the people are vulnerable. the government is vulnerable, too. the fbi, the cia, even the nsa are -- have all been victims of breaches. in some cases, very significant breeches. so, i think this is a great note to end on. teh -- the truth is there is no power that can protect you completely from the kind of attacks we have been discussing. that is why it is such an urgent matter that we c thatlearer -- that we have clear policy discussions about this and that we do it now. host: michael joseph gross, "world war 3.0." thanks for joining us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] the house continues the energy

and water spending bill. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much, and i still very, very disappointed that during debate the national defense authorization act that mr. mcgovern and myself had an amendment known as the mcgovern-jones amendment which all it did was set the parameters and the benchmark

for bringing our troops before 2014. the amendment basically said if you are not bringing the troops out by 2014 than any continuation of those troops would have to be voted on by the congress. i'm always very disappointed that the congress does not meet its constitutional responsibility when it comes to war. mr. speaker, because of my disappointment and my continued support of bringing our troops home, today i'd like to ask unanimous consent that i might read the names of nine service people who were reported in the north carolina paper known as "the news & observer" and these names are from the department of defense. i ask unanimous consent. eric warren, p.f.c., cal miller, corporal keithen coffey, ryan wilson, second

lieutenant travis mogado, specialist aaron phils. sergeant michael knapp. sergeant knox and specialist samuel watts. mr. speaker. we are continuing to spend money that we do not have. every day our debt goes up. every day we borrow money from foreign governments, and yet we will not bring our troops home from afghanistan. it's kind of ironic that the administration has signed a security agreement that will continue a financial relationship with afghanistan after our troops come home in 2014. that relationship is for 12 years. it's been projected that we will spend approximately $4 billion a month for those 12

years to pay for a corrupt leader and a corrupt government that will not survive. it does not matter how much money we spend, afghanistan's history is that no nation has ever gone into afghanistan and changed one thing. i do not understand why we in the house continue to find the money -- of course, it's borrowed money, by the way, probably from the chinese -- to send to afghanistan and yet we vote on programs to cut milk for children in the morning at school, we vote to cut programs for senior citizens to get a sandwich at the senior citizen center, and yet we continue to fund a war that history's shown we will never win. i have a poster of a photograph that was in the greensboro paper that has at dover air

force base as they're bringing home the flag covered transfer case. so the nine names that i just read, they took their final trip in the back of a plane, and they lie dead in a transfer case with a flag over their body. our congress needs to wake up, mr. speaker. it makes no sense that we will stay there to 2014 or 2015. i have with me a book that if i could pay for every member of congress to have this book and they will guarantee me that they will read this book, then i would buy it for them. mr. speaker, the title of this book is "funding the enemy: how u.s. taxpayers bank roll the taliban." the taliban, that's our enemy, but yet american dollars are going over and many of those

dollars end up in our enemies' hands to buy weapons and bullets to kill young americans. i read only 100 pages. i hope to finish this book next week when we are home, but i think if any taxpayer in this country would read this book, they would be up here protesting washington sending money to afghanistan. because what is ironic, mr. speaker, is that the taliban will eventually take over afghanistan no matter what we do. so i hope that my friends on both sides of the aisle will support us from time to time as we have amendments to create a parameter for bringing our troops out because quite frankly i think we'll be there probably until 2015 or 2016. mr. speaker, in closing, i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform. i ask god to please bless the

families of our men and women in uniform. i ask god in his loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan. and, mr. speaker, i'll ask three times -- god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. sometimes simple concepts are the most powerful. since the beginning of my career, i've seen the power of historic preservation as a key component to a livable community that is rich and varied, not just merely the historic character but the mixed uses, architecture diversity, economic development, jobs and the creation of value. today the trust for historic preservation will be announcing with their president, stephanie meeks, some of the most endangered places that we might lose. serving as a call to action,

our heritage matters. the tax code has granted special recognition to help with the cost of rehabilitating dedicated historic properties and for good reason. over 37,000 historic properties have been rehabilitated, has leveraged $90 billion in investment and created two million jobs. historic preservation is good for the soul. people love the enhancement of historic properties, neighborhoods and districts. it directly links people to who they are, helping us understand and appreciate our roots. it is very important that most people also appreciate historic preservation. that's why it serves as a magnet for tourists and other investors so that surrounding properties and neighborhoods can be strengthened. it also strengthens the

economy. the investment and its ripple effects create more tax revenue and avoids the cost of rundown property and blight. as a local officials for years i learned firsthand that it is hard and expensive to deal with deterioration of the building and the stock and the neighborhoods in which they're located. historic preservation is the best option for the environment. you know, recycling a building usually has more net environmental benefit than a certified new building. historic preservation strengthens the community. a varied straight escape with a mix of use -- street escape with a mix of uses -- streetscape with a mix of uses

is better than a monoculture of a single species. historic preservation avoids that monoculture of the built environment that is numbing to the soul and depressing to the we're watching this phenomenon on display in communities across the country as first and second-tier suburbs deteriorate. as i mentioned at the beginning, this has been in the tax code since 1976. that's why it's important for people with all the justifiable pressure and concern to reform and simplify the tax code, we

must retain tools for historic preservation. indeed, i think it's time to modernize the historic property tax credit, to reflect the many changes since 1976. some of the most profound adjustments were made during the administration of ronald reagan, but it's been over 25 years since the provisions were addressed comprehensively. we need to recognize the difficulty with the current investment climate that makes it more difficult for people to take advantage of the tax credit. as well as opportunities going forward to maximize the capacity for this important program. that's why i've introduced with my republican partner, congressman aaron schock, h.r. 2479. it would provide more benefit to smaller scale main street rehabilitation. there will be a 10% bonus for significantly enhancing energy conservation and special incentives that can be used in

tandem with the 33 historic tax credit programs in individual states across america. it's hard to think of a better value for strategic investment in communities that provide a sense of place in history with the creation of jobs and wealth. a modernized historic preservation tax credit will be a key ingredient for years to come, a building block for a livable community where families are safe, healthy and economically secure. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important modernization of the historic preservation tax credit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. poe: mr. speaker, growing up i knew that my dad when he was a teenager fought in the great world war ii. because my father never spoke much about it until recently, i was curious about what happened. my fascination with world war ii began when i saw the movie "the longest day" as a kid. young americans, mainly boys, really, who had never been far from home were sent to a faraway land to free a people they had never met. they charged onto a beach through a hail of gunfire in order to stop the spreading threat of evil in europe. this action-packed movie depicts the graphic detail of june 6, 1944, d-day. brigadier general theodore roosevelt jr., played by henry fonda, in the movie, was the son of president theodore roosevelt. you remember him. he led the charge of san juan hill in the spanish american war. teddy jr. fought with his brothers.

his brother, quinton, a fighter pilot, was killed in action. general roosevelt was crippled and had a heart condition but he was not finished fighting. at the eage of 56, general roosevelt was the highest ranking officer that landed on the shores of normandy. he was determined to lead this new generation of warriors who became the greatest generation as they took on the nazis. his son, quinton roosevelt ii, named after teddy jr.'s late brother, the fighter pilot, was on the beaches of normandy that day. they were the only father and son duo to fight on d-day. roosevelt and his boys were part of operation overlord. the greatest invasion in history was expected to come at a high cost and it did. american youth gave their lives that day for the future of others. armed only with a walking stick and a pistol and under constant enemy fire, roosevelt led

several groups of 20-something americans up utah beach and inland. general omar bradley described roosevelt's actions as, quote, the greatest act of courage that he witnessed in the entire war. only d-day, thousands of american boys charged out of the sea onto french soil beginning the liberation of western europe. our boys lay claim to the beach heads inch by bloody inch. the remarkable army rangers climbed the cliffs under heavy brutal german fire. they had to. americans did not go to normandy to conquer. they went and sacrificed to ensure that hitler would no longer be a threat. hitler had little regard for american g.i.'s. he was certain that the soft sons of america would never become soldiers. he thought the nazi youth would be able to outfight the boy scouts. he was wrong. the boy scouts took him on

d-day. . the sand was stained with red and blood of american warriors and that of our allies. to my left here is a photograph of the cliffs of normandy where americans are buried. in all 9,387 americans are buried at the top of the beach at normandy. buried on the cliffs, their white crosses and stars of david shine and glisten in the morning sunshine over now peaceful omaha and utah beaches. one of the ones buried there is the tallest warrior on the longest day, brigadier general theodore roosevelt. this is his grave. it is at the front of normandy. fittingly he is buried next to his brother, quentin. quentin was the only person from world war i to be buried at normandy. general roosevelt, who died of a heart attack shortly after

normandy invasion, later received the medal of honor for his heroics at normandy. and here is his cross. so today we express our gratitude to the greatest generation of americans who defied danger and fearlessly fought for freedom. mr. speaker, where does america get such people? they were the young breed, the rare breed, the american breed who took to the treacherous beaches of normandy under the leadership of a remarkable man who stood tall to lead his troops into the battle on the longest day. thee door roosevelt jr. the tallest warrior. -- theodore roosevelt jr. the tallest warrior. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last week a bipartisan group of members convened a panel discussion on capitol hill, actually it was an informal hearing about the

afghanistan war. one of the speakers was lieutenant colonel danny davis who after two tours in afghanistan has courageously come forward, speaking truth to power with his assessment of the situation on the ground and his belief that the war is lost. i wish more of my colleagues had been there to hear what lieutenant colonel davis had had to say. he talked about the arrogance and stubbornness that allows our country to continue this military occupation long after it's proven futile. he discussed the strain and stress we put on our armed forces. as he explained, the taliban are stronger now than they were. push them down, he said, and they pop up in another area. after the most powerful military surge in the history of civilization, we still haven't been able to keep them down. this shouldn't be a major

revelation. when will we learn? we are emboldening the very radical force that is we are trying to defeat. it's common sense that thousands and thousands of occupying u.s. troops will breed and do breed resentment and drive the afghan people straight into the arms of the taliban. every additional day that we keep boots on the ground in afghanistan is another day that the taliban wins over more recruits and poses a greater threat to our safety and our interest. here's a novel idea, mr. speaker. how about we win over the afghan people instead of alienating them and giving them common cause with insurgents? how about we move to implement a smart security agenda where war is the very last resort. under smart security, we would emphasize diplomacy and development. we would seek peaceful conflict resolution instead of military

force. and instead of launching drone attacks on troubled nations half a world away, smart security would have us empowering and investing in the people who live there. and why? because it's the right thing to do. absolutely. but also because the good will it engenders works to our benefit. because by helping people we help ourselves. the foundation of smart security is the recognition that killing more people will not make us safer. that it will undermine our national security instead of contributing to it. but if we help send afghan girls to school, if we help afghan women get proper prenatal care, if we help afghanistan rebuild its infrastructure and its economy, there are things that will advance in our interest and

our security will be better off. a freer, more democratic, more prosperous afghanistan is one where the extremists can't get a toehold. for the taliban can't exploit and feed off people's desperations. and by the way, mr. speaker, we can do smart security at a fraction of the cost of our current approach. pennies on the dollar. humanitarian aid is a lot more cost-effective than weapons systems and military occupation. the current afghanistan policy has been given a chance to work, and it has failed spectacularly. the time for patience and for more than a decade of war has long since come and gone. as a matter of moral decency, fiscal sanity, and common sense, it's time now to bring our

troops home. i yield back. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, for five minutes. mr. olson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. olson: mr. speaker, the people i work for, the people of texas 22, were disrespected once again yesterday by dr. al armandalis, the former regency e.p.a. administrator, a region that includes my home state of texas. after losing his job a few weeks ago because he advocated using roman tactics like crucifix, crucifixion to beat down american producers of fossil fuel energy, he finally accepted an invitation to testify today

before the house subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee. late yesterday the doctor informed the committee that he had changed his mind. he could no longer come. he couldn't come, why? it wasn't weather? i checked. i flew up last night, yet morning, no problem. nine flights out of dallas fort worth where he lives, i flew here yesterday to reagan national, none of them were delayed. why couldn't he come? he chose not to come because he could not defend his actions to his employer. the people of texas and the district i represent and the people of region six. he does not defend texas' system to minimize the emission from

our power plants of nitrous oxide and sulfur oxide. the system works. those emissions have been doubled the national average in texas, one of the fastest growing state in america, that's a great testament to how they work. you cannot grow, you cannot grow -- it has industry, it has a reduction of the national average. we did that. yet the doctor threw that out. jamming texas is a cross state air pollution rule this mast summer, immediately after he did that, without being notified, we should have gotten at least a notification. we got a six-month notification. because of that the largest power plants in my home state were using coal for power production said i have to shut down two power plants. it wasn't because what the doctor did, he wanted to punish texas. and most importantly you could not defend this email which he

leaked to radical environmental groups, that was e.p.a. was dropping the hammer or producer of american fossil fuel. what he was concerned about was contamm days -- contamination of water near the recovery fossil plain. the problem is he's worried about water contamination? i'll read it to you. hi, everybody. we are about to make a lot of news. the first story has already been printed. already been printed. there'll be an official press release. also time to tell channel 8. that was come interesting the administrator. thank you for helping to educate me on the public perspective of the issues. these aren't the public. the people of texas are the

public. look what he said, he sent this out to the radical environmentalists. marching to their orders. here's the response to one of them. texas sheriff. yeehaw. hats off to him. texas does not need a new sheriff and depp putes. we need a regional administrator that wants to strike a commonsense balance between a growing state and clean air and clean water. the american people were fooled in november of 2008. with the help of the doctor, they won't be fooled again. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, for five minutes. mr. carter: i wish to address the house for five minutes. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. carter: thank you.

