gentleman indicates he does not want to gut the program, the fact is he would add another $21.4 worth of cuts essentially representing a 44% cut of the president's budget. if that's not gutting it certainly is a significant hindrance. given the extent in existing cuts, the corps would need to consult with u.s. fish and wildlife service on the potential for reduced progress on biological opinion compliance and on potential operational adjustments, opening the possibility of a jeopardy determination. further, it reduce -- reducing

the amount would have a significant and negative impact with regards to maintaining biological opinion compliance for the missouri river and the corps may not be in a position to serb all eight congressionally authorized purposes. additionally, operational change may have to be made to avoid impacts to a list of species that could result in spill -- in -- result in split navigation season, impacts on hydropower production and impacts on water supply and recreation. a split navigation season will further erode the ability of farmers and manufacturers to get their products to market or to the consumer. and given that the power produced by the missouri river projects provide base power loads for the region, reduce production would further jeopardize peak power needs in the area. the impacts to water supply also potentially could be great. many communities are already

having difficulty with the intake infrastructure to local water supplies. without the regulation river flow provided by the projects, thee communities will have a monumental task to extend the intakes for the low-flow periods, increasing again the burden on already cash-strapped local governments. for these reasons i would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i would yealed yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. as i stated before we're not gutting this program. we're just reducing the funding for it. and for that matter,, too i might add that even if we zeroed this program out, it would have absolutely no affect on water intake systems, object power generation systems, on navigation whatsoever. but the fact of the matter is, and i've seen it, this money is spent to dump stand in the river so that it can create more sand bars that try to recreate more sand bars, it's used to buy more land which takes land out of production,

and the fact of the matter is, we have trillions of dollars worth of deficits each year and trillions and trillions of dollars worth of debt. the last thing we need to be doing as a federal government is buying more land and dumping dirt in the missouri river. to create a habitat. that's the bottom line. it's unacceptable and this program needs to be reduced. with that i'd yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have. it the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: will the gentleman specify the amendment? mr. landry: the amendment is the modified charleston method amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. landry of louisiana. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this action may be used within the borders of the state of louisiana by the mississippi valley division or the southwestern division of the army corps of engineers or any district of the corps within such divisions to implement or enforce the mitigation methodology referred to as the modified charleston method. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. landry: thank you, mr. chairman. i have constantly championed the need for louisiana to protect its franl aisle coast and wetlands. i've offered amendments and supported bills that all positively effect the creation of new wetlands and starts to turn the tide on coastal land loss in louisiana. but the new orleans district corps of engineers' office is going to cripple our ability to

-- for louisiana to protect itself from dangerous hurricanes by introducing a standard used method of wetlands mitigation. this standardized methed so called the modified charleston method. this method is driving up the state and local mitigation costs of hurricane protection in louisiana by 300%. and i said, only the state and local costs. because the corps has exempted itself from its own method on federal probablies. this is why the american people are frustrated at the federal government. it creates a rule, enforces it on everybody else, but exempts itself. the corps' new wetland rules are actually halting the creation of wetlands. as such my amendment prevents the enforcement of the modified charleston method within the state of louisiana for one year. forcing the corps to take a breath and develop a mitigation system that provides for our wetlands while -- without

stifling the need for hurricane protection measures and economic development. my amendment impacts only louisiana. if your corps district uses the m.c.m. and it works for your constituents, great. your corps district can it continue to do so. but the m.c.m. does not work for louisiana. in fact, the state of louisiana , the association of counties, the levee boards of louisiana, the association of levee boards of louisiana, vermilion parish and countless local communities have all severe concerns about the m.c.m. moreover, the m.c.m. does not acknowledge that some construction projects actually preserve wetlands. for example, a flood protection levee that protects homes also protects wetlands from saltwater intrusion and erosion. however, these benefits are not calculated. the corps itself does not follow the m.c.m. and until it does, local parishes, communities and builders should

not be forced to follow it as well. and i urge the passage of this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i appreciate that. i do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. while i have some sympathy for the issue that the gentleman has raised, i believe that more consistency should be brought to the way we evaluate wetland impacts. not less, as this amendment would ensure. the charleston method has been utilized for two decades in various corps districts. the charleston method is a quick, inexpensive and consistent methodology, i think that's very important to note, a consistent methodology for use by the regulated public and the corps. the gentleman asks that -- suggests that it doesn't work. if it doesn't work, i do not know why in 2006 and 2007 the new orleans district worked

with its federal and state partners to modify the charleston method so that it better reflected the unique conditions found in southern louisiana, resulting in the modified charleston method. the use of the charleston method is long standing in many corps districts. many regulatory customers use the tool to assess their potential mitigation requirements for their impact site as well as credits required at mitigation banks. this transparency in corps mitigation requirements has helped the applicant prepare a complete application package and determine mitigation costs up front. suspension of the use of the charleston method in corps districts would require that any pending permit application, section 404 of the clean water act, impending med m.i.t. gation banks would instead to be re-evaluated using a different saysment tool methodology or in the absence

of is up -- of such use better best professional judgment to determine appropriation mitigation requirements for impacts and for available credits in mitigation. banks obviously encompassing a great deal of delay. all approved mitigation banks with available credits that were determined by the charleston method would be temporarily closed until a new methodology could be developed and the bank credits converted to the credit system of a new methodology. these banks will establish utilizing the credit system of the charleston method. a similar credit system can be determined for these projects, it would not be possible to door late the new requirements with the old system. . s we would not have transparency or consistency but delay. for these reasons, i oppose the gentleman's amendment and i

reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana? mr. landry: how much time do i have left? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. landry: the mitigation banks can sell land. we have parishes in louisiana that understand that the federal government doesn't have any more money. the residents of those parishes have taxed themselves to protect themselves from storms and yet the formula that the corps is using is driving the cost of these projects to a point where they can't build them anymore. but yet some in this body will argue that after hurricanes come in, after hurricanes affect louisiana's coast they don't want to pour the money in to rebuild those communities. those communities are trying to

protect themselves at a time when the federal government has told them know as a source of funding. and yet now, the federal government is going to change the rules. it just doesn't work in louisiana. and for that, i urge my colleagues to help me pass this amendment. i also, mr. chairman, would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record -- the chair: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. landry: i ask unanimous consent to ask unanimous consent to enter two letters from two different municipalities. the chair: the gentleman's statement is covered by germ leave. mr. landry: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is goad to.

-- the amendment is agreed to. mr. landry: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. landry of louisiana. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available under this act may be used to carry out section 801 of the energy independence act 42 u.s.c. 17281. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana and a member -- mr. landry, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. landry: in 2007, section authorizes the department to create a national media campaign to promote alternative green technologies and wean americans off of fossil fouls. our government must get out of

the business of picking winners and losers. the americans know what work best for them their families and best. private energy firms should use their own funds on behalf of the energy sources they sell. why are government dollars needed? i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and defund this taxpayer media campaign and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment -- does the gentleman yield back? the question is on the amount offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. brooks from alabama. insert the following, section, none of the funds made available under this act for the advanced research projects agency, energy, may be used for unallowable costs for advertising or promoting the sale of products and services in contravention of the requirements of 31 .205-1 or for unallowable expenditures at the requirements of title 48 of the code of the federal regulations. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. brooks: i offer an amendment

to address a short coming in the department of energy's advanced research projects energy agency for energy spends taxpayer dollars. there was an audit report that disputed costs incurred by arpa -e award recipient. it is a private company or entity that seeks reimbursement from federal taxpayers. the inspector general dispute that expenses for quote with meetings to raise capital and a fee to appear on a local television program are reimburseable costs that taxpayers should pay for. such spending violates 31.2. arpa-e disputed the inspector general's finding and argued that such costs are allowable

under the statutory authority. in february of 2011, arpa-e finalized encourages companies to engage in and seek taxpayer reimbursement for these questionable expenditures. the policy states that acceptable reimbursement activities by private companies included, quote, marketing and other expenditures related tore promoting technology, quote, consulting and other expenditures related to developing arpa-e technologies and identifying potential users, marketters and customers, business plan development, market research. presentation and other expenditures relating to other funding from the private sector

and government entities. the inappropriate spending identified may be significantly widespread. at a january, 2012 hearing, the science, subcommittee on investigations and oversight investigated the spending. arpa-e owe myths mission of these questionable spending activities. hence, their revision adds confusion, not clarity, to the question. in the absence of more explicit guidance with the concerns, there is a significant risk to american taxpayers that arpa-e will incur costs that violate federal regulations but which they reimburse are funds. chairman palm broun asked the director to clarify in writing whether arpa-e considers the

activities mentioned in the original policy as an louble spending. responding -- responses to these questions were due on february 24, 2012, but the department of energy refuses to provide a response, responses which are now well over three months past the deadline. they should make it clear that the spending concerns identified by the inspector general using taxpayer funds to raise capital and market and advertise and promote private company funded technologies are not allowable. arpa-e tax dollars shouldn't go to advertising and marketting or meetings with bankers to raise capital. in this area of deficits that threaten america with insolvency and bankruptcy, american tax dollars shouldn't be used to pay for the operational costs

particularly when the inspector general has determined they are improper. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. mr. frelinghuysen: we are prepared to accept your amendment. the chair: gentleman reserves? mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alabama snr mr. brooks: i reserve. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. schweikert of arizona, at

the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enforce part 429 of 430, code of federal regulations with respect to schauer heads as the term is defined in section 430 .2 of such title. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: i'm going to refer to this as the law of unintended consequences. six months ago i was visiting one of my favorite places, starbucks in scottsdale and a gentleman walks up to me bouncing off the walls. he had just been given a $447,000 fine for his tiny

little business that made custom schauer heads because apparently the water restricter ring inside was too easy to pry out. i need to disclose something here in all honesty. i have changed the schauer heads in my house and guess what the first thing i have ever done? i have taken a screwdriver and stick it in there and pull that water restricting ring in there. because i have a bad habit to get wet. it's a novel concept and it's something i like to do. think of this, the department of energy is out there enforcing and here's the standards they live by. if it takes more or less than eight pounds of pressure to remove the water restricter after they take apart the schauer head, they fine you. but the creepy part of this

story is they demanded a list of everyone who had purchased one of these shower heads. so now that the department of energy is debating shower heads that the restricting o-ring is too easy to remove, have we lost our minds? you know, i'm not thrilled coming to the floor and doing a limitation amendment on something like this, but this is the type of thing that the american people are absolutely livid about and this actually affects our daily lives. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. the standards that the gentleman

is upset about were contained in the e.p.a. act of 1992 and had been in effect for more than a decade. and they, in fact, do save energy and they do save water. a number of states are starting to adopt tighter standards on these products, including the state of georgia, because they do save energy. there is no part of the country, including mine, that board iris the great lakes, the largest body of fresh water on the planet that does not have water supply concerns. in california, there has been a tremendous public investment to encourage and incentivize homeowners to replace their utilities with models that require less water. i really do not know why we are discussing this issue again. we have talked about it in the