mr. speaker, as the army caucus could he chairs, my colleagues and i rise in celebration of the united states army's upcoming 237th birthday. since june 14, 1775, when the first company was formed to defend our great country against the british, the brave men and women of the army have upheld the seven core values of this strong brotherhood. those values are, loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. today the army stands over one million strong. we pause to salute the soldiers and fallen warriors of 237 years past whose legacies our soldiers strive to uphold. we pause to thank them for their service and sacrifice in every conflict and war in the history of our nation.

and we pause to thank the families of our soldiers for their continuing support of our nation's defenders during these critical times. the past decade has proven the army as the leader in the war against terrorism, tyrannical leadership, and oppression in the middle east. where you the army have given countless millions of people hope for their future while at the same time making america more secure and a grateful nation. your actions on and off the field of battle have and will continue to inspire us all for generations to come. from iraq and afghanistan across europe and the pacific rim, the men and women of the united states army represent the best of america's ideals and the finest of her dreams. you are the very best at what you do. your resilience, courage, professionalism, battle hardened ways will seize the day against

any enemy of our great and powerful nation. we cannot thank you enough for what you do, your key votion -- devotion to duty and tireless efforts in defense of our nation. thank you for always putting the mission first, never accepting defeat, and never quitting. for 237 years, you have made it perfectly clear that no matter who rises up against our country, there is one thing that will never change. you always have been and will continue to be army strong. mr. speaker, thank you. i yield the balance of my time to my good friend, co-chair, mr. reyes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes, is recognized. mr. reyes: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague and co-chair, fellow co-chair, for the army caucus, judge carter, for yielding me the time to honor the united states army on its 237th birthday. the army as my colleague has

said dates back to 1775. it has always stood tall, both in peacetime and in times of war and times of conflict or police actions which means that our men and women, our proud men and women in the army, have stood in harm's way to benefit freedom, not just for our country but throughout the world. the army has been at war now for over 10 years. today it is battle tested and proven itself once again. our army is over one million strong, composed of some of america's most dedicated and outstanding individuals. so today i'm proud to stand with my co-chair to take a moment to recognize the men and women who selflessly serve our army for the past 237 years. . we pause to thank our soldiers for their families and their commitment which remains

steadfast. from the revolutionary war to the current conflict in afghanistan, our soldiers help us from those who seek conflict in our country. the army has always been relevant and remains a critical force for world freedom today. with the transformation of the army to a leaner, lighter and more lethal force, the united states army will continue to be vital to our national security and the national security of countries around the globe. as we plan for the future, let us reflect on the great legacy that the united states army has given this great nation. through the men and women who were and are proud to be army americans. our soldiers, noncommissioned officers and officers of the

united states army are the most outstanding fighting force in our world. we cannot thank them enough for their dedication to excellence and for their commitment to duty, honor and country. and let us not forget their families who sacrifice for our national security as well. their execution is unmatched. their commitment is unwavering and their bond is unbreakable. i am proud to be part of that army lienage. and this morning as i wear this army strong tribute, i salute our brave men and women who have made our army great but who have kept our country safe and secure and represent the global effort to maintain freedom around the world. i am proud to stand with my co-chair, judge carter, for the past 227 years of sacrifice to our great united states army. and with that i yield back to

y colleague. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle, for five minutes. mr. quayle: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, at a time from record breaking debt and deficits, well, anytime for that matter, it boggles the mind that the obama administration would spend $20 million of taxpayer money to pay for propaganda on behalf of obamacare. mr. speaker, i've seen these commercials that attempt to explain obamacare, but they are just poorly conceived campaign ads. it's bad enough that american taxpayers on the hook for this massively expensive boondoggle which does nothing to solve the underlying problems in our health care system. it's bad enough that many americans are losing their health care coverage because of this bill and the bill is causing more and more doctors to drop medicare patients. it's bad enough that americans will see their tax bill go up because of obamacare.

now, the obama administration expects the american people to pay for ads touting the law that did these things. rarely does a day go by where we don't hear of a new negative effect of this disastrous legislation. this week we learn that many students are seeing their university-based or individual health care premiums rise draw matcally. some colleges have -- dramatically. some colleges have dropped or planning to do as obamacare mandates kick in that force students to purchase health plans that most cases go far beyond what is necessary. then, yesterday we saw an op-ed in "the wall street journal" by steven greer who was involved in a grand approval process for an obamacare program. through this op-ed we got another dismall view in the twisted bureaucracy that is implementing this disastrous legislation. mr. greer recounts one case in which $1.9 million grant was

given to george washington university for a program which is expected to produce merely $1.7 million in health care savings. mr. speaker, even before full implementation, obamacare has been a costly disaster for the american people. this arrogant, taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign just adds insult to injury. and like obamacare, the ad campaign should end immediately. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 2061, cited as the charleston naval base and land exchange act of 2012, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: if no other members seek recognition, pursuant to clause 12-a of rule

1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today. he becomes the nation's first governor to survive a recall election. here is what this morning's viewers had to say. host: let's take a look at the headline in "usa today." walker survives recall election. g.o.p. wins suggest wisconsin is in play for november. republican governor scott

walker survived a bitterly contested recall election tuesday, defeating the democratic mayor of milwaukee, to hold on to his job after a tumultuous year and a half in office. the elections, sparked by opposition to walker's move to end collective bargaining rights for most state host: what do you think, does this have implications who spent more money. that's all part of the equation as well.

to give us some perspective on the race we go to sean sullivan of national journal who joins us here at c-span, good morning. guest: good morning. host: when did this race turn this way? we were reading reports early on when the energy and momentum for the recall effort was in full force. that -- the milwaukee governor or any other democratic candidate who rose to the top could have a chance defeating scott walker. when did things change? guest: it was the last month or so going into this race all year it was a very divided electorate in wisconsin. nobody knew how this would shake out. recall elections are not common evenlts and so it's hard to gauge who's going to show up in an early election. all the polls showed walker leading by two or three points here and there. this was not something that was in the bag for the republican. of course, he was the beneficiary of a lot of money spent on his behalf on television ads, on roux ads.

a total of $60 million went into this race. much of it from pro-republican groups and from walker himself. even going into election day, both sides were nervous. nobody knew what was going to happen. this election was in doubt when voters headed to the polls yesterday. host: and we saw a big turnout. tell us about who turned out, what do we know so far based on exit polls? let me correct one thing, sean sullivan. you are at national journal joining us from there live. who turned out, why do they make a difference? guest: well, a lot of people turned out. if you look at the numbers, more people turned out than they did in the 2010 gubernatorial election between the same two candidates, barrett and walker. barrett got more votes. union voters turned out in pretty high numbers which was somewhat of a surprise because if you look at 2008 and 2010 their turnout levels were pretty constant. we saw an uptick in the number of voters who have a union

member in their household. but republicans really turned out across the board. when you look at the places where walker and the other republicans in wisconsin made gains in 2010, walker really solidified those gains last night and if you go down the list county by county, he didn't really lose much ground. if you look at brown county in the northern part of the state, this is the county that president obama won in 2008. walker won there in 2010. he actually improved his performance there last night. so republicans have to be happy about their turnout model. democrats, a little bit discouraged because union members turned out, labor turned out their voters, their hardcore supporters, but in the end it still wasn't enough to stem the g.o.p. tide. host: one of your colleagues at hotline oncall writes this. --

guest: when you look around the country, kris christy and haley, bobby jindal from louisiana, you are going to see republican governors point to wisconsin and say he -- scott walker took a stand early. he made some tough decisions that were initially unpopular but in the long run the public came around, voters spoke and in the end most people approve of what he did.

host: let's look at a statement by the afl-cio president. this came out after last night's tallies came in. he said -- host: sean sullivan, we heard this message actually for a couple of weeks now from richard saying just the fact that the recall went forward was a victory. it seemed like they were already bracing for what indeed happened yesterday. how do unions go forward from here and how has their power been tested? guest: well, it's a very disappointing day for unions. this is the second day they tried to force a recall effort in wisconsin. if you remember in the summer of 2011, there was a recall

effort to again six republican state senators. democrats came very, very close taking back control of the state senate but they came up short. they spent a lot of money on those races. this time around they spent a lot of money. they also spent a lot of time and effort on organizing it. it wasn't as much money as republicans spent on this race, but it was still a lot and so labor has to look at this and be discouraged about the outcome. it could have been spent on the presidential campaign and other elections. it's a moment to reflect and regroup and look at the resources and how they can better marshal them. host: looking at the front page of "the walk journal sentinel." now, he wasn't the only one on

the recall ballot. we also saw the lieutenant governor able to retain her seat and there were some senate seats that were in the mix. how d those turn out? guest: rebecca clay fish survived a separate recall effort. voters went to the polls and they chose a lieutenant governor separately from the governor's candidate that they chose. and they were also for state senate seats that were up for recall. these were all republican house seats. republicans hold a one seat advantage, a bear majority. and in one race it looks like the democrat has the lead there and democrats might actually have some victory to point to last night in the form of one pickup in the state senate. at this point, you know, there's still absentee ballots coming in so it's a little early to declare victory there for the democrats. it looks like democrats might have picked up a seat in the state senate which gives them something to point to and say,

hey, at least there was a partial victory on a night that otherwise was pretty disappointing. host: sean sullivan will stick with us. let's get to the phones and tweets. here's one tweet that came in from fred. host: don joins us from pennsylvania, independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning, libby. this is a victory for citizens united. this is a victory for those that have bank rolled this guy. i mean, they outspent barrett 10-1 and divide and conquer out of walker, that's what he wanted to do to make it a red state. and so now -- you know, now that private unions have been gutted, the public unions are going to be gutted and then they'll have -- they'll lose

their voice and the important thing there is that when people talk about unions, they ignore all the associations down on k-street that, you know, whether it's the restaurant people or the broadcasters or the manufacturers or whom ever, they're basically unions and they now are going to have the majority of power. they had the power. and it's a black day. it's really a black day. host: you think that the citizens united supreme court decision allowed a lot of money to pour into this and that's what you say ended up prevailing here. so what do you think that means for the rest the campaign season? caller: well, it's going to be the same thing. rove will be on steroids now with his g.p.s. and they're talking about raising $300 million. heck, that will pop up to $400 million. and so it exemplifies how much money has corrupted the system. it's a corrupt, corrupt system

because of the -- you know, the ability to buy politicians. that's what it is. host: let's hear from vijay, a republican in alpine, alabama. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i'm glad to -- i was glad to hear the result last night that the governor kept his job. and i think that people vote, not money. hello, i can't hear you. host: we're listening to you loud and clear. caller: ok. people vote, not money, and i think this is a message to the obama administration for all the things he's causing and the race war he's got going on between the black and the white and hispanic. and now he's included the homosexuals. host: how do you think it relates to wisconsin, did it

make a difference? caller: i believe it made a difference. i believe he might have won if he hadn't just come out so bold and disrespected the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. host: well, we'll look at how voters who went to the polls in wisconsin actually feel about president obama and mitt romney. let's look at this from "the washington post."

host: philadelphia, pennsylvania, barbara, democrats line. welcome. caller: hi. i just want to say many republicans are feeling pretty proud of themselves because of last night's win. well, they shouldn't. it was one with big money from citizens united. last night's decision, unions was blasted away. it should also be pointed out more than 2/3 of the money amassed on walker's side amounted for more than $30 million was from donors outside the state. barrett amounted to $4.2 million, came from donors within the state. furthermore, there were robocalls telling voters they didn't have to vote if they put their names on the recall

ballot. democratic phone lines were blocked at one point, and emails i received in p.a. to make final day calls to get out the vote in wisconsin was the wrong number. the real jobs loss numbers will come out in the future, and the woman who just said that it was the vote of the people, she's wrong. it wasn't. it was the vote of the people who had their interest in big money. thanks. host: barbara, before we let you go, i want to read something to you. "the washington times" says -- host: do you think president obama and national democrats should have gotten more involved earlier on? caller: yeah, i think the national democrats should have, but obama was right to stay out of it because it would have

made it look too partisan. had he come in. but i think the democratic national committee should have got more involved. but, you know, this just shows, you know, the democrats, you know, they're constantly being outdone by the republicans. it's almost as if the republicans are more vicious. sorry to say. and the democrats are not. and the democrats better get so. host: barbara, let's look at a statement that president obama's re-election campaign put out after last night's victory by governor walker. while tonight's outcome was not what we hoped for, no one can dispute the strong message sent to governor walker.

host: here's the way that president obama did get involved. he tweeted support for tom barrett. this was on monday. you can see what president obama wrote himself on his re-election twitter feed. it's election day in wisconsin. i'm stand by tom barrett. he'd make an outstanding governor. the front page in wisconsin here this morning. repeat, walker, g.o.p. sweep elections again. let's go to waterbury, connecticut. lou, independent caller. good morning. caller: wisconsin was the start of the public union. that's where it all started. and for those that called in pennsylvania, the wisconsin republic union members, their retirement benefits are 4 1/2 times as large as wisconsin residents that work in the private sector. and guess who's paying for that? the private sector employees. enough is enough.

90% of these government workers should get a job in the real world like everybody else. we should cut federal, local, state government by 50%. i live here in connecticut. we are being bankrupt by this public unions. they all should be smashed, destroyed and get a job in the real world. the president of the unions, hard workers. oh, really? you think those that work hard? not. they are the most worthless people in the world. host: we are talking about the implications of what this means. do you have a comment on where things go from here? caller: i'm hoping -- i think this will spread to other states because these politicians, particularly the democrats who have been buying the vote of public unions, you know what, these things are -- host: all right, you may be interested that senator blumenthal will be our guest later on this morning at 8:30 eastern time. let's check in with sean

sullivan, national journal hotline oncall editor. we're hearing a lot of passion about unions on both sides of the issue, sean sullivan. what does this mean for the presidential race? we'll talk how voters talk to pollsters in exit polls whether or not they support president obama or mitt romney. guest: well, it's interesting. what you heard from republicans so far and what you'll continue to hear is this is a very good sign for mitt romney in the state of wisconsin which is the state that democrats have carried at the presidential level during the last few elections. but if you look at the exit poll numbers, even though walker won by about seven points overall against barrett last night, voters polled said they largely favored president obama. now, his support is not going to be as high in wisconsin as if was in 2008 when he won 57% of the vote. but if he can stay, you know, 52%, 53%, i believe the exit polls had him at 51%, he's still the favorite to win in

wisconsin. democrats are pushing back this morning and cautioning not to read too much into the recall election itself saying this was an isolated circumstance. this was a race between scott walker, tom barrett, involving labor issues and a budget and that a presidential election is separate. and if you look at the exit polls, there is some truth to that, but republicans are certainly more bullish about the chances that they have to win in wisconsin as they should be, but when you look at the numbers right now, obama's still favored to win and it's still an uphill climb for mitt romney in the fall. host: let's take a call from scott, a republican from big sandy, texas. caller: good morning. your mischaracterization of this situation. it is not anti-union. it is anti-public employee unions just as your previous caller said. you continue to state it like it's a labor versus the rest of us and it's not. it just simply not.

f.d.r., the patron saint of the democratic party, could see the difference between public and private and he was absolutely against, against any public employee union. they should be abolished across the nation. another thing that's been mischaracterized this morning. he stated earlier that this race was close right down to the last few days and the exit polls absolutely show that to be false. all the people made up their minds. this is going to be close was a created myth and just that. host: scott, what do you think the implications are? you made a difference between unions and general labor unions versus public unions? how do we look at campaign 2012 in light of your opinion? are you with us, scott? caller: well, people are set up

-- people are fed up, just as your previous caller said shes with public union employees and their benefits making a lot more than private sector. host: do you think that argument will carry on to the general election? caller: i hate to -- yes, i believe it will. i hate to have this say this. walter pointed it many times your school teacher comes it he bottom third of s.a.t. scores. these are not the smartest and brightest people in the country. yet, they're getting paid like they are. the same thing with government workers. they're usually at the bottom -- you know, it's the only job they can find. host: do you know any government workers or teachers, scott? caller: oh, yes. sure do. host: ok. let's go on to sean sullivan and get a response. so our caller was making a difference between public unions and the public sector versus unions overall. what do you think?

guest: well, scott walker was very specific when he decided to unveil his budget measure that he was targeting public unions, government workers. he really has taken a handsoff approach when it comes to private sector unions. and he's not the first republican to tackle this issue. if you remember mitch daniels, the popular governor in indiana, tackled the issue on his first day in office curbing collective bargaining back in 2005. this was something republicans are looking. specifically public secton union benefits and collectively bargaining abilities as something they can factle as a way to address budget -- they can tackle as a way to address budget shortfalls. what we've seen is a focus on public unions, not necessarily on private sector unions. host: and what do you make of his statement that it was a media generated contest, that in the end it really wasn't nearly as close as it looked going in?

guest: well, he's right about the fact that you have voters on both sides that made up their minds in this race months ago. you know, poll after poll, as i said, showed both candidates pretty close to 50%, but there was that middle, there was that undecided middle of 3%, 4% that really hadn't made up their mind until the very end of the race and both sides, walker and barrett and both of their allies, went really hard after these voters, identified their interests, what they were concerned about, what moved them as voters. and i think that's what kept this race very much in doubt heading down to the stretch. but certainly it's a polarized electorate in wisconsin. it's an even polarized electorate than it was last year, and many voters, you know, are either hardcore walker supporters or hardcore barrett supporters and they made up their minds long ago. there was an undecided element to this that kept this in jeopardy and in doubt even going into yesterday morning. host: let's listen to comments by mayor tom barrett last night after he lost.

>> good evening. [applause] thank you all for joining us on a historic night. i am honored that you are all here. i am honored that you have all fought for this drauks -- democracy that is so important to each and every one of us. [applause] . i want to thank my wife chris, who has stood by my side for many, many years. the our children who have been out there working for their dad. i couldn't be prouder of them. give them a round of applause. i just got off the phone with governor walker and concontract lated him on his cricktry tonight. we agreed that it is important for us to work together.

and i want to thank all of you for the work that you have done. this has been -- this has been the most amazing experience of our lives. and what we have seen over the last 16 months is we have seen this democracy come alive. to those of you who fought, 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's what makes this such a great contry. [applause] -- country. [applause] to those of you who care about this city which i love, to those of you who care about this state which i love, please, please, please remain engaged, remain

involved because we will continue to fight for justice and fairness in this city and this state. [applause] as i travel the state the last several months, i was amazed. i was simply amazed at the energy, the excitement that i saw in people throughout this state. and you, if you had been with me, 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 their communities. people who care about the future of this state. the energy that i have received the last 2 1/2 months has come from you. host: that is tom barrett when he conceded last night after losing the wisconsin recall election. let's hear what kathleen has to

say. she's a democratic caller in hammond, indiana. what do you think, kathleen? caller: good morning, how are you? first there's just a couple things that need to be made clear. first of all, i'd like to tell mr. sullivan, mitch daniels is not loved here. we can't wait until he's gone. he made our state a right to work state. we cannot wait for him to be gone. so that's a correction that needs to be made publicly. we can't stand mitch daniels. number two, ever since the 2010 elections and this new congress that came in with boehner and the rest of them fools, when did it change that a union became a dirty word? my husband is a 36-year united

states steelworker, ok. we belong to local 1010. proud of it. and we are going -- our contract is coming up and it's disgusting how they started off thinking how they are going to treat us. i don't think so. when has it become a dirty word -- i don't know where people get this notion because of big money and money bgs mitt that -- when is it a crime you have to menalize the teacher, a policeman, fireman, people that are scraping by, actually get up, go out there, and protect the people like money bags mitt, the guy wants to be president of the united states but he's starting off lying to the people when he's got offshore money in offshore tax haven accounts that he won't even admit to. and he wants to protect the

taxpayers of this country? host: let's look at what mitt romney had to say what the campaign said after governor walker's win last night. governor walker has demonstrated over the past year what sound fiscal policies can do to turn an economy around. tonight's results will echo beyond the borders of wisconsin. governor walker has shown that citizens and taxpayers can fight back and prevail against the run away government costs imposed by labor bosses. our facebook page, c-span, here's how folks are weighing in. edwin says, when the unions are outspent by big business, $34 million to $4 million, you expect a big loss. he only won by seven points, which to me says he would have lost if it wasn't for all the money brought in by big business. this is nothing compared to what we are going to see this fall in the national election. and twitter, charles says, this should not have been -- forced a statewide election in six months before a general election. timing was all wrong. wilmington, delaware, brian.

a libertarian, hi. brian, are you with us? who is this? caller: this is jo ann from connecticut. host: hi. what's your comment? caller: hi. my comment is that i'm really happy that governor walker won. i think it's time in a the unions, government unions, got reined in because they are causing a lot of problems with the budgets. host: let's go on to craig, republican caller. perry, georgia, hi. hi, greg. caller: hey. thanks for your -- my call here. 27 states have turned republican. there's your trend has happened. and this is private union greed that people are turning against not all unions.

my union is pretty good, but we have been in bankruptcy three times. we took a no pay raise two contracts in a row to keep our jobs. but it's already proved that those people with their benefits make over 80,000 a year where private sector was making $63,000. that's the inequity people are upset about. that their taxpayers are paying that big a difference. and in california jerry brown is a democratic governor. he's $16 billion in debt. so it's having an effect in every state. the states that are drilling people, every surplus, job growth, north dakota, montana, texas. they have a surplus. drill people, drill our way to prosperity. that will do it. host: craig mentioned california. let's check in sean sullivan of the national journal. wisconsin voters weren't the

only ones going to the polls. we saw primary contests like california, new jersey, new mexico. sean, the big takeway from california, a sorry from hotline oncall, your colleague writes that, both represents yiffed brad sherman an howard berman advanced past the primary. tell us about the california's new primary system and what this means? guest: you mentioned both those members of congress advanced to a general leaks. california's putting in place a new all party primary system. how it works is you have all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, compete in a primary. then the top two finishers move on to the general election regardless of party affiliation. as we see with sherman and berman, you have two democrats running against each other in a democratic district. we have seen in other states like washington state and louisiana, these all-party primary systems, but it's new for california. we'll see what happens.