1990's and talked about it in the last decade and here we are talking about it again. manufacturers have been complying with this provision, again, a decade. the question is, why are we talking about it today? i'm aware of an enforcement action recently, but against plumbing manufacturers who have put multiple compliant shower heads on to one fixture, obviously trying to sipestep the law when you have three efficient shower heads attached to one. with water shortages across the country and energy crisis in most of the mountain western states, i would ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. schweikert: may i inquire as

to my time? the chair: the gentleman from arizona has three minutes remaining. mr. schweikert: thank you. . an interesting debate from an economic standpoint. being from the desert, where we actually really, really care about our water supply, we learn something. and i'm one of those people, live in a house with rock landscaping and low watter this, low water land scamescaping but i do like to get wet in my shower as we've already stated. if you want to deal with water usage, basic economics says do you it true the pricing mechanism, not through trying to manage my life. with a bunch of laws. madam chairwoman, i stand in front of you and i hope this amendment passes because in many ways i think this is a great example of what drives the american voters, the american people, mad. that we try to maker manage every aspect of their lives and

we turn huge numbers of them functionally into criminals. because i would love to do an honest survey through this body of how many people have done any remodeling or put up a new shower head and who have not monkeyed with that flow restricter that's inside that shower head. it's an ultimately -- i appreciate that in 1992 this somehow passed through this body and maybe it was meant to help. maybe it was meant with all sorts of good purposes. but this is not the rational methodology, to promote that type of water conservation. and then when you turn the department of energy into a police force who actually now sets standards that -- so, tell me if i can exceed eight pounds of force, then all of a sudden it's perfectly legal. but if it's under eight pounds of force in removing water

restricter, then i get a $447,000 fine as my constituent did here. and with that, madam chairwoman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recognition. i do not live in a desert. my congressional district in fact borders the largest body of freshwater on the planet of earth, as i mentioned in my earlier remarks. but i find water very precious myself. and try to explain to my constituents every day, we should not take it for granted. but if -- but i find the debates very interesting tonight. a bit earlier today we had an amendment to suppress the wage rates in this country. we have about 13 million people who don't want torque. -- who don't work today. you suggest that let's increase

the price of water. let's increase the price of water for those 13 million people who aren't working. let's increase the price of water, let's use pricing for water to conserve it for those people who may not be making a living wage because people want to destroy davis-bacon in this country. maybe we ought to think about the people just getting by, just scrubbing to get the money to pay their water bills. pricing means something to them. and in this case if regulation that had been in place for more than a decade will help those people of least needs pay their water bill, i say that's a good thing and a very sound reason to oppose the gentleman's amendment and i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition? mrs. lummis: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available under this action act may be used to plan or undertake transfers of natural or low enriched uranium from the department of energy that exceeds 1, 17 metric tons of uranium as uranium equivalent in fiscal year 2013.

the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming, mrs. lummis, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: thank you, madam chairman. i first want to thank my colleague, representative hinojosa from texas, for joining me on this amendment. here's an undisputed fact. today the united states imports more than 90% of our uranium from foreign countries. some of them don't like us very much. we have an ample supply of uranium in the west and across this country. a lack of supply is not the problem. we import that much uranium for two reasons. first, because accidents that happened decades ago cooled interest in nuclear energy in our country. so companies slowed down their production. but here's the second reason. just as domestic energy began

to recover from these disasters, our own government started dumping into the market excess uranium it had stockpiled. d.o.e. uses the stockpile to raise funds for itself for various purposes. a fact that this appropriations subcommittee has been concerned about for quite some time. every time the federal government dumps its excess stockpile into the market it depresses the price of uranium. depressed uranium prices halt private investment in domestic mining and conversion and hurt american jobs in the west and the midwest. being reasonable folks, the eye rainum miners have afwread to accept that the department of energy can dump into the market up to 10% of domestic demand for uranium. that has been the consensus approach since 2008.

however, last month d.o.e. departed from the consensus and announced that it would dump into the market a volume of uranium that is overwhelming in its scope. 9,000 tons. an amount that is orders of magnitude greater than 10% of domestic demand. that is what my amendment today seeks to end. the price distorting dumping of uranium in the open market above what has been the consensus in the uranium industry for years and above a level that can be weathered by u.s. companies offering u.s. jobs in uranium mining. now, here's why my -- where my amendment gets politically sticky. high-profile meshes of congress from the midwest -- members of congress from the midwest are trying to protect 1,200 jobs for one year at the united states enrichment corporation facility in kentucky. now, let me be clear.

i don't want jobs lost in kentucky. but i also don't want jobs lost in wyoming and the west. and i want my colleagues to understand this. while the actions of the department of energy may help save 1,200 jobs for one year in kentucky, it will also end 1,200 jobs in the west and midwest for much longer than that. so the department of energy's dumping onto the open market of 8 dsheds 850 million worth of uranium to help fail out a dying company will result in no net savings of jobs. over $800 million to save no net jobs is a stunningly bad investment. the good news is we can protect jobs in kentucky and the west at the same time. we do not have to choose. here's how. vote for this bipartisan

amendment. if my amendment passes d.o.e. will still transfer 62% of the 9,000 tons of depleted uranium before my amendment even takes effect. after that d.o.e. can still continue its transfers. just under a reasonable cap that doesn't destroy domestic uranium mining and conversion in the process. here are the facts my amendment does not halt work at any of the failing sites, it does not prevent transfers for national security purposes, it does not halt the cleanup of sites in ohio. in fact, my amendment provides a way for all of these projects to move forward efficiently and fairly. the bottom line is this, we do

not need to sacrifice jobs in wyoming or illinois to support jobs in kentucky. that is a false choice. we can do both. and that is exactly what my amendment does. i implore my colleagues to give d.o.e.'s actions careful thought here. d.o.e.'s plan is a market distorting government intrusion into the private market. we cannot stop it in full, but we can rein it in next year in a way that is fair to every single stakeholder in this debate. i ask my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, i rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i share the gentleman's concern on the department's continued offbudget use of its uranium transfer authority to circumvent the appropriations process and avoid congressional oversight. congressional oversight is essential in order to make sure there are adequate protections in place to protect our

domestic uranium mining and conversion industry. however, this amendment is too broad in approach for what is by most estimates a very complex issue. there are several uses for the many uranium transfer authorities given to the secretary of energy that support ongoing national security activities. and there is still a great deal of ambiguity over whether this language in this amendment would prohibit funding for a depleted uranium trails transfer that will keep the kentucky plant operating for another year. that deal would sustain and it may be a question in terms of how many jobs are here, but our estimates say will sustain 2,000 jobs in fiscal year 2013 and provide the needed uranium fuel to produce tridums to supply our nuclear weapons stockpile. i hope we can continue to work

together, the gentlelady and i and members of the authorizing committee and the appropriations committee on energy and water, to find a solution to thank addresses all of these and other concerns. i urge my colleagues to reluctantly but to vote no on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wyoming. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. lummis: madam chairman, i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wyoming will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> madam chair, i have an

amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. fortenberry of nebraska. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to finalize, implement or enforce the proposed rule entitled energy conservation program, energy conservation standards for battery chargers and external power supplies, 77 federal register 18478, march 27, 2012, with respect to the product class 7 as described in such proposed rule. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. mr. fortenberry: thank you, madam chair. i appreciate the opportunity to offer this commonsense amendment, to protect american jobs and reduce regulatory

burdens. quite simply this amendment would block the department of energy from implementing unnecessary energy conservation standards for golf cart battery chargers. madam chairman, i recognize that reasonable regulations are necessary to protect human health and the environment. however we must guard against costly rules that provide no meaningful benefit to the united states but instead encourage the shift of american jobs overseas to lower wage countries where environmental standards are minimal. the proposed golf cart battery charger rule is clearly such a regulation. the proposed standards would achieve minimal energy savings and the department of energy itself acknowledges that they would result in u.s. manufacturing jobs being sent overseas. while i support the overall goal of promoting energy efficiency, i am very concerned about this proposed regulation that directly affect morse than