there was another member vs. member between hahn and richardson. this is a function of redistricting year where you have states losing districts and members being forced into campaigns against each other. and we saw that in new jersey as well last night with bill pascrell defeating congressman rothman. of course bill clinton packed pascrell in that race. a lot of action last night even outside wisconsin. there was a referendum in california for a $1 tobacco tax that produced a pretty divided outcome there. the busiest day we have seen in a while, certainly, electionwise, one of the busier days we'll see until the conventions hit later this summer. host: a story from hotline oncall, democratic primary in new jersey, both candidates sought to portray themselves as the real democrat in what hotline describes as an ill-tempered primary. what's the take away from representative pascrell's win?

guest: i think the real take away is he was able to better organize and turn out his support. a lot has been written about bill clinton coming out on his behalf. whereas president obama came out on the other side of this race. but what it comes down to, when he looked at this district it looked like a tough haul initially because not a lot of constituents were there, but he turned out his core supporters in high numbers last night. i think the main takeway is, comes down, we saw this in wisconsin as well, turning out your base supporters. making sure those people get to the polls. making sure that you can count on a base support in a close race. we saw that last night with pascrell. we saw that with scott walker in wisconsin. we'll see that across the map for the rest of the cycle. host: george joins us from avon, ohio. democrat's line. hi, george. caller: good morning. i would like to make a couple of points. first i would like to say what happened in wisconsin is very scary. i mean this proves money can buy

an election. walker and his friends outspent the opposition by seven to one. tons of money coming in from big business and the wealthy to support his union busting agenda. and the second point i would like to make is, this is about public unions. don't believe it. don't fall for that con. this is about lowering the wages and benefits of all average americans, all working americans. they are starting out with the unions, and if they can break the unions, then they can go after everybody else. america better wake up before it's too late. host: george, what do you think going into campaign 2012 and the general election? what do you think that means for that? for the votes and for the presidential contest? caller: well, i think it's all about money. it's getting down -- ever since the supreme court ruling, it's all about money. the more money you have, the more money -- mitt romney used

that same strange -- strategic to defeat his -- strategy to defeat his opponents. host: george what, do you think the democrats should do? caller: they are going to have to start outspending the republicans. they are going to to run -- the democrats are going to have to go negative just like the republicans have. they are going to have to attack the republicans just like the democrats -- republicans are attacking the democrats. host: let's look at the headline in the "chicago sun-times." this comes courtesy of the new seem. beyond recall, wisconsin's mixed message. while voters in the badger state kept the republican governor in office they are still comfortable voting for obama. "washington post," wisconsin has gone democratic in recent elections, an exit polling on tuesday shows obama still holds an advantage. 51% of voters say they will back obama, while 44% said they will support romney. our next caller is from

milwaukee, wisconsin. mary, a democrat, hi, mary. caller: hello. host: did you vote yesterday? caller: yes, i did. host: what did you think about the results? caller: i know for a fact that i work if in scott walker's hometown and i know that for the first time in 27 years we do not have a union where we work, we had layoffs. in the health care industry. i'm a nurse. i can tell you that the impact of the campaign, the people that i work with, we are just from -- we are making us meet like everybody else, and we can't- identify -- can't identify with mitt romney, somebody who has come from money and never really had to work from the bottom on up. and worked to like a nurses

assistant and go to a nurse. i have taken a $3 an hour pay cut. it's impacted the -- a lot of the nurses in this facility and a lot of the -- how we have to really tighten. we were tightening our budgets anyways. i'm just -- listening to all the other callers around the country, and all i have to say is scott walker, i can hear his message, and he did realize last year he made a mistake by going in and not telling the people what he wanted to do with unions. because he acknowledged that he learned from last year. he said he made a mistake by just -- he said people talk on campaigns and don't do anything. he didn't talk and just went in and did something. he realized from now on that he has to talk to the voters before he just rushes in and causes the chaos he did in our capital. host: were you surprised by the results of the election?

caller: a little bit. but i also think that scott walker has to took at -- look at the numbers and say, look, how many more people voted for his opponent. and those are people that disagreed with him. i also thought it was interesting if you look at the numbers of the lieutenant governor, not everyone voted for lieutenant governor, also. the numbers aren't the same. i'm just weighing in on what it's like to be in wisconsin and all the turmoil we have had in the last couple months. thank you. host: thanks for sharing your story. here's a tweet from bill. has anyone considered that taxpayers of wisconsin may have spoken the loudest last night during economic hard times? and facebook conversation includes this comment, michael says, not unexpected results and given poll numbers on obama supporting wisconsin. it's not impacting the likelihood that obama keeps the confidence in the fall.

the media is trying to keep that about the election alive. if everyone conceded that romney has no chance, covering the election would be kind of silly. and drayton says, chalk up the loss to the d.n.c. raleigh, north carolina, welcome. caller: good morning. so glad to be able to share my thoughts about this election. so many -- the eyes of america really were on this election. i'm actually a registered democrat who has turned independent. i'm very concerned about the fiscal situation in the united states. and watched every channel that i could last night. so i want to make a few comments real quick. one thing is about the exit polls. in the beginning of the evening leading up to the polls closing, you kept hearing about the exit polls, how close it was going to be. it was going to be a long, long night. maybe going until this morning before we even knew.

well, america found out that really wasn't true. so i just feel a little bit dooped -- duped, when i keep hearing about the polls, about romney, still losing to president obama by -- well, they say it's by seven points, which really gets cut in half. even if it is that, which is arguably whether it's true or not, it's still -- he won by 15 points. plus i'm a health care provider in raleigh, north carolina. had worked for hospitals in north carolina. as most people know, maybe some don't, it's a right to work state. and i originally am from new york, and worked in unions up in western new york. in union hospitals. i'll be honest with you, this is really the truth, i made a whole lot more money here in raleigh,

north carolina, and even one hospital, one great hospital in raleigh, would give a percentage of what they made in a check at the end of the year. and i just also want to say that scott walker, well watching when someone can turn a state around. we are in fiscal trouble here. we really are. families all over this country are having problems. and we have to tighten our belt. i have to tighten my belt to make it paycheck to paycheck. and it's promising. i hope we can all work together. i just want to hear your guest's comments about the exit polls and about what this really does do for the election coming up in november. and thank you so much. i appreciate it. host: sean sullivan, the exit polls. guest: if you look at the exit polls it is an interesting story. the biggest takeway first is that voters view the presidential election in a very -- with a very different lens than they view the recall

election. that's encouraging generally for democrats. but the worry i think for democrats is that this recall election allowed republicans and allowed walker to activate a republican base that is going to remain active in politics in wisconsin. it's going to take an interest in november. one of the toughest things about polling in general is trying to figure out who it is that's going to actually turn out in these elections. that's even tougher in a recall election which doesn't happen all the time. so i think some of the uncertainty we saw with some of the polling coming out of wisconsin was largely due to that. but i think it's pretty clear that votes view the presidential election as a separate entity. and i think that's something that's encouraging for democrats as they look for some ray of sunshine, some silver lining from what happened on tuesday night in wisconsin. host: and we look at this graphic from "the washington

post." candidate ads spending. talking total ad spending for the 2012 presidential race. mitt romney, $55 million, president obama, $34 million. ron paul still in the game, $4 million. sean sullivan, how important are these numbers? if we hear a lot of our callers talk about how money played a big role in this for better if they agree how things turned out. for worse if they are unhappy with how the wisconsin race turned out. what do we make of those numbers and how do the democrats view what happened yesterday? guest: those callers are right. money played an enormous role in this. walker him evidence raid over $30 million. over $60 million was poured into this contest. there was a clear disparate between the amount of money that walker and his allies spent versus the amount of money that barrett and his democratic allies spent. that's a cause for concern for democrats because that's not just something that you're seeing in wisconsin. you're seeing that nationally. if you look at some of the most

influential outside groups, it's the republican groups like american crossroads, that are raising heaps of money right now and democratic donors are kind of sitting on the sidelines. they are not giving a whole lot of money to the democratic outside groups. that has democratic strategists worried. that has obama's campaign worried. democrats are going to have to give more money. these democratic outside groups are going to have to be more active in raising money, but right now what you saw in wisconsin is sort of a microcosm of the campaign finance situation. republican outside groups are raising more money and they are spending more money than their democratic counterparts. that's absolutely a concern for the white house. it's absolutely a concern for congressional democrats running down the ballot hoping to get support from outside groups as the republican outside groups hit them. so it's something that was very true in wisconsin. it's something that so far this cycle has been very true nationwide. host: we are seeing a tweet come in, right-wing radical.

i don't know anyone who changes their votes based on a tv ad or row bow call. all media hype about money and votes. putting the hash tag there for the tea party. thanks for joining us and answering our questions this morning. guest: thanks for having me. >> governor scott walker winning yesterday's recall election staying in office. the vote 53-46 percent and the conversation continues online asking you on facebook about the impact of governor walker's win. facebook.com/c-span. >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific, on american history tv, mark the 25th anniversary of president ronald reagan's 1987 speech from the brandenburg gate in west germany. also this weekend on c-span3, our series, "the contenders" 14 key political figures who ran for president and lost but

changed political history. this sunday at 7:30. james blaine, american history tv, this weekend on c-span3. >> over the past four years pulitzer prize winning author david maraniss has been researching and writing his 10th book, "barack obama the story" which included traveling the globe and speaking with the president's relatives in kenya and discovering his african ancestry on the shores of lake victoria. he also toured the family homes and sites in kansas to find the origins of hi mother's family. barack obama the story comes out in bookstores on june 19. but book tv will give you an early look with exclusive pictures and video, including our trip to kenya as we traveled with the author in january of 2010. so join us, sunday, june 17, at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. and later, at 7:30, that same night, your phone calls, emails, and tweets for david maraniss on c-span2's book tv. >> finally 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 you 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. i use it. >> last week, portraits of former president george w. bush and first lady laura bush were unveiled at the white house. it was their first visit since leaving office. >> as fred mentioned, in 1814 dolly madison familyously saved this portrait of the first george w. now michelle, if anything

happens there's your man. >> watch the entire event online at the c-span video library. >> the u.s. house gavels back in in about 35 minutes. noon eastern to resume consideration of amendments to the energy and water spending bill for fiscal year 2013 and likely finish up work on that and begin work on the homeland security spending bill. we will have live coverage. house speaker john boehner today, another republican -- and other republican leaders, pushed for at least a one-year extension of all current tax rate. the speaker saying that extending the bush era tax rates, which are set to expire at the end of the year, would instill confidence to, quote, american job creators. house republican leaders along with senator minority leader mitch mcconnell speak to reporters. a that's what i told them a few minutes ago. >> calm down, relax. good morning, everyone.

last week's jobs report was certainly bad news for the american people. now, once again shows that the president's economic policies have failed. as a result, it's really important that we provide some certainty to job creators in our country. and extending all of the current tax rates for at least a year is really important if we are going to help job creators gain a little more confidence and put americans back to work. even bill clinton came out for it, before he was against it. and then larry summers, the president's former economic advisor, this morning came out in favor of this. we believe it's time to extend all of the current tax rates because it really will provide certainty for american job creators. senator mcconnell. >> thank you. let me just add i was in the middle of the negotiation in december, 2010, when the vice president overextending the

current tax rates for two years. the argument the president made and agreeing to do that two years ago was that the economy needed it. the growth rate now is actually slower than it was in december of 2010. as the speaker indicated, coupling that with bill clinton's remarks and larry summer's remarks, it's obvious the economy needs the certainty of the extension of the current tax rates for at least a year. that would also give us the time to begin to grapple with something we all agree we need to do on a bipartisan basis, which is to reform the whole tax code. that hasn't been ton in a quarter century and -- done in a quarter century and i think republicans and democrats agree that needs to be done once again. >> good morning, as the leader and speaker just said, i think even folks on the other side of the aisle and part of the president's team, if you will, are now actually coming to the realization, we got to do everything we can to start growing this economy. it is about economic growth and

job creation. that's what the small businesses are telling us. that is what working families are telling us. it's time to focus on job creation. the biggest impediment to that is small businesses of america feeling that it's very difficult right now to predict where they should move, how they should allocate their capital, because of the unknown in the tax rate. and that's why all of us are saying, let's say it to the american people once and for all, we are not going to allow tax rates to go up on anybody. we are going to go and pursue tax reform as the leader just said, because all sides agree we got to do something to make our code simpler and fairer. a wune of the bills on the floor this week is the repeal of the medical device tax. this was one of 18 new taxes that was included in the health care bill. i'm really excited that this legislation is coming forward because when you look at the medical device industry, it has been one of the most dynamic industries in america.

it's really an american success story in a over -- that over the last 40 and 50 years these medical device companies have been coming up with lifesaving equipment, great technologies. a few months ago i held a forum with c.e.o.'s from the medical device industry, called jobs and innovation. and one c.e.o. summed it up this way, if you wanted to kill and industry, you are doing everything right. that is the wrong message that we should be sending to our job creators. we want this kind of innovation in america. we want these kind of jobs. this is a dynamic industry. the tax would be devastating on tflt we are going to be moving forward this week with repealing this medical device tax and keeping these jobs in america. another takeway from the round table was that it takes four years longer on average to get anything approved in america versus what is required in

europe. again, the regulations and the tax burden are making it harder on our job creators. let's change that and head in a direction that will keep america competitive. >> it's not often in washington that you get a bipartisan view. but you listen to former president clinton, you listen to summers, you listen to our speaker, and you listen to our leader which i would like to say happy birthday to, mr. cantor, but they are saying the same thing as the small businesses are across america. being a former small business owner you know the number one thing you look at is certainty. the certainty and the idea of a tax code system what you are going to do for next year. the other bipartisan view we have across america is our job growth stinks. we need to create jobs. do you realize there is more cash on hand in america than there has been in the last 50 years? but the number one reason you cannot make that investment is the uncertainty. the uncertainty of the tax code

and uncertainty of the health care law. you know what? both of those could be changed this month. that's why we are asking for the extension so jobs could be created in america and america could get back to work. >> on friday the american people received even more bad news with the unemployment report. the real news is that 3.5 years into his administration, the president's policies regret are still failing the american people. it's all about the threat of sirial trillion dollar deficits. it's about the fact that this administration has put more regulations on the book than at any time in america's history. part of it is the rhetoric that vilifies success, attacks the free enterprise system, and part of it is the threat of the single largest tax increase in america's history, much of which

will fall upon small business. obviously president bill clinton gets it. he knows in this economy you should not be raising taxes on anybody. and so it will be a good week that house republicans move to repeal at least one portion of the president's tax increase, medical device tax. which doesn't just impact big businesses. i'm a i have a small tool and dye manufacturer. i went to visit his plant and he told me if this law is enacted i'm probably going to lay off after of my workers. that's a lot of people in jacksonville, texas. it's time to get this economy moving again. it's time to take away the specter of the single largest tax increase in america's history. >> mr. speaker, i wanted to ask you -- >> i think wisconsin's election shows when you listen to the people of your jurisdiction, in

the case of governor walker, when you listen to the people of a -- you follow their will, they'll stand behind you. they have taken bold action in wisconsin and the wisconsinites clearly support it. >> do you think that that is -- the legislative agenda here in terms of what you have done. you know what he's done, do you think that is the type of thing you should be pursuing? is there more of a mandate to do this now? >> the american people have had it with big government. and high taxes and a regulatory system it that knows no bounds. they want elected officials to take control of the situation so that american job creators could go back to doing what they do best, creating jobs. thank you. >> the speaker will gavel in the

house in about 25 minutes. they will finish consideration of the fiscal year 2013 energy and water spending bill. the five remaining amendments and a number of amendment votes. also this afternoon they'll likely begin debate on the 2013 spending bill for homeland security. live house coverage when they come in at noon here on c-span. until then part of our conversation this morning, our spotlight on magazine's series with vanity fair on the creation and regulation of the internet. host: every wednesday at 9:15, we have our spotlight on magazines segment. we look at a vanity fair piece from the may issue, world war 3.0. the author of that story joins us from new york city this morning. michael joseph gross, thanks for being here. guest: thanks for having mee. host: this is about the internet, regulation of the internet, allege and wild west way it is functions. who regulates the internet right

now? how is it controlled at this point? guest: it's run by a small group of nonprofits. mostly american based. but what's happening in the coming year is we are building up to a meeting in dubai in december. a meeting of the international telecommunications union. that's a body of the u.n. that oversees the united nations treaty called the international telecommunications regulation. the i.t.r., for short, cover telephone, television, and radio network and there is a big question as to whether it's going to be expanded to cover the internet as well. what would happen then is governments would get more involved directly in running the internet. and a lot of governments that like to monitor and control the way their citizens use the net, governments like russia, iran, china, are pushing pretty hard for that to happen. host: michael, you write about in your piece these countries that do have an interest in monitoring, running, or

controlling the internet and you talk about what's happened in the past. iran yain government authorities were able to read citizens' emails, diagram their social network, and keep watch on most anything else they wanted to observe. this is back in the 2009 green revolution protest. you called it a major turning point. it had evolved from one as one of the folks yountviewed ts your liberty is at stake. tell us about how people perceive what the internet means to them. what they are putting on there and who can see it. guest: well, what happened after the mid 1990's, when the clinton administration decided to commercialize the internet, to open it up as a place to do business, people around the world gradually began to change their relationship with intellectual property. with culture. in a way that is unprecedented in the history of the world. people started to take and use

music, snatches of books, movies, to post them, to various social media websites, to express themselves. and gradually they began to feel a sense of entitlement to this information. once that movement took on momentum, it created a trove of data that reveals more about citizens than any census ever could. that's very tempting to governments. especially governments that are more -- especially governments that like to monitor what their citizens are doing very closely. so in 2009 when the green revolution occurred and iran went to -- looked at facebook and twitter accounts of people who were protesting, very easily got access to all of these

citizens' information. it was a wake-up call to a lot of people that this integration of the citizen and the consumer, consumer of information, had created a very vulnerable new species of persons. guest: our guest has written extensively for pum cases -- pum cases. he's a contributing editor to "vanity care." thomas in columbus, ohio, on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say that i feel censorship issue is well taken care of by the people. i feel that the things that the states don't take care of and have fallen to the people, explain why we are ourselves are censoring it. it's ok to monitor. if they want to come and look, more than welcome. they can't come and touch. because if you want to take a picture to a classroom and teach

something, that's why we have freedom of printing anything that's copyrighted to be able to reveal it. even in -- any environment. just to be seen. so the censorship is taken care of by people and that's my statement and feeling. thank you. host: any comments, michael gross, our caller talked about they. who is the they? are we talking about governments? are we talking about companies themselves mining our information? who is the they? the other? guest: well, i can't really speak to what the caller had in mind specifically. but there are they issues, if we want to call them that, with both corporations and governments. i spoke a minute ago about the trove of information that we have all built up about ourselves through our activity online. i talked about the risks of

government access to that information, but there are, as you point out, equally strong risks regarding the fact that these -- this tiny number of corporations has so much data and so much, therefore, power over us in their possession. we all take the boxings on terms of service -- boxes on terms of service, g mail, facebook, twitter without reading them. in fact, we are giving ownership an access to a group of companies whose first allegiance is to their stockholders, first allegiance is to their own goal of creating revenue, which is in its way as much cause for concern as anything the governments may want to do with the information. host: dave in wisconsin, republican caller, joining us.

hi. caller: how are you? host: good. caller: hi. an agreement from the united nations? on privacy and stuff like that. as long as they have been around, the united nations has never really accomplished much of anything. they are an incompetent, mismanaged organization, they never get anything done. if you want to do some deficit reduction, we should stop funding the united nations. and i kind of resent the fact that we are signing agreements -- host: do you think anyone should essentially control the internet? should the u.s. have a role in that? should there be international agreements about it? caller: i don't know anything about that. all i heard was the agreements on the united nations. host: ok. michael, tell us more about what's on the docket. who are the international bodies in discussion? guest: the international bodies

that the international telecommunications union gathering in dubai will mostly be nations. there will be representatives of corporations, too. this is a treaty among nations. the man presiding is charming, satellite engineer, trained in the soviet union, comes from mulli, he has spoken quite clearly about the i.t.u.'s intention to democratize, as he puts it, control over the net. he points out that the united states may have invented the internet, but the united states only has 1/10 of the total internet users on the planet now. and last summer a lot of observers of the i.t.u. were somewhat concerned when putin appeared with torre at a photo

opportunity, putin thanked him for his ideas about how to expand national control over the net. host: you titled your piece, world war 3.0, why? guest: editors write titles. writers write stories. host: why go with that tight? guest: i think they went with that title because even though there is a bit of poetic license in it, it's a fair statement that the conflicts over the net are intensifying to such a point that many people are comparing them to wars. we are really approaching points of crisis on four main fronts. you can simplify it, cut it all down to two p's and two s', prifecy, pyrecy, and intellectual property, security, and sovereignty. in each of these areas --

privacy, piracy, and intellectual property, security and sovereignty. in each of these areas there are it items arising that need to be addressed quite urgently. and governments, unfortunately, are not full people who are qualified to address them. one of the interesting things about reporting this piece was getting to know a lot of the top cybersecurity experts in the country and in the world. many of them are offering their services in congress and in washington. i spoke with one who sometimes walks into meetings with congressmen and senators and says i'm from the internet. i'm here to help. or he begins by saying, there are bad guys on the net and unfortunately you're helping them. even though cybersecurity is as important to our common life now as economics or public health, it's still ok in washington,

it's still ok in congress for members not to know about these things in the same way they know about economics and public health. the handful of congressmen who do know about this are pushing for their piers to let the hackers in -- peers to let the hackers in. so far it hasn't really happened. and there is one thing, one line that i wish people could remember from this interview, it's for washington to let the hackers in. host: if you'd like to talk with michael gross about his stories in "vanity fair" here are the numbers to call. republican 202-737-30002. democrats, 202-737-0001. michael gross, let the hackers in. what would that achieve? and does that -- do you feel, you talked to members of congress, people in washington, about the -- that's scary concept for people in authority to allow happen. guest: it's a scary concept because the net is something

that, especially on a technical level, most of washington knows very little about. and most of washington doesn't want to admit that they don't know very much about it. but the truth is -- ok. i break down in the article these debates into debates between forces of order and forces of disorder. forces of order are people who want to just import predigital, intellectual, and legal structures on to the net. forces of disorder are people like activists who want to just let it all burn down. let the web and will of the crowd create a new culture. there is a smaller group in the middle who have the most pragmatic ideas about how to address our problems. i'm cailing them the forces of organized kay -- calling them the forces of organized chaos. there are a number of them. some of the most talented

hackers in the world, people like jeff moss who founded defcon, a huge hacker conference. a person like peter who parks for darpa, the defense advanced research project association. people like that have moved to washington often at considerable -- they are giving up huge opportunities to make terrific piles of money so that they can be part of the conversations about policy at the highest level. this is an opportunity for congress. this is an opportunity for us to get out ahead of a set of problems that threaten to be just as destabilizing as the economic woes that we have gone through in the last few years. so i think i just said my peace.