100 jobs right where i live. madam chair, last week's unemployment figures highlight the economic challenges we face in our country. job growth is slowing and unemployment is ticking up. and this kind of economic climate, why would we want to indexly force american jobs overseas through increased and unnecessary regulation? i would also like to emphasize that golf cart battery chargers should not even be included in this proposed rule, which is intended to cover consumer products. it is my understanding that about 0% of new golf cards are sold to businesses for fleets

while less than 10% of new golf carts are for personal use by individuals. this does not considered a consumer product. it is clear that the proposed rule would make american manufacturers of battery chargers less exest competitive and it would cost american jobs. so we must ask, what will we achieve by implementing this rule? according to the department of energy's calculations, making this change would result in energy savings of only about $6 per charger per year. that's because these chargers are already very highly efficient. with that, madam chair, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will help protect american jobs and i reserve the balance of my time. . . >> i appreciate the recognition. i will not oppose the gentleman's amendment but do i have some concerns. first i would like to say that i hope that we will not begin to legislate every rule coming out of the department of energy on this particular bill. mr. visclosky: think to those opposed will vote no i understand the frustration that the department of energy is capable of causing from time to time.

however, in this instance i do understand that the department is responding to the concerns expressed by the gentleman from nebraska and it is anticipated that a resolution is expected soon. on that basis, i do not oppose the amendment as a gentle reminder for the department to address this issue expeditiously and with that i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. fortenberry: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report

the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flores. section, none of the funds may r made available by this act may be enforced section 526 of the energy independence act of 2007, public law 110-41, 17142. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. flores: i rise to offer an amendment which addresses an misguided regulation. section 526 prevents federal agencies from entering contracts for procurement of a fuel unless its greenhouse gas emissions are from petroleum sources. my amendment would stop the government from enforcing this ban on all federal agencies funded by the energy bill.

the initial purpose of section 526 was to stop the defense department plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to liquids jet fuel. this was based on the opinion of some environmentalists that it might produce more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum. we must ensure we have gas resources and rely on more stable sources of fuel. section 526's ban on fuel choice now affects all federal agencies, not just the defense department. this is why i'm offering this amendment again today to the energy and water appropriations bill. federal agencies should not be burdened with wasting their time studying fuel restrictions when there is a simple fix and not to reduce fuel restrictions. with increase in competition and with the continued volatility

and instability in the middle east, it is now more important than ever to become more energy independent and further very many and produce all of our energy resources. placing limits on energy fuel choices is a precedent with regard to america's energy policy independence and national security. madam chair, section 526 makes our nation more dependent on more middle east oil. stopping section 526 will improve the american economy and create american jobs. in some circles, there is a misconception that my amendment prevents the federal government and our military from being able to produce and use alternative fouls. madam chair, this view point is false. all my amendment does is allow the federal purchasers of these fouls to acquire the fouls that best and most efficiently meet their needs. i offered a similar amendment to

the c.j.s. appropriations bill and it passed with strong bipartisan support. my similar amendment to the mil-con-v.a. appropriations bill passed. and this exempts the defense department from this regulation. let's remember the following facts. it increases our reliance on middle eastern oil and hurts our national security and our energy security and prevents a potential increased use on some sources of safe, clean and efficient oil and gas and increases food food and energy. last but certainly not least, it costs our taxpayers more of their hard-earned dollars. i urge my colleagues to pass this commonsense amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from

new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in support of the amendment by the gentleman from texas. gentleman's amendment enhances our national security by giving the federal government alternatives. gas prices are at record highs and the nation imports nearly half of its oil. our bill takes a comprehensive approach to once and for all to reduce gas prices and reliance on imported oil. unfortunately by delinchinger declining some fuel options to be off limits, section 526 of the energy independence and security act of 2007 limits our ability to reduce our nation's dependence on oil imports. the amendment puts all the alternatives back on the table so

energy self-sufficiency is a national security issue. and this amendment takes a step in the right direction by adding to the comprehensive approach in our bill. i support the gentleman's amendment and i'm prepared to accept it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentopposition to the gentleman amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recognition. i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. section 526 is a commonsense provision that stops federal agencies from wasting taxpayers' dollars on new alternatives fouls that are dirt year and more polluting than the fouls we use today. section 526 bars contracts to purchase unconventional fouls

that emit pollution. section 526 doesn't prevent the sale of dirty fouls nor does it prevent the federal agencies from buying these fouls if they need to. i -- fouls if they need to. this should help the development of alternative fuels that cut carbon emission and not increase it. the effects of this provision has been that it has spurred development of advanced biofuels. they are proven today on u.s. navy planes at supersonic speeds. it is a testament to this country's ingenuity.

opponents say it is not the case. the defense department supports section 526 recognizing that tomorrow's soldiers, sailors, air personnel and marines, are going to need a greater range of energy sources. last july, the department of defense stated very clearly and i quote, the provision has not hindered the department from purchasing the fuel we need today worldwide to support military missions, but it also sets an important baseline in developing the fuels we need for the future. again, the department of defense. d.o.d. has also said section 526 to complicate the department's efforts to our war fighters and take advantage of the promising

developments in home-grown bio fuels and i'm quoting the department of defense. if d.o.d., the government's largest fuel purchaser believes that section 526 is workable and helpful, that should be true for other agencies as well. and in fact, the agencies we are addressing today have not expressed any concerns that i'm aware of about section 526 nor have they asked for this provision. i believe this amendment could also damage the developing biofuels sector at the worst possible time for our economy. because -- it would send a negative signal to our advanced biofuel industry and could result in adverse impacts to u.s. job creation, world development efforts and the export of world-leading technology. developing and bringing advanced

low-carbon fuels to scale is a critical step in reducing the nation's dependence on oil. this section, section 526 is a key part of this process. and for these reasons would certainly be opposed to the gentleman's amendment and would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. flores: how much time do i have left? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. flores: i want to make sure we clear up any misconceptions about this bill. this does not tell the military to not pursue alternatives to fuel. it puts restrictions to procure any type of fuel, whether oil sands from a friendly country. it contains no restrictions. it takes away the restriction

that is have manipulated the market and increased costs of energy for the defense of department. the navy was buying vegetables oil to burn in its ships and aircraft in 2010 at the cost of $424 per gallon. last year this cost was reduced to $27 gallon yet six times higher than what the cost of what navy fuel would be. what this hurts is, it hurts personnel readiness and hurts the ability to buy more tanks, to buy more airplanes, to buy more protective gear for our men and women in the military and also hurts our taxpayers. as i said earlier, keeps the military from even buying fuel from canadian oil sands which we hope will be down to the united states refineries. i also want to talk about what the defense department has said and i'm going to read some

quotes from the letter of the general counsel to a senator. it says -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. advice mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word and yield to the gentleman an additional five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has used the time available to him by striking the last word. mr. frelinghuysen: i ask unanimous consent that i be given -- mr. visclosky: madam chair, i would be happy to yield the gentleman some time if he needs it to close. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for yielding and yield additional minutes to the gentleman. mr. flores: and a letter from the general council to senator

inhofe. it says the department of defense supports senate 827 a bill to repeal the requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition of alternative bills. the bill would repeal section 526. section 526 has the potential to generate significant problems for the d.o.d. in its procurement of fuels for the national defense it creates uncertainty and will discourage the development of new sources particularly domestic sources of energy supplies to the armed forces and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i reiterate my objection to the gentleman's amendment and 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 texas. those in favor say aye.

those opposed. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, 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. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r.

5325 directs me to report that 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 nos remain title of the resolution thereon. -- come to no resolution there on. the chair lays before the house the personal requests. the clerk: mr. bachus of california for today, mr. berman of california for today. mr. heinrich of new mexico for today. and mrs. napolitano of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the personal requests are approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move that

the house do adjourn, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the squone the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have. it the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate. when the house gathers -- devils back in, live coverage as always on c-span -- gavels back in, live coverage as always on c- span. inside, you will find each member of the house and senate.

information on cabinet members, supreme court justices, and the nation's governors. you can get a copy of what -- online at c-span.org/shop >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> sunday night, on american history tv, marked the 20th anniversary of ronald reagan's speech from west germany. also this weekend, our series, "the contenders." for tim political figures who ran for president but lost. this sunday, james blaine. this weekend on the c-span3. >> arne duncan and richard corporate were at today's white

house briefing. jay carney introduced the two men. >> my fault. i was in a meeting with the president. it is his fault. i apologize for the delay. we are glad you are here. we welcome you to the briefing room for your daily briefing. they're here to talk about student loans and college costs. they participated in a roundtable earlier this afternoon to discuss ways to provide students with more transparency about college costs, to help them make

important financial decisions. what i would like to do is first turned it over to secretary duncan and then director cordray. they will talk to you about these issues. if you could direct questions to them on their issues, after which, we will let them leave. with that, and giving the secretary of education. >> thank you so much. thank you for giving us the opportunity. secondary education is the ticket to economic success. well it has never been more important to have a degree, it has also never been more expensive. the obama administration is working to keep college affordable by helping students better manage their debt. we have also proposed to make permanent the tax credits and make new incentives for states and institutions to keep costs from escalating.

we are also working to provide parents and students with the information they need to make smart educational decisions so they can no before they of. each year is, colleges and universities -- know before they owe. each year, colleges and universities send out letters that contain different information and do it or job of making clear how much a student aid will receive in terms of grants and scholarships and how much they will have to barbara. this not -- borrow. this not only makes it difficult to figure out how much college will cost, it makes comparison shopping impossible. the situation makes no sense to me. i think we have to empower parents and students to make a good choice. that is why we have been working so hard on designing an easy-to-

use form that standardizes this information. we plan to have it available in the beginning of the upcoming school year. we hope it will be voluntarily adopted by the higher education community. this is not rocket science. it is a triumph of common sense. we are pleased to announce that leaders from 10 universities have voluntarily adopted five data elements from our proposal. they will provide much greater transparency for prospective students. these presidents, i want to thank them for their leadership, courage, and commitment. they represent over 1.4 million students. there are very significant players at the table. all of these institutions have pledged to provide every student with easy to understand

information as part of the financial aid package. that includes the five elements i talked about. how much one year of school will cost them. the financial options to pay for this cost, with a clear distinction between grants and scholarships and loans. the net cost after grants and scholarships. estimated monthly payment for the monthly loans. and critically important information about comparative information about default rates, graduation rates, and retention rates. we have worked hard on the access side. the goal is completion. having this important information provided clearly and transparently will help students and parents invest wisely and

make the best, most informed decision. that is the fundamental point. we are calling on all colleges to make the same commitment to provide this easy to understand financial data. director cordray and the folks on his team have been amazing partners. i want to thank them. i would like to turn it over to talk about what they are doing to help parents, students, and consumers. >> thank you. higher education is a critical part of the american dream. it has been true in your lives. for many students, this can only be realized through borrowing. figure not have to pay for college can be daunting.

it will affect a student for the rest of her life. for many families, the process is often complex and confusing. it is hard to evaluate financial aid options and figure out how much that they can afford. we have heard from thousands of borrowers who told us they did not understand what they were signing up for. many of them chose private loans before exhausting their federal loan options. some resorted to credit cards and other high-priced loan. all too often, borrowers got in over their heads. recently, we announced that outstanding student loan that has passed the one trillion dollars mark. the stakes have never been higher for families to clearly understand the costs and risks of stephen debt. we are still recovering from the worst financial crisis since the

great depression. while a college education can be a gateway, taking on too much debt can have consequences. students need to know before they owe. the goal is to give people the confidence that the financial world is not full of tricks and traps. we want information to be clear and easy to understand so consumers can make wise decisions. today's announcement is an important step. we are grateful to secretary duncan to being a strong partner to develop a financial aid shopping seat that allows students to clearly see their options. we are pleased to receive support from college presidents representing some of the largest universities in america who are committed to ensure their students understand the financial aid. we look forward to continue

working with them. thank you. >> now, we will take your questions. >> thank you. what can we do to monitor the universities who are going to impose these to make sure they are imposed properly? you talk about encouraging other students to get on board, what would you do in the coming days to try to get more schools on board? >> this is just transparency. this is just basic data. we just think that america's young people deserve to hamas basic information -- have the basic information. there is going to be a tremendous appetite. we do not think universities have anything to hide. we think providing that

transparency will enable families to make better decisions. we are going to work hard. these are major systems. of a goal is to have won the% of the university's -- our goal is to have 100% of university sign on -- 100% of universities sign on. >> republican senate democrats have not responded to their proposal. >> to, uh, --, republicans say democrats have not responded to their proposal. >> if the republicans are getting serious, that is fantastic. we expect congress to do the right thing. >> are you open to a compromise on setting the cost? >> our goal is to have this fixed by july 1. it is important. for so many middle-class

families, they are starting to think college is unaffordable, that is a real problem. we cannot afford to take a step in the wrong direction. we are committed to doing that. we hope and expect the republicans will work with us to get this done. >> what programs are you saying will not be on the table to be considered to help fund it? >> i am not: to negotiate from here. the house and the senate will work together. >> they are saying things like the nutrition program. some say the east wing is going to help to >> if it is a serious proposal, we will entertain it. >> for mr. cordray mainly, the

house republicans are using a lot of the appropriation bills to cut back on spending in some of the areas that constitute achievements, the ag appropriations bill cuts back on th cftc. what does this mean for enforcement and implementation of dodd-frank? do you have anything in terms of appropriations of from your department? >> if you do not have resources, it makes it hard to enforce the law. the cfpb is like other agencies. those agencies have been taken up for many years. it is very important for us to do a job of protecting the american consumer. we have seen it. it helped lead to the financial

crisis we are working to fix. >> how would enforcement be affected? >> given that the proposals you are talking about do not affect the cfpb, i am not in a position to give a specific. it is common sense that if you do not have the resources to enforce the law, you are not going to enforce it affectively. >> if you look at the ryan budget, you see a couple hundred thousand children lose access to head start. that is the best investment we can make. you would see hundreds of thousands of people lose access to pell grants. it is one of the things i have been more excited about, we have seen a 50% increase in people with access. anyone who argues we need less

access to college, i think we are cutting off our nose to spite our face. i think that education is an investment, not an expense. we never asked for an investment. we have pushed at every level. this is about shared responsibility. we have to invest at the federal level. 40 states cut funding. 80% of the country. how is that good for where we need to go? we want to incentivize states to invest. make sure more people have access, not less. we have to get there. jobs of the future are going to go to the countries that have knowledge. that is either here or overseas. >> why a tuition's skyrocketing?

-- why are tuitions skyrocketing? what happened to the previous idea of threatening to withhold federal funds? >> the biggest driver is states cutting back funding. that is the biggest driver. where states continue to invest, we can challenge universities to be effective and efficient. our goal for higher education is threefold. one, to incentivize states. secondly, to incentivize universities to keep tuition down. finally, i keep saying, this cannot be about access, it has to be about completion. universities are working around completion. we want to use resources to identify is that behavior. it has to be about shared

responsibility. >> when you talk about some of the creative solutions, but talking about the program profiled and ohio -- are you talking about the program profiled in ohio? >> you see universities doing different things. they head into the brick classes that washed out half of the students. -- they all are doing introductory class is that washed out half of the students. there is a lot of work that universities are doing to control cost. we have to take the best practices to scale. we have to make that the norm. >> along with the sticker price initiative, has there been any commitment by these leaders to control costs, to keep costs down?

there is an incentive to not participate in something like this city can hoodwinks didn't into paying more. >> -- so you can hoodwink students into paying more. >> we intend to be loud and clear. we have 6000 institutions of higher education. what we have not had is enough transparency. transparency is powerful. that is why this is important. our young people are smart. if some university thinks they are going to get by by hoodwinking people, i think that is a losing strategy. it is about doing things in a creative way. some states, maryland has done a good job of funding education. california has struggled. not every institution did a similar platform. asking everyone to become more efficient, to become more

economical, you have leaders who of doing that. what we want, with transparency, good actors are going to get rewarded. that act is r. bowen to lose business. we think that it -- that actors are going to lose business. we think that is ok. >> some are complaining they have offered up four different ways to pay for student loans. all of which are in the budget. is that something they should expect? how long is it going to take? >> i think of a goal is to have this done by july 1. we are glad folks are taking this seriously. we anticipate moving forward in a bipartisan way. >> are you going to be negotiated with them? >> congress has to do this

together. we need republicans and democrats to come together. i think they can come together on education and do the right thing. we fully anticipate and expect this to be resolved. we anticipate that by the end of the month of having a good resolution. >> one of the proposals is to raise the retirement contribution, is that something you would propose? >> i do not think i can get into any specifics here. the goal is to get this done in a bipartisan way. >> they have said there has not been any of rich from the white house perry >> -- any outrage from the white house. >> they should get it done. >> thank you.

it seems to be that with regard to student loans, republicans have said, they have complained that the agency has too broad and vague powers. >> i did not think there is anything broad or fake about our powers. . -- vague about our powers. knowing what the prices and risks are before they make decisions so they can make better informed decisions. those are decisions that will make the market work better. everyone who supports a market should want consumers to be well informed. that is what we are working for. it is something that the american people support.

it is something that they deserve. they have a right to expect basic consumer protection on all of these products. >> we will take the last one. >> mr. secretary, obama -- [inaudible] high-level officials are meeting at the third annual u.s.-india dialogue. what role will your agency played? many universities are going to open in india. >> you and i have talked, we have a great working relationship with my counterpart in india. we have real challenges here. the challenges india faces, they

make ours looks simple. there is a chance to provide much better education for hundreds and thousands of young people in india. whatever we can do to help, as american institutions start to set up in india, we want to be a great partner. i believe a rising tide lifts all boats. it is a great thing for your country and ours as well. >> do you believe there will be any major initiative? >> i will have to come back on that next week. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow morning, a senate banking hearing on how the securities and exchange committee is implementing dodd- frank. there will also look at j.p. morgan's recent trading loss.

thursday, ben bernanke testifies before the joint economic committee about the economic .utlook and the fed's >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> sunday night on american history tv, mark the 25th anniversary of ronald reagan's 1987 speech from west germany. also, our series "the contenders." 14 political figures who ran for president but lost. this sunday, and james bland. this weekend on c-span3. >> a republican senator said she supports clean energy programs, including the one that loaned

money to celebre. other congressional republicans have called for those to be ended. she spoke at an energy forum in washington. first we will hear from the president of george washington university and a former senator. >> energy and energy policies have relationship modern history over the last several centuries. in the 21st century it is unquestionable that how we manage our energy resources, a degree of dependence or independent from foreign oil sources is going to be a critical determinant of our flexibility in international policy and the health of our economy and the help of the entire ecosystem. these are crucial and central issues. it is easy to be lulled by the

fact that some of them feel like long-term issues. there is the temptation to say, it is important, but it is a can we can kick down the road. to shift where ever possible to renewable resources, the less serious the problems the next generation will face. it is going to be safe to say that one of the crucial indicators of the success of the country will be whether we take on these challenges and to manage energy resources affectively. with that, it is my pleasure to welcome you here.