i don't know quite how to wrap that up. host: i don't think you have to. we'll get back to the phones. washington, d.c. antoine, republican caller, good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to give a small background. the question then a quick follow-up. i'm 29 years old. born and raised in the district of columbia. i'm a small business owner. and our signature is on the internet. my first question is, do you think that if america's world in controlling the internet, should we have a more f.b.i., d.o.j., more combined effort with a small task force to handle this problem? guest: certainly i think more integration and coordination of cybersecurity strategy is an important goal. melissa hathaway, who ran cyber

strategy for both presidents bush and obama, has done a lot of really interesting research on this. she's another of the experts that i identify in the story as one of the leaders of the forces of organized chaos. and if you were to google her name, melissa hathaway, plus munk school, you find a great paper that she's just written that deserves a lot more attention from the general public about some of her ideas, how to move forward in this regard. host: you talk about how she was willing to sit down with some of the hackers, and actually engage in dialogue. in your story, world war 3.0, you profile her, you talk about a number of the leaders, you mentioned jeff moss, people who are either crossing over and lending their support, he's the one who was the hacker, he founded defcon, he's willing to go to washington and talk to people. talk to us about some of these other cybersecurity analysts are

and why their voices are being heard or aren't being heard in places like washington? guest: another, dan, he is kind of an apostle of reliability, in addition to the two p's and two s', pyrecy, prifecy, security, and sovereignty, the fifth issue -- prifecy, piracy, and security, and sovereignty, the fifth issue that runs through this about which none of the others can even be discussed is reliability. the only thing everybody agrees on, dan said to me, is the internet is now making a lot of money and it has to work. dan is one of the top experts on the domain name system. the d.n.s. the d.n.s. is the one central feature, a lot of people describe it as the web's address book. it's also like the corner post office. when you type google.com, into

your browser, the d.n.s. looks up a numerical i.p. address and flue the d.n.s. servers begins the process that takes you to google. dan along with jeff has given a lot of his time over the last year to folks in washington. he's the one who says, i'm from the internet. i'm here to help. and one of his main goals is to try to come up with new ways of authentication, new ways that we can prove -- new ways we can prove that we are who we say we are. when we are on the net. that are moreau bust than passwords. -- more robust than pass words. the trouble with passwords, to make them difficult to crack it also makes them difficult to remember. but dan is one of the people who will probably help come up with

a solution to that that will, at the same time, preserve the anonymity that creates so much of the freedom and creativity online. host: we are talking with michael gross, contributing editor of vanity fair. jim tweets in and says the second thing i learned to do with my first computer is turn it off. mare, a republican -- mary, a republican in kentucky. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i want to thank this guy for scaring the living day lights out of me. what i'm calling about is for the people that's never -- don't have an internet, what about these satellite boxes and l.a.n. line that's connected into a wall? with those darn things -- can they hack into them now they put your information on that thing? host: mary, before we let you go. tell us why are you scared? what are you hearing that makes you nervous? caller: well, my children and my grandchildren now through the

school system, thank you very much, do not know how to use a cotton picking book. they use these little doom hickies, ipad or whatever you call that thing. i was the oldie that likes the hard book in her hand and look through it, you know. this look lieu this and sometimes it gets lost, they say i don't know where it went. you touch that thing and it goes this way and they don't let me take a book home. and now their personal information is locked in through the school systems on all this stuff and a child does not know how to protect that thing if it gets broke or somebody takes it or whatever. they are gone. host: a response from michael to mary's concerns about privacy and revel lens of tablets and compute -- prevalence of tablets and computers in general. what's connected to the grid? guest: i wasn't enthrire clear on what kind of machines she was asking about in the first part of her question, but i think

it's safe to say that almost any new technology that creates considerable new convenience is also collecting a great deal of information about whatever habits are associated with the convenience that it is increasing. smart grids are one of the -- and smart meters on our energy system, are beginning to be integrated here and there. california, i know, is if moving quite fast on this, and there's also a lot of resistance to it out there. presicily -- precisely because the smart meters are collecting much more detailed information than utilities have ever had before about when you're home, what you do when you're home, and that information is taken by hackers could be used to figure out when might be the best time

to rob your house, for instance. the second part of her remarks about the tablet readers were interesting to me, too. i think we haven't given enough thought or attention to the kind of information that's going to be collected through those machines. social reading is a term we are hearing a lot of, amazon is trying to encourage this. the kinl -- kindle, and similar tablets are now or will soon be offering the opportunity for readers to place their remarks in the margins of a book just the way you used to scribble in the margins if you choose to scare that information, other people who are reading the book can then see what you have written.

reading is a private act. not in most cases a public one. and when we give over access to our private thoughts and detailed compiled information about our private habits, lists of the books we have read in the last week, last month, it could be a lot of fun. and it could create opportunities for us to connect with other people in new and unexpected and productive ways. but it could also make us vulnerable to people making inferences about what we are thinking, what we are doing that might -- well, you know, might not serve us so well in the long run. host: it's amazing almost everything is run by computers. an attack or error could set us back to 1900's.

get a bicycle and dig a well. let's hear what colleen has to say in wisconsin, democrats' line. hi. caller: hi. with the use of computers so much, how can we trust the numbers that are the result of elections? how do we even know who the real winner really is? how do we -- how can we have any confident dense that the person that won in the primary really was the person with the most votes? host: colleen calling from wisconsin, of course, which had the contentious vote yesterday for the recall election of governor scott walker, the democratic candidate lost, how secure are things on the internet? guest: i hope that colleen and people who share colleen's question will continue to ask that in more systematic and

persistent ways, because the truth is we don't know much about the security of our voting machines. and that's one of the concerns that a lot of cybersecurity experts have been raising with me lately, have been urging me to look more deeply into as november approaches. unfortunately it's something i don't know a tremendous lot about right now. but the fact that we don't know much about it is -- that's an important fact itself to note. host: kim, independent caller, welcome. caller: hi. i would like to express my opinion. i think the internet should be free and open. just like every other form, free capitalist society. i believe that in a free country , free internet is what gives us the most important tool we have to keep us free.

host: michael gross? guest: i think those are all good thoughts. i think also that freedom in human society by definition has some sense of boundaries. and on the internet so far there has been few, to no boundaries on what we do, what we can do, where we can go. the truth is that we may all end up being a lot freer if we -- >> all of today's "washington journal" available join a line at our library a c-span.org. the house coming in to resume and finish consideration of the 2013 spending bill for the energy departments and federal water programs. five amendments yet to be considered and plenty amendment votes ahead. sometime after 1:00 eastern. we expect the house to begin debate on the 2013 homeland security spending bill. live to the house floor now here

on c -- c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered

today by our guest chaplain, reverend joseph shea from st. rose of lima catholic church, simi valley, california. the chaplain. lord god, as we gather today, i ask your blessings upon these men and women whom you and this great nation have chosen to serve us. grant them the grace to be leaders whose walk is by faith, whose behavior is by principle, whose vision is high, whose pride is low, and whose love for you and this wonderful nation is wide and deep. grant that these leaders be ribbed with the steel of your spirit so that their strength will be equal to the task, that they won't fade under the light of scrutiny, that they will be calm amidst the storms of

criticism, that they won't bend amidst the storms of criticism, and bend under the heavy load of responsibility, that they will courageously hold high the torch of your truth to guide them. we ask these blessings in your holy name, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his aplufle thereof. pusuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be lead by the gentlelady from new york, ms. buerkle. ms. buerkle: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to -- without objection the gentleman from california, mr. gallegly is

recognized for one minute. mr. gallegly: thank you, mr. speaker. i have known father joseph shea since he was appointed pastor of st. rosa lima in my home parish in simi valley, california. he's been there approximately four years and we've worked together on several projects that have benefited our community. it is befitting that we continue the tradition of having pastors from across our country open the people's house with a prayer for our nation and its people. i want to thank the reverend patrick j. conroy, chaplain of the u.s. house of representatives for giving father shea the opportunity to open today's session of the house. having guest chaplains from across the country participate in this historical undertaking truly does manifest the freedom

of worship enjoyed across the united states. i also want to thank father shea for traveling all the way across this great nation to be here with us this morning to offer this spiritual opening for the day and madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the chair will entertain 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor donald kaczynski from my home state of arkansas who has a passion of helping other veterans with a disability. after separate from the marines, he faced the obstacle of finding a new job. after moving to hot springs village, arkansas, the started a mobile food stand business. mr. crawford: he serves as

commander and adjew tant of the v.f.w. he was elected state commander of the disabled veterans of arkansas. he was recognized as v.f.w. man of the career for arkansas and in 2008 as the disabled american veterans man of the year. we honor donald kaczynski and his service to arkansas' veterans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hochul: as we recall the votens, i remember the 36 hours i spent in the war zone in afghanistan speaking to our soldiers. the troops on the ground and yens confirm that pakistan remains a safe haven for the taliban and al qaeda. first it was proved to the

world when osama bin laden was found to be hiding there for a lengthy amount of time. new on monday, a drone strike just over the pakistani border that killed al qaeda's number two in command further proving beyond all doubt that pakistan continues to harbor terrorists. if pakistan is unwilling to condemn the terrorists and work with the united states to find them, they should not be eligible for foreign aid, period, end. i worked, i pledge to continue to work in a bipartisan way with my colleagues to restrict funds as long as pakistan sits by and provides refuge to terrorists who put our troops and nation in harm's way. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckinley: the state of west

virginia lost one of its greatest citizens last week and i lost a very close friend. former head coach of the west virginia university football team and new martinsville native bill short passed away on -- bill stewart passed away on may 28. he was a man of integrity and high moral character who practiced truly what he preached, both on and off the field. as head coach of the mountaineers, he represented our state and university in the best possible way. his signature win over oklahoma in the 2008 fiesta bowl launched him into the national spotlight. his legacy will be that of a type of life he lived. coach stu never met a stranger and never lost site of -- sight of his home. he lived each day to its fullest and had a contagious enthusiasm that inspired everyone around him. leave no doubt, bill stewart will be missed for years to come because he was a man of

his word a man who openly followed his faith and a dedicated father, husband, and friend. bill stewart took that final dusty windy -- dusty, windy, country road home to his place in heaven. madam speaker, i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you very much, madam speaker. i rides to speak out about the need to pass a transportation bill. i am frustrated by the action of the house republican conferees and how the obstructionism is negatively affecting job creation in this country. the transportation extension expires at the end of this month and we are in the height of summer construction season and we are losing the opportunity to get these jobs going on construction and the manufacturing industries back

to work. a sure fire way to create a job is to invest in our country's infrastructure but house republicans obstruct it at every turn. last month, we were forced to pass a 10th temporary extension of highway funding because of the g.o.p. inaction. this is my 20th year here and this is the first time that this bill has been held up because of partisanism. this inaction only increases instability for the construction industry and makes it impossible for state and local governments to plan long-term. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> according to the social security trustees, the social security disability program is expected to exhaust its trust fund in just four years.

mr. pitts: if the fund is exhausted onled about 80% of benefits would be paid out if nothing is done. over 11 million americans could be impacted. again, we have another government entitlement program headed toward bankruptcy. this is a program that costs as much as the annual budgets of the departments of agriculture, homeland security, commerce, labor, interior and justice combined. i know how important this program is to many of my own constituents. medicare, medicaid, social security, and the disability program, tens of millions of people rely on these programs. but they are not structurally sound, doing nothing is not the apps. and taking funds from general revenue does nothing to provide the long-term stability we need.

we need real, innovative reform that fixes our problems, that saves and strengthens these programs. without piling up debt. if we don't act to save and strengthen these programs our creditors will make the decisions for us down the road. we need to address these problems in a bipartisan manner, one party can't do it alone. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: wogs, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: i rise today to honor anthony anderson a rising junior at la salle academy in my home state of rhode island. he was awarded a gold medal from the national scholastic and writing awards for a self-portrait he submitted on bullying. he's been recognized every year since he was in seventh grade. his painting is on display at a gallery at new york city. he and hi family and teachers were invited to carnegie hall to celebrate his work and the work of other gold medal winners. i congratulate anthony on his accomplishments and wish him continued success in the years ahead. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? mrs. biggert: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: too often people in washington forget it's the small businesses that create jobs, not government. they are doing what they can to bring about growth. they have created an impressive 65% of all new american jobs -- jobs over the last 10 years. i urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the successes of our local job creators, including two individuals from my district, who are being recognized by the u.s. small business administration illinois department of commerce and economic opportunity. congratulation tosca thi kwan, c.e.o. of a plastics recycling company on being exporter of the year and a hearty salute to the mike rohan president of all

trust home incorporated who has earned the entrepreneurial success of the year award. these achievements are important reminder to congress that we must put politics aside and work together to create an environment where leaders like mike and kathy can do their -- what they do best, create jobs. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yooleds back. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: thank you, madam speaker. american innovators contribute to an economy second to none and provides strategic advantage to national security, but where will the advancement of tomorrow come? the u.s. ranks 27th in the world in graduates with science and engineering degrees, and the last thing congress should do is to make education less affordable. yet that's exactly what will happen on june 30 if congress fails to act.

interest rates on student loans will double. hiking the yearly payments, $1,000, for more than seven million students in this country. republican roots of tying students loan interest rates to the evisceration of plea van hollenive health care for women and children was an unconscionable partisan employ. no -- ploy. no parent should be forced to choose between their child's health or education. no woman should have to choose between breast cancer screening and a student loan. lower interest rates were the result of our partisan cooperation with the democratic congress and republican president. we must stop the interest rate hike in a responsible and bipartisan manner. i urge this speedy action and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to krause address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i wish you could meet my friend, dr. galian biker a. truly

renaissance man, born in iowa but raised in hudsonville, michigan, in my district where he grew up in a family that was very entrepreneurial and very politically involved. his father actually served as a state senator, gary biker. he attended calvin college where he is now president and earned a b.a. in philosophy, english, political science and speech with a minor in russian. he also entered the army in 1967 and served in vietnam and was discharged with the rank of captain. he went on to earn a law degree at the university of michigan and then his masters degree in world politics at michigan as well. after that, he decided needed to get his ph.d. in international relations from pennsylvania. he then served and worked in energy exploration company out of houston. he worked on wall street, both on energy as well as derivatives and futures. he then served as a lawyer in philadelphia. he's been involved in many numerous organizations and

volunteer opportunities, including the rough grouse society of the united states. he's an avid hunter and pretty good slot i might add. he became president of calvin college in 1995 where he has served since then the last 17 years. he's truly a person who has left a place better than when he found it. and dr. biker, we want to say thank you for your service to kohl vin college and the greater community in west michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. without objection. mr. ellison: madam speaker, i rise today to bring attention to what is a very serious problem for the families of at least 1,300 workers, 900 of whom live in my state of minnesota. there is a labor dispute with their company and on friday there is a chance to go back to the bargaining table to come up with a good settlement.

now, these workers, they didn't go on strike, they have been locked out. been locked out for 10 months. at american crystal sugar factory in moore hill, minnesota. many of these people have worked at this factory their entire lives, madam speaker, and are really good, solid members of their community. these workers have gone to work and they have actually stood up and gone to bat for the company, particularly regarding the sugar program, and many other ways, countless ways as well. these workers even vowed not to go on strike because they know how important their work is to the company and the community. the only thing they have done wrong is they haven't been able to pay their higher health insurance costs, which is the real crux of the negotiation. this friday, the sides are going back to the bargaining table for the first time in four months. i commend both labor and management for getting back to

the table. madam speaker, i urge management to listen carefully to the pleas of these workers and come up with a fair settlement. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. in 2009 the obama administration said that unemployment would never reach 8% if the stay with us was approved. it was. mr. graves: three years later, $1.2 trillion in spending, unemployment has remained above 8% for 40 consecutive months. the longest span since the great depression. even more alarming is that the 8% doesn't illustrate how grim the situation really is. more than 500,000 more americans are out of work today than they were when president obama took office in 2009. and the percentage of americans

working is at a 30-year low. unemployment would be even higher if it were not for the grit and resolve of the american people themselves and with these numbers it's clear that president obama's agenda, it's failed and it's making the economy worse. house republicans have a plan. they have a plan for america's job creators to help turn this economy around. and it's time for the president, it's time for the senate democrats to stop blocking jobs for americans and to join us in helping get americans back to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today to mark the 68th anniversary of the al plied expeditionary forces landing in normandy france at the start of the end of world war ii. mr. yoder: it was led by native kansan and truly great american hero, former president again

dwight "ike" eisenhower. he inspired his i men to fight for the values of liberty and freedom, stating, quote, your task will not be an easy one, your enemy is well dwained, well equipped, he will fight savagely. our home front has given us an overwhelmingly superiority and placed at our great disposal great reserves of great men. the free men of the world are marching together to vicktry. good luck. let us beseech the blessings of almighty god upon this great and noble undertaking. we all require the tremendous sacrifices the greatest generation gave for the cause of freedom and liberty as we mark this solemn anniversary today. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. miss hanabusa: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i'm here to ask

that the republican budget respect our seniors. you've got to ask ourselves, why are we giving those who make over $1 million, about $394,000 on an average of tax cuts? and those making between $20,000 and $30,000 get $129. why? and why is it that there's about $3 trillion in breaks that we are giving to big business, big oil, gas, and superrich? why are we doing that? and then, and then there is an effort in the republican budget to change medicaid to the voucher program. this is why the aarp says, republicans are shifting the cost to our seniors and ending the medicare guarantee. that guarantee that many of them rely upon. and our congressional budget office agrees with this. the attacks on the affordable

care act by the republicans also , also are going to set us back. that act closes the doughnut hole for the seniors prescription drugs, also allows them to have preventive health care. and we are taking that away, too. madam speaker, let's just respect our seniors, respect them and not do what we are doing. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and ex---clue extraneous material on the further consideration of 5323, and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 667 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5325.

will the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5325, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, june 5, 2012, the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 56, line 24. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to strike the last woord for the purposes of engaging in a kohly. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: and a colloquy, the gentleman from virginia, mr. heard.

i would like to yield to him for that purpose. mr. heard: thank you, madam chair, in virginia's fifth district, state and local officials have been working to attract new businesses to create new jobs in southside virginia. in henry county, a county located in virginia's fifth district, local officials have identified a 200 acre site that has the potential to attract major economic development opportunities at a time when martinsville and henry county suffers from the highest unemployment rate in virginia. mr. hurt: at 15% and 10% respectively. unfortunately, federal regulators, including the army corps of engineers, have resisted moving forward with this important initiative and stalled the county's permit application because of the lack of identified end user for the site. at the same time the potential companies who would invest in this site and create jobs in southside virginia are unwilling to commit their resources due to the risk and time delays associated with an outstanding permit with the court.

while state regulators have issued permits for the henry county site, the corps continues to be steadfast in its unwillingness to move forward with the permit, even though they have issued permits for similar speculative development projects in the past which subsequently attracted new industries and jobs to that area. mr. chairman, this site represents an economic opportunity that could bring thousands of jobs to an area of virginia that is still struggling with double-digit unemployment. this project has bipartisan support from members of the congressional delegation as well as from our governor, bob mcdonnell. virginia has proven it is the most attractive state for business and recognized as such in the past year. if given the opportunity i have no doubt that the site would be the impetus for economic development in martinsville and henry county, an area which needs economic development more than ever. mr. chairman, i would ask your assistance in working with me to ensure federal regulators are not needlessly stalling economic development and job creation in virginia's fifth district and other areas of our country.

i thank the gentleman, and i yield back -- yield to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman from virginia for bringing these concerns to my attention. i agree that we must assure that federal agencies and regulations are not contributing to unnecessary delays that harm economic development and job creation. especially at a time of economic distress and high unemployment. i pledge, our committee pledges to work with the gentleman and others who have seen an overreaching regulatory process negatively affect job prospects in their districts to address these problems. mr. hurt: reclaiming my time, i thank the chairman for his leadership on this bill and on this issue. and i look forward to working with him. i yield back my time. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the -- >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i would like at this point to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and the ranking member. mr. speaker, i'm here today to express my concern with the fuhr of the nation's inland waterway system. the bill before us today, despite the chairman's best efforts, continues a trend of underfunding needed infrastructure improvements in our nation's locks and dams. this underfunding is a combination of the administration's request and lack of a long-term solution to the inland waterways trust fund. locks and dams are a crucial mechanism of commerce and mode of transportation in pennsylvania. they allow for the transport of commodities essential to businesses in my region, like coal, grain, and scrap metal. along the allegheny river, the army corps' budget for operating and maintaining locks and dams was cut by nearly one half in just one year. projects on other rivers in the pittsburgh region, the ohio, and

ma nothing haila, have slowed to a stop or in need of repair. the cuts to this fund has the surrounding communities and businesses wondering exactly how or if a repair will be made if something breaks. but this is only a portion of the work that needs to be done. and the mechanism that we have to fund new or major rehabilitation projects, the inlavepbd waterway trust fund -- inland waterway trust fund, is also in need of repair. even at times of fiscal restraint, we must find ways to fund projects that protect our safety and allow the use of our water ways for commerce. the longer we wait, -- wait to fully respond to the critical needs of our infrastructure, the more it is going to cost. mr. chairman, just in a recent article in the "pittsburgh post-gazette," the quote from our local corps person said this is it for the allegheny locks and dams. if something breaks, we've got to scramble for funds and there

is no guarantee we'll fix it. . this has forced the corps to a fix one -- the average lock is 60 years old. in pittsburgh, they're over 80 years old. i would like to work with you and the ranking member to find a solution to this urgent need and i'd like to yield time to mr. critz to express his views on this issue. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. critz: i'd like to add my voice to mr. doyle's on the issue of the aging state of our nation's waterways and the vast shortfalls on funding urgently needed repairs. i would like to work with the gentleman from new jersey to

find a long-term solution to this issue. consisting of over 230 lock chambers, our inland water ways move thousands of tons of goods annually. to move these goods on our nation's highways would require millions more trucks and cause more pollution. the federal government has invested in this infrastructure for over 200 years. the lock and dams are built with a 50-year life. yet many are over 100 years old. i'm deeply troubled by the lack of funding for the projects and the lack of progress on finding a solution to the funding shortfalls in the inland waterways trust fund this fund generates roughly $85 million per year through a fuel tax on barges yet falls well short of the $380 million per year the inland waterways users board estimates is needed to fully fund capital reinvestments in the system.

the department of transportation projects that the waterway traffic will increase 20% by 2020. we can no longer afford to silt on our hands and wait for these vital lanes of commerce to fail. we need to invest in america and keep our federal waterways open for business. the inland water ways system is far too important to allow it to continue to languish with inadequate funding and infrastructure. i look forward to working with the chairman and mr..net to find a solution to this urgent need and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. >> i tell the -- mr. frelinghuysen: i tell the gentlemen that i share their concerns. this is why you see extensive dumontation on the olmstead lock and dam. any changes to address the solvency of the trust fund are most appropriately discussed

within the authorizing committees. i know they're aware of the situation and are evaluating various options. the chair: the gentleman from indiana's time has expired. who seeks recognition? >> i move to strike the last word and yield to the ranking member. the chair: the gentleman is recognizened and the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i associate myself with the chairman's remark, mr. chris' remark and -- mr. critz's remark and mr. doyle's remark and conclude my portion by thanking both gentlemen for raising this vital issue. we engage in investing and infrastructure in afghanistan, we create infrastructure investment in iraq and elsewhere. it is time that we repair and invest in the infrastructure, the waterway infrastructure in the united states of america. to create jobs in the short-term and to create jobs in the future. again, i really, from the bottom of my heart, thank you gentlemen for raising this

issue and i look forward to working with them. i appreciate the chairman yielding to me. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> i yield back. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. it's designated as number one. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, each amount made available by this act other than an amount required to be made available by a provision of law is reduced by .276084897576%. the chair: pursuant to thed orer of the house of today the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. flake: thank you, ma'am. funded at $32 billion, the f.y.