i am looking forward to a great meeting. i am going to have to come in and out. i am confident this is a meeting that will help inform us. with that, it is my honor to introduce the former senator who will offer a few remarks. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. it is nice to see all of you here. to gw university, thank you for partner and with us. two years ago and i was chairing the senate panel that funded our energy projects. the ranking member of that panel was bob bennett. two years later, we worked together again. but partisanship is not really

dead, at least of some of the senate. -- out side of the senate. [laughter] today, we asked the question, what is ahead? second, a panel that asked about tax incentives, what does the future hold for tax incentives, which determines what kind of incentives we provide for a certain energy production. we will take a couple of minutes to frame the discussion. we will have a panel discussion. j. paul getty was once asked to osama -- to describe success, "he said go to the best school, find a job, and strike oil." america has had a substantial measure of success. we have struck oil in oil and

natural gas in a way that no one could have predicted. we have four times the number of critics then existed at three years ago. we have more drilling rigs in america than in the rest of the world. we are producing more energy on public lands and private lands and more than we were producing before and more energy than anyone would have predicted. it is the case that imports would have gone from 60% to 45%. i come from a part of the country that has had a significant role in that. the most significant oil field in the world. when i describe it to you, it is 100 feet of loose shale two miles below the surface. they go down 10,000 feet, go out

and doesn't fit, down two miles, out -- go out 10,000 feet, down two miles, about two miles. they for sand into the shale. the oil drops. everything has changed. no one would have predicted it. no one would have predicted that. it is the impact of the highly improbable. what will the future be? it will not mirror are past or our present. the question is, what do we do, how do we make sure we have greater energy security? it is the case that increased production is a bounty in oil and natural gas. it changes a lot of things. it is also the case that what has contributed to the energy security is greater fuel efficiency.

everyone understands it has had a significant impact. the renewable fuel standard, i was the author of the initial renewable fuel standard, it has also had a profound impact. 10% of our use comes from biofuels. there is also a slower economy, which is not good. no matter what we produce or how much we produced with respect to oil and natural gas, the price is still an international price. therefore, for energy security, we need a plan and a plan that emphasizes production. yes, fossil fuels as well. but also production of renewable energy. it is the case that one could say, we are doing so well

defined in success, we can rest on our laurels. except, 90% of products are used in transportation. the folks using in india and china want to drive cars. they want to drive cars. project a few short years ahead. project 300 million to four hundred million additional automobiles. ask yourself whether we need an energy security plan that represents national security that uses the first sets of energy. -- uses diverse sets of energy, thermal.lar, bio- they are all areas we ought to produce. they would come as a result of research. we paid a lot of attention to.

i believe our future is in energy research. let me ask you the question, do you think our future mike maine we could find a way to extract -- future might mean we could find a way to extract liquid fuel from there? how about the development of a 500 mile battery? maybe. it is being worked on. how about using solar power at night. does that sound crazy? we also had the opportunity to fund all of our national laboratories. those national laboratories are crowned the jewels. the research that is going on is breathtaking. i am a big fan of that research. i think that is going to have a lot to do with the future we have. this is a perfect time to think through what is next. as i have often said, there is

an old chief who said, "the success of a rain dance depends on timing. though that is true on a lot of things. this is a perfect time for this country to develop strategy. let me introduce my colleague, someone with whom i have worked a long while. someone for whom i have great affection. the former senator. [applause] >> i am delighted to be with you. i am delighted to join byron. we both left the senate together. he did it voluntarily. [laughter] i did it happily. [laughter] we found, we did not go

together, we were recruited. they were looking for somebody on each side of the aisle. we recreated the kind of relationship by britain has discussed. -- byron has discussed. the thing that has become clear to me is that the action is not in the congress. the action on driving forward on many of these policies lies outside of the congress as they continued to try to sort out when they are going to into the next call. -- to answer the next call. i have always had an interest in energy. i am delighted to be at the law firm where energy has a high profile. let me share this perspective. where we are right now with

respect to energy. we are at a time of enormous flocks. enormous change. i will give you a few indications of that. in the senate, over the years, we talked about energy. we were in a situation where energy prices were always set outside of the united states. that is not historically true. there was a time when the texas railroad commission could determine the price of oil. the main source of oil came out of texas and oklahoma. it was priced. why they left it with the railroad commission, i do not know. they could determine, by the kind of allocations they made, how much oil would be produced. that shifted away from the united states and into saudi arabia in the 1970's.

partly because we were running out in texas. the opec states decided to try their hand at creating a cartel. the center of gravity of pricing power with respect to oil shifted away from the united states. we were left at the mercy of someone else. ow, by britain has already described what has happened, for the first time, we are exporting energy. we have enough to take care of ourselves. we are importing 45% of our needs. we have energy being created. there can be exports.

the technology has made enormous changes. the discovery is very important. the ability to get natural gas out of jail has changed the equation tremendously. i remember just as recently as the stimulus package, we put in loan guarantees into the stimulus package. nancy pelosi took it up. it was in the bill. fukushima has changed the entire debate with respect to nuclear. people are looking back at nuclear and what do we do and safety. we are in a time of enormous turmoil and change. the technological improvements keep coming through the door. we see clients come up that have new technology that they need

pat and help or they need that -- need a patent help with a need guidance. -- need patent help or they need guidance. we are seeing a change in how people deal with energy. i was in europe attending the brussels forum that is put on every year in brussels. i am on the board. i go to the forum. one of the issues that is always discussed is energy. i will not bore you with all of the things that were said. this interesting comment by the woman who was facilitating. after the panel had made their presentation, we were in the question and answer period. she stopped long enough to make

this observation, she said, " last year, when we were here, talking about energy, hi everything was russia, russia, russia. this year, everything is china, china, china." it is another indication that the entire world situation is changing, not just the american role. that is why we are delighted that we have been able to talk to our two former colleagues and to get them to come give us guidance as to what they see the future might be. did not be so presumptuous as to ask who is going to win the election. if the republicans win the election, lisa will be the chairman of the committee.

if they do not, she will remain as the ranking member. of course, did not ask ken salazar who is going to win. his job depends on the outcome of that. both of them have a sense of where things are going. from personal experience dealing with them while we were colleagues, both of us know these are two very thoughtful people. they are not ideologues in the sense that they have blinders on that we have to do it this way. both of them are open to a sense of, maybe it can happen this way. let's look at new opportunities and new ways to go. our program is to have the senator talk for 20 minutes and

then open it up to questions and answers. then she will be followed by secretary salazar. i would hate to demote him. [laughter] secretary salazar, the same kind of thing. he will have opening comments. we will do our best to go to the question and answer. i have looked to see a senator schakowsky -- if the senator has arrived. being a senator, i can go on for as long as you need. [laughter] that is not a problem. the one thing under all of this is the recognition of the importance of energy in the economy. if you look at the economy in an over all circumstance, you see

that access to cheaper energy has been a driving force in building the economy. one of the challenges we have had politically and economically has been the uncertainty of that access. it hit us with the oil embargo that came in the 1970's during the nixon administration. it was not just the price that went up dramatically with the oil embargo, it was the uncertainty that went up. with that uncertainty, it began to get changes in the marketplace that came as a result of the fact that there are many industries that have to have energy. this is not given to what economists call elastic demand. if you are running an airline,

you have to have jet fuel. you cannot say, we will cut back a little. you have to have it. for many people, the way america is structured, you have to have enough gasoline to put in your car to get to work. we do not get to and from in any other way. i was in the nixon administration in the department of transportation. everybody was talking about airlines killing rail transportation. i remember riding on the train. that was the way you got from one city to the other. we watched passenger rail disappear. during the time i was there, amtrak was created by shrinking all of the rail passenger services.

it was not the airlines. the thing that destroyed a rail passenger service was the interstate highway system. even today, 95% of intercity trips are by car. not by air. you can argue that that was a good thing or a bad thing, but it transformed america. our former colleague once said, everyone said eyes never -- eisenhower was a passive president. eisenhower just kind of sat there, kennedy and johnson were out there movement. eisenhower changed the country more than anything at kennedy and johnson did put together. it transformed the way americans live, the way they traded, it

transformed whole industries. it created a boom cities. if you were on the interstate, you had a different situation. he transformed us. that was in 1950's. juste 1970's, it did not cause some energy price changes, it hit at the core of the way america was structured and the way america performed. the fact that we are now beginning to get back on top of our energy supplies and getting into a position where we can determine our own future is an enormous game changer in this period 40 or 50 years later. we are seeing all of this come.

are we going to have an increased percentage of biofuels? i always voted against ethanol. it proved i never intended to run for president. [laughter] i could go to iowa without worrying about it. i never thought it was that good an idea. the whole question about, can we put things into the gas tanks of our automobiles that do not come from oil is still a legitimate question and one we ought to be pursuing. all of the legal and economic issues connected with that are something we hope we will get away from this forum with a slightly better understanding of. we appreciate you coming and being here. we look forward to your questions. as she showed up it would do i continue to filibuster?

-- yet or do i continue to filibuster? >> i do not know how much of a speech you have left. [laughter] i was thinking, if i might tell you a short story while we are waiting for lisa. >> she is here. >> you get to introduce their. >> this will be very short. ladies and gentlemen, one of our very best friends. the ranking member of the senate energy committee who knows all and will tell us all. [applause] >> knows all and is going to tell all. what expectations.

i am delighted to be back with my colleagues. i miss you both. i miss you both. we all served on the energy committee to get there. senator dorgan that led some good policy. we have some great relationships. i miss you, but i am glad to know you are carrying on in a good manner. i appreciate it. i have been invited to give a general outlook on energy policy. what is certain is that a lot of members have been thinking through legislative responses to our various challenges. for all the progress we may have made, it challenges remain considerable. when we think about what we

face as a nation and the energy issues that present themselves, i think it comes them to some very key things. it is not rocket science. what we are looking to do is we need to keep energy affordable. we need to ensure the safety of its production. we need to maintain the balance and the federal regulations. equally true, for all of the talk about energy policy, there has not been much action as of late. i think one of the more common refrains that you will hear today in discussions of energy policy is that the united states does not have a policy at a federal level, at least not something that can be described as long term or coherent. recognizing that, i have been

working with the energy committee to look at ways to renew. we describe it as we imagining -- reimagining federal policy. we started by looking at the plant that have been put forth by each administration as well as the legislation that has passed it to congress since the 1970's. we have gone back quite a ways. we looked at the resources the united states has and how long they could last as. we looked at the federal policy is to identify gaps. we looked at hal energy -- how energy affects our policy. today, i am more convinced than ever that many improvements can and should be made. i am convinced that energy policy cannot be a partisan issue.

instead, it has to be an area of agreement between parties and across administrations. as for energy itself, i think the goals are pretty straightforward. they have to be abundant. they have to be affordable. they have to be clean, the virus, and as secure as possible. going through these criteria, i am trying to come up with an acronym. abundant energy will allow us to meet our growing demand and increasing standard of living. affordable energy, we would all recognize is a must. the nation's ability to attract manufacturing. i would probably define clean energy a little bit differently than many of the. -- you.

further improvement is essential. we have reduced our pollution. that will continue to be the case into the future. it is an imperative. diverse energy drawn from a number of sources will help safeguard against supply shortages. secure energy produced domestically will provide us with a stronger hand on the international stage, tamp them volatility, -- down volatility. it is all going to take time and patience and a new federal legislation. i think we need to be very serious. our countries future strength, prosperity, competitiveness, are on the line. one of the things i will not tell you, which resources, which technologies, or which policies

will enable us to meet these energy goals. some of that will be laid up in the energy plan i intend to release later on this summer. for now, i will suggest it is inappropriate for the federal government to focus on one technology to the exclusion of others. markets and consumers will make the choice better than anyone else. what policy makers need to do is focus on the outcome. we should be open to a number of routes that could help us get there. let's focus on the outcome. in terms of legislative success, i think we have some specific characteristics that we should be keeping in mind. first, the committee process that is out there is there for a reason. the last two major energy bills

to be signed into law in 2007 and two dozen 5 would drafted by a congressional committees. -- and 2005 were drafted by our congressional committees. typically, these efforts fall short. committees have the ideas, the expertise, they can produce a better product. if markets are held regularly as we are supposed to be doing, i think you can have a legislative measure make its way to the floor. secondly, our efforts have to be balanced. it is difficult to see legislation that is purely focused on a single technology trying enough support to last. we have to envision how we are going to move this through the process. to find success, we will need to

pare legislation that increases oil and gas production with legislation that is focused on innovation. if we can agree to do that, i think you have the makings of a you have to find the balance there. we need to make some hard decisions about the extent of the federal government's role. the past several years at think we have seen some advances in new technologies like horizontal drilling, hydraulic tracking. it is true that industry did most of the work in advancing these technologies. the government played a role in the early stages of development when there was less reason for the private sector to be interested. i think the example set should be applied today. the federal government can help fund research that otherwise would not be undertaken. our job is not to offer

subsidies than ever and or subsidies that prop up a technology every step of the way to commercialization. i think a good example to lead to my the methane hydrates. , " phillips have partnered to test. it has been pretty successful. this will never involved the government's mandating their energy. it will never and ball federal payments to companies to produce for double read them. related to this is our fourth point, our energy policies simply have to pay for themselves. the tens of billions of dollars that were contained in the stimulus for clean energy projects have probably had much less impact than projected. many taxpayers, we're seeing it now and reading it in the newspapers.

there are unhappy. our nation is sitting at 15 trillion dollars that debt. we simply do not have the luxury to spend freely. i think we understand that. what we need to be doing is being creative by addressing supply and demand at the same time. i have legislation i have introduced of the past several years. we use revenues from greater domestic oil production to offset the spending on energy r&d. i think something like that works. if we need to avoid legislation that in directly increases the price of energy, high gasoline prices have stretched our families and businesses to the brink. i see that in alaska. i have some communities where they are paying upwards to $7 a

gallon. some communities $10 a gallon. almost unimaginable. electricity prices we see a rise in adding to the pavement our families experience. given how it helps determine the price of almost all other goods and services, our it attention should be devoted to policies that help lower the cost of energy, not raise it even further. finally, the fate of energy legislation will ultimately depend on whether or not it is actually brought up for consideration on the senate floor. you might say, that is a given. for nearly four years running now, we have not had a debate on a comprehensive energy legislation on the senate floor. the energy committee reported out dozens of bills including a comprehensive passion that sat

on the calendar for months. this congress is shaping up to look pretty much the same. we reported dozens of bills on a bipartisan basis. we are not seeing the move through the floor. they are languishing on the floor. even as the house passes bill after bill addressing traditional and renewable energy, the best the senate has been able to pull together has been a brief debate on a handful of energy related amendments call up during debate over the highway bill. about as close as we have done is if -- is here. whether or not it is even

possible this can happen. i would like to think the senate could find the time of the next six months to debate energy. given the past 18 months we have seen, it is probably not likely. i am generally on the optimist in the room, but i am also the pragmatists. we are looking at whether or not there might be some possibilities within the lame- duck. i am in the category that looks at that and says, i do not think we will see much of anything happening with energy legislation. so much of our attention has shifted to the fiscal cliff that we are moving towards. we have decisions of seven trillion dollars worth of taxes and spending that need to be made before the end of the year. there may be time for an energy related amendment here or there. i think the bulk of our time is

probably going to be taken up with other issues and concerns. the six steps to have outlined this morning, i do not think they should be difficult for either party to accept or accomplish. the largely fall in line with what americans are asking if they do not dramatically restrict the options open to us. one good sign is that more and more a lesser talking about and all of the above policy. we started using this policy on the republican side years ago. the president is using it. the administration uses it. it is good. we need to do more than talk about it. we need to show it is and achievable goal. we need to take our words and translate them into meaningful policies. with the senate largely inactive for more than three years

running, i am had a lot of time to think about what makes good policy. i have had a good sign that many of you are thinking about this as well. we have serious challenges to overcome. i think it will take all of us. beyond the party boundaries, beyond regional boundaries. it is take all of us to forge a consensus to ensure our energy supply can meet the diverse plans of a prosperous nation in a growing world. i thank all of you for your attention this morning. happy to take questions if it is appropriate. i am followed by my good friend secretary salazar. i am curious as to what he will be able to share with us. >> let's see who wants to ask questions. we have some roaming

microphones. who might ask a question on the site? >> thank you very much. i just wonder, we talked about the lack of action on the floor on the many bills that have come out of the energy committee. why deny get action? >> why do they not to get action? i think part of it is competition with other issues. i think part of it is a failure to make it a priority. energy issues have not been made a priority by the majority leader. he is the one who sets the schedule. he is the one who makes the

determination as to what we will be bringing up next. has not been high on his priority list. we have a bill, the measure that senators shaheen and portman have been working on a bipartisan basis. it is a pretty -- it is pretty small. what we are talking about had where we can make with the efficiency is, this is a good bill. we are not able to get the attention for something like that. i think it is an issue of competing priorities and not putting it as high on the list as many of us would like. >> you have the microphone. let's find somebody over here. ok. you get the microphone mile you

ask the question. >> i appreciate what you said about looking at all of the above and thinking about different options. when i listen to what you were saying it was focused on domestic production, and the only real mention of renewable energy is you did not feel the stimulus was as affected as they had hoped. i am curious how you would balance all of the above and where you see renewable energy fitting into that. >> given my comments or truncated amber if i have a couple of examples. the examples i chose to use what you picked up on. i am a a huge advocate for renewal bowl energy of all kinds. advancing through a process that i do not think is evenhanded

right now. when i was talking about balance and those determinations we and the federal government make, i do not want to say the direction we ought to be taking is the electric plug in the hackles as opposed to vehicles run on natural gas. i do not think we should make that determination. everything be advanced in a way that allows for the market and consumers to determine where we are going. renewable energy is the energy of the future. in saying that we ought to appreciate we are not going to be able to flip the switch and empower everything and this room off of the solar or wind or whatever our renewable sources. it is an expensive transition.

it is a timely transition. how do we get here when we sit with the debt that we have it. i have proposed we fence off some of the revenues we derive from our fossil fuels. whether it is energy of no. 4 in the appellations, let's take some of what we are taking from the ground to advance the are and d for renewal bowls so we can move in that direction in a meaningful way. -- a little tax credit here for maybe a couple of years. i am trying to build it out. one way we can build it out is to use traditional fuels, revenues from them to help build our renewable. >> you have the next one.

you just move the microphone up here. >> i had a quick question related to were your thoughts are. based on the comments he made today. >> the center has introduced his legislation on clean energy standards. i think he will be the first to admit he did in the committee he -- the clean energy legislation is not going to be moving this congress. what he wanted to do was put it out on the table to move that issue forward. he and i last year after the president talked about clean energy standards -- we issued a request for comment from stakeholders and people inside the industry. tell us what clean energy

standards what look like. this was an effort i was willing to engage with with the city's center. i thought it was important to understand if this was an area we could find some consensus. it is pretty extensive. what we did not get back was a real consensus about what it would look like, how it would work. when i realized even with an industry and even within sectors of the industry and that there was not a level of consensus, i pulled back. the senator introduced his legislation. i have concerns with primarily the fact the legislation death -- does not allow for pre- emption of other standards that

might be out there. i am concerned what we have a tendency to do in washington is impose a regulation, another one comes on, and you have an overlap that makes it not only complicated but often times impossible to get to your goal. if we are going to advance a concept i would like to make sure we know what the definition is. it is not further complicated by other standards that have been put in place. i would like a preemption in there. >> you have the microphone. in the back. the young lady. >> thank you for the interesting review. my question will follow, what

are your thoughts about addressing demand issues and also an energy conservation and efficiency. to what extent will they play a role in policy discussions? >> this goes to my point earlier about the portman legislation that i think is just good stuff that helps move us toward greater conservation, and greater efficiencies. yet we are not able to do that through the process. we need to go to those areas where the low hanging fruit exists. we should all recognize the greatest savings when it comes to energy is not the technology that will build out some feature thing, it is saving the energy we have.

we are a wasteful society when it comes to us as energy consumers. when i speak of and all of the above policy, it is a three legged stool. you have increase domestic production from sources. you have the like that is the future. the third leg has to be conservation and efficiency. we can do so much more. i would like to get some of those pieces moving. they should be the easier pieces. the has not proved out yet. >> something happened. all right. you have the microphone right there. who should we take the microphone to a over here? right up here.

>> i meant to ask you about deployment for renewable energy. there has been disappointment with the loan guarantee program that was supposed to support employment. your plan for balance. you did not mention the second to d. where d.c. the federal government's role in aiding these technologies? >> i do believe there is a role. perhaps that sets me apart from my other colleagues on capitol here. i do believe there is a role. what we need to determine is how long we play in this. when you think about some of the tax credits that are in play right now for some of our

renewable, we have put them in place and they stay in place. when we talk about removing them or they will expire, there is a cry. you cannot pull the rug out from underneath us. there has to be a glidepath out. i think that is important to determine. i do believe whether it is long guarantees -- unfortunately what we have seen this past year with some of the failures within the loan guarantee program, it is tainted. i think the whole program to the point where some are suggesting the plug just needs to be pulled, i do not think that is the case. we have to make sure the problem

operates as congress had intended. as intended within the department to allow for these technologies to move forward and to actually get to the point where it is more than just propping up an idea. an industry can take it and run with it. the timing on it -- there is no clear bright line. we are not being as helpful as the government should be. not providing some greater parameters to kind of -- ag is the extent of the guarantees -- the extent of the subsidies out there. we need to do a better job as a nation. >> we go here.

microphone there for the next one. >> i teach in a lot. i have a follow up question to the gentleman. i am thinking you are talking about the value of death. to ramp up to commercialization there is a lot of technology and other risks. your colleague has proposed a clean energy deployment. i do not know what your position is in terms of working on that. >> that is an initiative we have been working out. i am a co-sponsor. let's figure out how we can help to facilitate the r&d, make sure -- you have the are and d d but make sure they are together. i am sure it is one way we have

explored that might offer us some responsibilities. that is a legislative initiatives we took up a while ago. pretty solyndra if you will. i wish i could tell you to that it had momentum behind it. >> over here. >> [unintelligible]

>> i think we need to critically evaluate credit is we have in front of us. whether it is offshore wind -- you are making the distinction between offshore and what we see on land it. geothermal is a situation not too dissimilar. with the geothermal technology is a mature technology. because it is mentor we are not going to make available certain of the incentives or tax credits out there. what we have found in alaska where we have enormous geothermal potential is that the

way you may have approached it in any other state is not exactly what we are trying to prove the access and alaska. we are using different technologies. because it is geothermal -- geothermal is geothermal. we have a one size fits all technology to it. that somehow or another should fall into a different category. we need to be critical as we assess where it is and this process of development. >> to get your thoughts on what the role of the federal government should be as opposed to the -- >> i could not see who is talking. >> and wanted to get your thoughts on what the role of the federal government should be as opposed to state regulatory

agencies and regulating regulatory environments. other areas i imagine are specific to alaska and who is a more appropriate body. >> i have taken a position that with hydraulic fracturing that has been going on in our state for decades, out in taxes they have been engaged for 40 years, wyoming the same. state regulators have been a pretty good job. they have worked well. worked well with the industry in ensuring state guards are met. a level of disclosure is afford it. my concern is that again, we have an overlap piled on an overlap when talking about different regulations.

is it necessary for us to come in, the epa and impose different layers of regulation on top of what the states are already doing and appropriately doing. if you are aware, the proposal came out weeks ago now. ng onview the frackign federal lands. if what we are doing is imposing regulations that are further complicating the process because it is duplicative or a level of redundancy that does not make sense, are we really helping here? that is what we need to be

looking to. states are doing a pretty good job. they have been doing so for a long period of time. you do have certain areas of the country where tracking is necessary. the question is, what kind of disclosure is going on in those states? what are the regulations? i am one who says best leave it with the state. >> thank you. >> i think i am being booted off the stage by my friend and colleague. >> you are being succeeded. thank you so much. [applause]

>> tomorrow, and look at the history of the internet and how it is regulated. our guest is michael gross her recently wrote a headline "world war 3.0." >> for over the past four years, david maraniss has been researching and writing his book "barack obama: the story." he tours the homes and sites in kansas to find the origins of his mother's family. it comes out on june 19. we will give you an early look with exclusive pictures and video as we traveled with the author in january 2010. join us sunday june 17 at 6:00

p.m.. later, your phone calls, e- mails, and it tweets on c-span 2's "book tv." >> scott walker survived a recall election. he defeated tom barrett. earlier tom barrett spoke to supporters in milwaukee. >> good evening. [cheers and applause] thank you for joining us on a historic night. you're sort honored to have fought for this democracy that is so important to each and every one of us. [cheers and applause] i want to begin by introducing my wife who has stood by my side for many years. our children who have been out

there working for their dead. i could that be prouder of them. -- working for their dad. i just got off the phone with gov. locker and congratulated him on his victory tonight. we agreed that it was important for us to work together i want to thank all of you for the work you have done. this has been the most amazing experience of our lives. what we have seen over the last 60 months is we have seen this democracy come alive. to those of you who balks, who obtained signatures, who stood

out in the cold, who did what you thought was right, never, ever stop doing what you think is right. that is what makes this such a great country. [applause] to those of you who care about this city which i love, to those of you who care about this estate, which i love, please, please, please, remain engaged, remain involved, because we will continue to fight for justice and fairness in this city and at this state. [applause] as i have travelled this date the last several months, i was amazed. i was simply amazed at the energy, the excitement that i saw in people throughout this state. if you had been with me, you

would feel as honored as i do to have gotten that opportunity to meet so many wonderful people, people who care about their families, people who care about the community, people who care about the future of this state. the energy i have received the last 2.5 months has come from you. it has come from the people of this state. and i thank you for that. [applause] but now we must look to the future and our challenges are real. we are a state that has been deeply divided. it is up to all of us, our side and their side, to listen to each other and to try to do what is right for everyone in this state. the state remains divided and it is my hope that while we have lively debates, lively discourse

which is healthy in any democracy, that those who are victorious tonight, as well as those of us who are not victorious tonight, at the end of the day do what is right for wisconsin families. that is what our duty is. that is what we must do for the people of this kasay. this is not an end tonight. this is another chapter in wisconsin's history. but there are more chapters to come. in those chapters, it is my sincere hope that all of us here remain engaged, and for those of you who have been involved for the first time or the 20th time, i hope that you got the same energy from this that i did. i will continue to fight for this state. i will continue to fight for the people in this state and i will continue to try to do what is right for all of us.

thank you very much. let's go get them. have a great evening. thank you. [applause] >> shortly after tom barrett's concession speech, republican governor scott walker addressed his supporters in waukesha, wisconsin. ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause]

>> wow, what a crowd. first of all, i want to thank god for his abundant grace e.rio next, i want to thank not only here, but people all across the state. i want to thank you for your prayers. for the last year and half, the thing that sustained us so much, not just at campaign events, but literally at factories and farms and small businesses, just about every day over the past year- and-a-half, i have met people at every one of those stops, and what has sustained us is many times, people i have never met

before, off the line, come off the alarm and a governor, we are praying for you and your family. -- come off the farm and state governor, we are praying for you and your family. how about the first lady of wisconsin? [applause] she has been a rock. she is so courageous, so strong. i am so glad for that -- that 20 years ago in 1992, she agreed to have that first date with me. it has been heaven ever since. together, we are proud to healthcare two sons -- proud to have two sons. they have been through a lot this past year. matt is going to graduate this

saturday and alex is going to be a senior. they have just been spectacular. my mom and dad, i know a lot of view have had my mom's chocolate chip cookies. my mom and dad, my brother david, my sister, my beautiful nieces, my father-in-law tony, all my family is here and to so many of my longtime friends, so many have lifted us up over the last year and a half. we say thank you for all of them. thank you. [chanting "thanks you, scott"] >> is great to see so many kids

out here, too, because that is what is all about. all want to thank our tremendous lieutenant governor. to rebecca and her husband and their two beautiful daughters, thank you to them for standing up with us as well for the proud taxpayers of wisconsin. [applause] i want to thank my incredible staff, both on the campaign and our capital staff, to all the tremendous volunteers from all across the state. more than 4 million voter contacts to staff, volunteers, and supporters. we cannot thank you enough. there is overflow outside because we could not violate the fire code, but there are people all across this area and all across the state. on behalf of all our families, we say thank you to all of you.

and thanks to all of you and everybody at home watching tonight. thanks to all the people who yet again in crut -- entrusted me to be the 45th and continue to be the 45th governor of the great state of wisconsin. [cheers and applause] i want to tell you something. let me share a quick story. last fall, i was going to governors association meeting and she had a chance to travel to philadelphia. i went to independence hall. my parents did not have a lot of money so we did not often go to places like philadelphia or washington. for me, it was my first trip to independence hall. i was so touched, i stood in there and looked at those desks and chairs. as a kid growing up, i thought

of our founders as super heroes, bigger than life, standing in that hall, it dawned on me that these were ordinary people who did something quite extraordinary. they did not just risk their political careers. they did not just risk their businesses. they literally risked their lives for the freedom we hold so dear to day. the men and women in uniform of this country do that every single day. [applause] moments like that remind me why america and why wisconsin are so great. what has made our country unbelievable, what has made the united states of america exceptional, what has made the united states arguably one of the greatest countries in the history of the world is that in times of crisis, be they economic or fiscal, be they military or spiritual, in times of crisis, what has made america

amazing has been the fact that throughout our history, throughout the more than 200 years of our history, there have been men and women of courage who stood up and decided it was more important to look out for the future of their children and their grandchildren than their own political futures. [cheers and applause] what has sustained them here in wisconsin across our country is when there have been leaders of courage. what has sustained them is that there were good and decent people who stood shoulder to shoulder and arm to arm. that is what you have done for wisconsin and for america. [applause] tonight, we tell wisconsin, we tell our country, and we tell

people all across the globe that voters really do want leaders to stand up and make the tough decisions. but now, it is time to move on and move forward in wisconsin. tomorrow, i will meet with my cabinet in the state capital. we will renew our commitment to help small businesses grow jobs in this state. we will renew our commitment to help grow the quality of life for all of our citizens, but those who voted for me and those who voted for someone else. tomorrow is the day after the election. and tomorrow, we are no longer opponents. tomorrow we are one as wisconsin

nights. so together we can move wisconsin forward. [applause] a few minutes ago i talked to mayor john barrett. no, the election is over. i talked to the mayor and we had a good talk, and i said i am committed to working with you to help the city of milwaukee and the state of wisconsin. tomorrow, the election is over. it is time to move wisconsin forward. [applause] i have learned much over the last year and a half. there is no doubt about it. early in 2011 i wanted to try to fix things before i talked about them. for years, too many politicians not only in madison but in washington and beyond talk about things but never fixed them. but i want to tell you, looking

ahead, we notice go important to do both. looking ahead to tackle the challenges that face all the people of wisconsin. we will be committed to talking together about how to solve problems and then working together, we will move forward with solutions that put our state back on the right track towards more freedom and more prosperity for all of our people. [applause] bringing our state together will take some time. there is no doubt about it. but i want to start right away. next week i will invite all the members of the state legislature, republican and democrat alike, and what better way to bring people together and to invite them over for some brats and burgers, right? and maybe a little bit of good wisconsin beer as well. because i believe there is more that unites us than divides us.

i believe that now the election is done, we can move on and move forward. i believe that for the sake of our children and grandchildren, now is the time for us to come together and tackle the challenges that face our small businesses, that face our families and their businesses and our seniors and all the people who care about the future of this state. now is the time to move forward. i have to tell you, i am committed not just to all of you here. i am committed to everybody back home, whether you voted for me or not. for me, the most important reason i ran for governor two years ago, the reason i was willing to make the tough decisions and why i am committed to work with anyone and everyone in this state who wants to help move this date forward or the two young men standing on the stage back behind me. [applause] i believe -- we have had amazing

numbers of people turned out to vote. i believe what inspires us in this state is the fact that ultimately, we go to work and we work hard every day. those of us who are moms and dads and the grandmas and grandpas who did it before us, we go to work and work hard every single day, not just for a paycheck, not just to put food on the table or close on the back of our kids. we go to work every single day and we work hard and people all across the state work hard because we want our children to inherit a better life, a better home, and a better community. thanks to vote today, a better state than the one we inherited. together we will move wisconsin for. thank you, god bless you, and god bless the great state of wisconsin. [cheers and applause]

♪ ♪ >> wisconsin was not the only state with an election today. five states held republican presidential primaries. later in the month, the utah presidential primary. republican national convention is in august and the democratic national convention in september. of course, election day is november 6. c-span "road to the white house card is available on our website, c-span.org. you can see speeches from president obama and mitt romney on major issues like the economy, the deficit, national security, and health care. we have electoral college map,

campaign commercials, web videos, information on key state races and more, all at c- span.org. >> on a personal note, michelle and i are grateful to the entire bush family for their guidance and their example during our own transition. george, i will always remember the gathering hosted for all the living former presidents before i took office. your kind words of encouragement, plus you also left me a really good tv sports package. [laughter] i will use it. >> last week, portraits of former president george the bush and first lady laura bush were unveiled at the white house. it was their first visit since leaving office. >> in 1814, dolly madison famously saved this portrait of

the first george w. now, michelle, if anything happens, there is your man. >> wash the entire event online at the c-span video library. >> tomorrow morning on "washington journal," a look at the history of the internet, how it was created and held it is regulated. our guest is michael gross. and find a link to the article on our website, c-span.org. mr. gross take your phone calls at 9:3:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> government contractors are required by law to make efforts to hire veterans of the military. a senate subcommittee today held a hearing on the issue. veterans' advocates said contractors are not making

enough efforts to hire veterans. missouri center clare mccaskill chaired the hearing. >> this hearing of the subcommittee on oversight on homeland security and government affairs will come to order. i am happy today to be discussing a subject that i think every american should be concerned about. that is the employment of our veterans. the hearing today -- we will talk about an alarming trend in the employment of the best that america has. service in the active-duty military, or national guard, has historically been an advantage in seeking employment. recruiters for the military promise that the service could lead to careers. yet, after more than a decade of war, we are seeing something

different. the men and women who have served so honorably in a iraq and afghanistan are facing unprecedented challenges in finding employment. last week, the department of labor released its latest figures, which showed that the unemployment rate -- the unemployment rate in the united states is currently 8.2%. those same figures show that of veterans who served on active duty since september of 2001 have an unemployment rate of 12.7%. the unemployment rate for veterans who have served since september 2001 has been increasing. in may 2011, the unemployment rate for these veterans was 12.1%. in may 2010, it was 10.6%. these numbers are stark reminders that we are not doing enough to help our veterans. we must take urgent steps to improve our national average to make sure

that veterans have the tools they need to find careers after they leave the military. part of the problem is there are significant barriers in seeking employment. they are finding that all the training and experience cannot simply be translated into similar civilian jobs. they may be finding employees to feel unsure about hiring veterans and members of the national guard because they do not understand what service requires. breaking down these barriers is critical and requires innovative, comprehensive responses. part of the problem is that the government is not doing what it should. simply telling the veteran to go down to his or local employment office or search the job boards, as we have heard happens, is not enough. many different agencies, including the defense department, the veterans administration, and department of labor, have programs to work with their unemployment issues. some are more successful than others.

contractors are well situated to the major employers of veterans. many are. contractors are required by law to take affirmative action to hire veterans. since 2002, president bush signed into law a provision that requires companies with government contracts over $100,000 -- to report their -- those with 50 or more employees are required to develop a plan to hire veterans. the question is, how well are the contractors doing at this? we have no idea. last year, i asked the department of labor for information collected from government contractors for 10 years.

the department could only provide data from 2009 and 2010. it only just became electronically available. the subcommittee staff prepared a fax -- a fact sheet summarizing this information. i ask for unanimous consent that this be included in the hearing record. this sheet shows that the information being maintained by the department of labour is spotty and frequently inaccurate. we saw numbers that are obviously wrong. we saw a company whose number of veterans fire is 400% -- whose veterans hired is 400% larger than the total number of workers. two companies represented today do not even appear in the data. both had in fact submitted the data and were able to produce it on request. it seems that the reason for this discrepancy is with the department of labour. there are two offices within the department of labour

responsible for collecting the data and overseeing compliance. that is, the office of the assistant secretary for veterans employment and secretary, the department of labor, and the of office of federal contract compliance programs. the office of federal contract compliance. yet, in conversations with the department of labor, the subcommittee learned that the agency collects this information but never use it for any purpose. the office of federal contract compliance has the authority to audit contract compliance but, in fact, conducts very few fault assurance reviews. this is not make any sense to me. -- very few quality assurance reviews. this is -- this does not make any sense to me.

i call this hearing to look at two groups taking active steps to promote contractor employment of veterans. we would hear about the challenges facing veterans. we'll hear from two a large, well-known businesses about their efforts to recruit and hire veterans. i look forward to constructive discussion today. i want to make one point clear from the outside. -- outset. the status quo is not acceptable. the notion that these highly trained and frankly -- and

veterans who we know make great employees -- and the fact that we cannot get them employed, that their unemployment level is higher than the nation's unemployment level is a shame. it is something we should be ashamed of. we cannot continue to betray the trust of our nation's veterans by not doing everything in our power to make sure they have access to employment. we cannot waste businesses time -- businesses' time with things that have no benefit to employment. we need to make sure we are not taking a one-size-fits-all approach. this is a tall order. but when it comes to our veterans, we have an obligation to do everything we can. i hope this hearing will be a first step. i hope the department labor -- department of labor is listening. i think the witnesses for being here and look forward to their testimony. i wanted to make -- i may indulge the witnesses to interrupt you for purposes of another senator's opening remarks. i will introduce our witnesses

and we will begin your testimony today. ted is the president and ceo of vetjobs. it has become one of the internet -- a leading internet job boards for veterans. he served in the navy and navy reserve for 30 years. he is also chairman of the atlanta regional military affairs office. he also sits on the board of governors for the international association of employment web sites. he chairs the committee for folks who are supposed to be doing compliance at department of labour. spencer is the ceo of what the mission continues, which is based in missouri. founded in 2007, the mission continues is a non-profit organization that empowers post

9/11 veterans. mr. kimpton is a graduate of westmont -- west point. he held the position of vice president of recruiting for teach for america. ramsey suleiman is a legislative associate for iraq and afghanistan veterans for america. iava has helped countless returning veterans with programs focusing on physical and mental health, education, and careers. mr. sulayman serve in operation iraqi freedom as a platoon commander. pamela harding is a senior