2013 water appropriation bill we have under consideration bill actually spends about $87 million more than we did last year. with a $1.3 trillion deficit and a national debt that's now more than $15 trillion, i think we've got to do better here. so this amendment simply says, let's pear it back, let's do -- pare it back, let's do an across the board cut of .207. the reason we picked that number, it would bring us back to last year exactly. when you look across the country, what the state and local governments are doing, sometimes they're going back to 2005, 2004, or maybe more. to to balance their budgets. what are we doing here in congress, with a $15 trillion debt? we are increasing spending on some bills. now we've cut others and i

supported the so-called ryan budget where we do make some overall cuts and that's good. but when off bill like this, i don't know how we can justify increasing spending $87 million over last year. so again, some will say, well this conforms to the budget agreement, the ryan budget act and the 302-a levels we've set. that is true, it does. but i would suggest that if we're increasing funding here, this is a good place to find savings. and perhaps the 302-b level should have been set a little lower. i urge adoption of the amendment. again this is simply a cut that would take us back to where we were last year. not 2008 or 2009, but f.y. 2012. i don't think that's unreasonable. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized in opposition. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i take exception to any claim that our bill unnecessarily increases spending. there is one reason that this bill is $188 million above fiscal year 2000. it's defense. national security. many members may not realize it, nearly 1/3 of our bill supports critical national security needs. including nuclear weapons. that is actually the origin of why we have a department of energy today. the atomic energy act. only two subcommittees received increases in fiscal year 2013. the energy and water bill and the defense bill. because those increases are needed to support national security. there's no other reasons. the defense portion of this bill is almost $300 million more than last year, an

increase which directly supports our nuclear weapons and national security. even with those security increases, our bill is still less than 1/3 of one percent above last year's bill. that means the rest of the bill is cut deeply. it means spending for our nondefense accounts is cut by $800 million below last year's levels. even with the increase for defense spending, our bill is still below 2009 levels. actually, quite close to 2008 levels. so i will not accept any criticism that our bill in any way is not reflective of this body's work to reduce spending. the house's commitment to cut spending, federal spending, was fully engaged in p in a bipartisan way by the energy and water subcommittee. the gentleman's amendment would cut the bill simply because of the increases we provided for defense spending. to be clear, the amendment is a

cut to national security, that's the point i'll make very clear to any member who has questions on whether to vote for this amendment. i urge my colleagues to vote no to protect defense spending. may i also add a post-script. our bill historically has done things for a lot of states. and arizona has benefited from the central arizona water project. it may not happen during mr. flake's tenure as a member of congress but in a bipartisan way, we've looked after the needs of arizona, his constituents and arizonans. we are reducing spending. even as we reduce spend, we have obligations to look after other needs across the country in the energy sector as well as the water sector which i relate the arizona -- central arizona project. so we're cutting spend, reducing spending, we're keeping our commitment to the american taxpayers and i yield

back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> move to strike the last word. the chair: without objection. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recognition and i want to add my voice to the chair's in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. we just had a colloquy on the house floor with several members from the state of pennsylvania, relative to the fate of 230 lock chambers on our inland waterways that carry hundreds of millions of tons of cargo. if they fail, we would need, as has already been mentioned this morning, 24 million additional trucks that would cost billions more in fuel and generate millions of tons of pollution. these locks that are the back bone of this nation's inland waterway system were built with a 50-year design life. many of those that exist in

western pennsylvania are now over 100 years old. relative to cuts, i want to emphasize to our colleagues that there was a lot of work that the chairman, the members of this subcommittee, the staffs, put into this bill to make very discreet, discerning decisions and in many instances to make cuts. i would take simply one program as an example. that's environmental cleanup. we have again a national responsibility to clean up these legacies of the cold war for the health and safety of $300 million -- of 300 million people. we made discreet decisions. for defense environmental site-by-site decisions, for office of river protection in the state of washington, we are $30 million below last year's level. for the oak ridge national rab rah -- laboratory in the state of tennessee, we are $20 million below last year's level.

for the river site in south carolina, we are $43 million current year level. for the waste isolation pilot plant, we are $12 million below last year's level and for technology development, to do a better job on this, we're $1 million below. we made discreet decisions. i would simply close by saying the gentleman at the close of his remarks said he want this is cut to take us back to where we were. those locks were built 100 years ago. i don't want to go back there. we are here to take this nation forward, to invest in the future of this nation, so that the young people of this nation have a future. i do not want to go back to where we were. i am adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment and would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona is

recognized. mr. flake: i thank the chair. i would -- what i said was take back spending level to where we were last year. nobody wants to go back in time. but if we want to talk a future for our kids, as was mentioned, saddling them with $15 trillion in debt doesn't give them much of a future. that's a problem here. we just keep doing that, bill after bill after bill after bill. increasing spending. i take the gentleman's point on the needs of defense but we've got to find savings. we've got to find savings here. we can't continue to go on and pile up more debt. and i would suggest that finding savings amounting to one quarter of one penny on this bill is not unrm. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman 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 share, -- in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: 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 arizona will be postponed. . for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. defazio of oregon, at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following -- the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order is reserved. the clerk will continue reading mr. defaso: i ask unanimous consent that the reading be suspended. the chair: is the objection to suspense with further reading of the amendment? without objection, so ordered.

the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. this is a very, very dramatic map. the colors indicate gasoline prices across america as of last week by county. as you can see, the entire west coast of the united states is in bright red. now, we often hear from the oil and gas industry, prices are set. internationally. this is an international market. you have to understand that. it's kind of interesting. crude oil prices are down dramatically.

u.s. production of crude is up 1.5 million perils a day. we are exporting gasoline from the united states of america. but somehow we are missing that international market on the west coast. we are being price gouged on the west coast of the united states through a series of rather interesting or perhaps suspicious circumstances. the largest refinery in washington state, cher will i point -- cherry point, experienced a fire in february and it's been quite a bit of time in recovering. it's been delayed several times. it's now coming back online. but given the fact that it was known that the largest refinery in the northwest was off line, one would think that other refineries in california would endeavor to stay on line, particularly as we begin the summer driving season. well, no. actually not. because they had to do routine maintenance. so five refineries in california just before memorial day weekend in may decided that it was time for routine maintenance. then suddenly we had a shortage. actually, we didn't have a shortage. there were no gas stations with little yellow flags. there were no gas stations with little red flags.

there was, you know -- no one was going without gasoline, but a shortage was declared by the industry and the price was jacked up. so while the rest of the country has seen prices come down following the international markets, the price on the west coast has gone up, sproketting last week 13 cents -- skyrocketing last week 13 cents. dropped a penny yesterday, all right. we are on the way down. seems it always goes down a lot slower than it goes up. kind of interesting. so i've contacted the president's working group for oil price and market manipulation, and my inquiry has been referred to various departments within the government, including the justice department, to look at antitrust implications, the commodity future trading commission, and others, to look at potential market manipulation. so i just thought that in light of the fact that there may have been, may have been some market

manipulation here and perhaps at other times in the past, that we should just have a simple statement of fact on behalf of the united states house of representatives. no oil or gas company convicted of antitrust violations should be able to access any of the $500 million in the fossil energy research and development section. that is to say, taxpayers of the united states should not gift money to oil and gas companies that have been convicted of price gouging the taxpayers of the united states of america. pretty simple. i mean i have even greater concerns over that account and i join with the 102 republicans last night and 36 democrats in voting to delete the $500 million for fossil energy research and development. i think the industry can fund it on its own. and i would hope at least those 102 republicans last night who voted to totally eliminate that

account and 36 democrats who voted to totally eliminate that account, would join with me today to say, well, we didn't eliminate the accounts but we are not going to allow anybody convicted of antitrust, that is price gouging american consumers and taxpayers, to access these taxpayer dollars to subsidize their private research and profits. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i would simply note that what the gentleman from oregon proposes is a commonsense approach to ensuring the highest ethical standards for a company that receives a contract with the d.o.e.'s office of fossil energy. we should not be rewarding companies that have a history of predatory economic practices with federal contractors. if his amendment is allowed in order, i would certainly urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, i rise to claim time in opposition. the gentleman highlights some very difficult issues that deserve our attention, and especially i share my colleague's concern about gasoline prices. that's why the committee has focused on trying to reduce gas prices in the future. however, the areas of antitrust determinations, compliance, and enforcement that he mentions quite honestly are within the purview of the authorizing committee. we are aware of them. acutely aware of them. we understand where he's coming from. madam chair, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill should not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment imposes additional duties.

i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on this point of order? if not, the chair will rule. the gentleman from new jersey makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon proposes to change existing law in violation of clause 26 of rule 21. the amendment would limit funds for an assistant secretary in the department of energy to implement or administer any change to a cited regulation as in effect on january 19, 2001. the chair is aware that such standard is no longer effective under current law. the amendment would therefore require a determination by the assistant secretary of the state of prior regulation and a further determination of what, if anything, has affected a change to that prior regulation. by requiring a new determination, the amendment constitutes legislation within the meaning of clause 2-c of rule 21. the point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in order.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. designated as flake number 2. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment -- the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment by mr. flake of arizona, at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following -- mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: is there an objection to the dispensing of the reading of the amendment? if not, pursuant to the order of the house of tuesday, june 5, 2012, the -- does the gentleman from washington reserve the right to object? mr. dicks: i didn't hear what the request was. the chair: to dispense with the reading of the amendment. mr. dicks: that's fine. the chair: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to the order of the house of tuesday, june 5, 2012, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed,

each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chair. i know we have been on this bill a long time and i don't plan to take my full five minutes here. this amendment would simply prohibit funding for the department of energy battery and electronic -- electric drive technology program, preventing unnecessary federal spending to the tune of about $171 million. we all know that for too long washington has meddled too much in the energy market. not only has the government provided -- proved itself to be ill-equipped to pick winners and losers, i think government is just plain bad at it. a list of winners is dupeous at best and it's a diverse one. from oil subdies, solyndra, and now the chevy volt. the common thread is a seeming endless supply, endless stream of taxpayer funding. the battery and electric drive

technology program. this is one of the countless acronyms that taxpayers know little of. despite helping to fund these programs to the tune of a few hundred million dollars. interestingly the bedt is the very program that developed the chevy volt battery we have all heard so much about. and i think the manufacturing lines that are now stopping or diminishing. while i wholeheartedly support my colleagues' commitment to work to reduce the burden of rising energy and gasoline prices, i believe they would be imprudent to acquiesce key funding in this regard to components of the president's go green or go bust initiative. this

encouraging free market growth and innovations. we could start out by eliminating funding for the bedt. i urge support for the 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 new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: rise to oppose the amendment. there is an absolute valuable cutting-edge research in the department of energy that enables future generations of vehicle technologies to proceed. technologies that are too far in the future for american's sectors to support but that will keep future generations of manufacturing and jobs here in the united states and have the consequences lowering what americans have to pay for gasoline at the pump. this amendment, we are all supporting cutting wasteful spending, would virtually eliminate this important piece of our comprehensive approach and therefore i strongly oppose it. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. we need to move away from our dependency on fuel imported by unpresented -- unfriendly nations, i have in past debates on this floor and would do it again reference the senior senator from indiana, senator lugar, who has long characterized our energy crisis paramount as one of national security given where those petroleum purchases take place. the fact is if we can get more miles per gallon, we have solved part of that national security crisis. none of this today standing here or sitting here are going to be able to do much about the price of a barrel of oil. but if each one of those individual drivers can give some relief by getting an extra mile per gallon for their vehicle, we have also helped ameliorate their economic pressure and the costs they have. i think it is shortsighted to

eliminate this program which has the potential to address a major issue in the liability and practicality of electric vehicles, and that is the battery. we need to be looking at the cost, performance, live, and abuse tolerance of batteries and i do support the department's efforts on this front and have been active for a number of years in seeking additional funds for it because i think it does a great value to this country's future. i oppose the gentleman's amendment and would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona virginia tech. mr. flake: i thank the chair. it was mentioned -- is recognized. mr. flake: i thank the chair. it was mentioned that federal government gets researched when the return is too far out for commercial enterprise to realize any benefit. i would suggest that just doesn't apply here at all. we are talking about batteries. and those who tout this program claim that we already have evidence on the road, the chevy

volt, of this technology working. so that's not too far out. if there is technology on the road or in this case mostly still sitting in the lots because these cars aren't selling well, it's not out there too far in the future. so i think we get confused about what really is the role of the federal government with regard to research where we have programs like this where there could be profit and is in certain technologies tomorrow, it becomes less research even more -- and more subsidy. that's where this program falls into. i urge support of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman