iki tsaongas. then michelle bachmann on the supreme court upcoming decision on the affordable care act. >> the ayes have it. a report is ordered to the house. host: that was darrell issa following the contempt vote on attorney general eric holder. at the white house invoked executive privilege to prevent release of certain documents on fast and furious. that is what we want to get your reaction to this morning on "washington journal." the president invoked executive privilege on fast and furious.

here are the phone numbers. host: here is the front page of "the washington post." the committee voted yesterday to recommend that eric holder be held in contempt.

host: that is the lead story of "the washington post." ed o'keefe joins us from "the washington post." guest: this to the first obama cabinet secretary to face this kind of confrontation with the house since president obama took office and the first administration official to go through this. he is a handful of attorneys general to face this. it is significant because if they go through with this, it would be the first time in almost two decades the full house has voted on a contempt charge against any administration official.

it is a big deal for the justice department. republicans say this is a serious attempt to figure at what is going on at the justice department and how seriously they take this situation. we will see how plays out. host: straight party line vote, correct? guest: it was, after almost six hours of conversation between the sides. it is rare that germachairman issa lets everybody speak. he allowed everybody to talk about this and virtually all of them did have something to say. they considered four amendments to the consent probe the what of pointed out that they could have

waited. the president invoked executive privilege. how much does it cost the committee, that was voted down. on republicans had won the reflected the fact that the president had invoked executive privilege. host: one of the politics of this -- what are the politics of this? guest: it depends on who you talk to. it is seen by the white house as a witch hunt. in an era where the economy should be the chief focus and congress should be working to help create jobs, here they are as a stated part of their goal, launching partisan oversight investigation into the administration. they say the justice department

has handed over thousands of documents. he has done just about everything he can do. they said he is stonewalling and he is trying to hide something. "you do not want to embarrass the president in an election year." i think we'll wait and see how this plays out. it could intensify next week if the full house goes through with the contempt vote. if you talk to darrell issa, they say if the attorney general and hands over everything we're looking for, which includes more documents about why it is that they misled us that the just department did not know everything they did, if he agrees to reform the process of looking at these types of investigations and apologizes

and make sure that they properly treat the whistle- blowers' they came for, then we will drop that. the white house will probably turn around and say those are impossible things and we have been more than forthcoming. he is asking for everything and that would be an extraordinary request. we'll see. if john bennett coaster with the vote, he will be cast as a partisan speaker. not need newt gingrich brought contempt charges against general reno. nancy pelosi part of some charges during her tenure. it is never happen for a cabinet secretary. such a narrow situation as the fast and furious investigation.

host: would the senate have any role in this? guest: chop grassley -- chuck grassley was the first to ask questions about this. he could not compel the justice department and the white house to enter his questions. he went to darrell issa and said, you have subpoena power. grassley has been by his side. he was at the meeting when they tried to cut a deal. if the house votes on this, we would get referred directly to the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia and the senate essentially stays out of it. articleou write in your

-- who is the attorney for the district? guest: ronald -- you got me. he is the guy who is investigating several other sensitive matters in the district. he is dealing with the ethics charges against mayor vincent gray and the city council. he was a obama supporter. go ahead, refer this to the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. he is unlikely to take it up. when the roles were reversed, he also declined to take the case

citing partisanship. let's see if the current u.s. attorney does the same thing. we'll see. a week's a long time in washington. there could be a deal between now and then to avoid this vote. republicans are chomping at the bit to do this and i think there will keep pressure on. host: ed o'keefe is the 2chambers blogger for "the washington post.' " thank you for joining us. now we want to get your phone calls. here are the phone numbers. you can contact us electronically via twitter,

facebook, and e-mail. we'll put those addresses up as well. this is what eric holder had to say about the vote. [video clip] > host: first call comes from melvyn in baltimore, maryland. argue with us -- are you with

us? caller: this is political and racist. couldtorney general's have been brought up on citation for contempt but were not. the common factor is they were white. it is a political witch hunt and racially tendinged. that is what i wanted to say. host: will from maryland. caller: good morning. the name of the attorney general in d.c. is ronald nachin. this congress has not been able to produce anything but a witch hunt. this thing started on tv.

they have been covering this story for two years. it is a witch hunt. it is unfortunate but it is about race. host: next call from fairfax, virginia, steve on the republican line. caller: scooter libby was a witch hunt but nobody died. we have a debt border agent and hundreds of mexicans who were dead from illegal weapons -- we have eight dead border agent. he got caught in two lies. "the last letter i sent was a lie." there's no credibility at the justice department. you have to weed through this

nonsense and restore credibility at the department which has been damaged by eric holder. host: lease story this morning and "-- lead story this morning in "the washington times."

host: this article goes on to say. it talks about the previous examples of executive privilege .

host: next call comes from kenny from alexandria, virginia. caller: this is a very sad day for america. the issue went -- the country is at an all-time high of 8.2% joblessness. it is amazing that they are

wasting more time instead of focusing on the economy. 6 politics. please, please put a stop on the craziness. making allegations. a couple of times i have listened and when people make comments and you don't follow up on it. please make sure you correct those allegations against obama. host: kimberly from nevada, we're talking about executive privilege and fast and furious. caller: we're also talking about the senate judiciary committee, patrick leahy from

vermont back in 2007 fired roberto gonzalez and subpoenaed the white house won the white house was was holding -- that is very similar to what is going on right now. i do not know why people are turning this into a racist thing. senator leahy said it best. "we're the united states of america. we do not do things this way. the public needs to know about these things because we are the public." i'm from nevada. one of the seven attorney- general was fired back then. it is not democratic or a white

racist or anything else. the senate judiciary committee should look at everybody. senator leahy promised if this happened again he would do it again. everybody needs to unite as one country. you cannot lie under oath. host: we will take a couple of facebook comments. this is william.

host: those are a couple of facebook comments. you can make a comment by going to facebook.com/cspan. no hyphen in "c-span." quite as an hour first cited executive power. every president has cited the principal at least once. lbj, none. richard nixon, six times. gerald ford, once. jimmy carter, once. ronald reagan, three time.

host: next call comes from a republican in alabama, brenda. you are on the "washington journal." what do think of the president invoked executive privilege? caller: if they considered all the pages, and the committee would keep this information that is national security issue private and not release it to the public, but the committee consider all these issues, i did not understand why the documents

could not be released. at least the public would accept that we've gotten to the bottom of it and we know all the information that is possible to be known. that is my question. host: we want to show you the front of the "chicago tribune." linda from mississippi. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i believe this is a political witch hunt and the reason why congress has a 9% approval. i don't believe they should release these documents. they do not belong in the hands of congress. i am proud of president obama for taking this stance on this situation. it shows that he has it and he is ready for another four more

years. >> gail from new jersey on our independent line. caller: i don't understand why he doesn't give them the documents that they want. unless there is something to hide, obama is backing him up. what does he have to hide? host: patrick from pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: hi. i want to try to make this as brief as possible for you. the attorney general of the united states, the leader of the department of justice lied in front of congress knowingly. if you watch all the c-span, you guys do great coverage of the house and senate. listen to his answers.

it was reported as early as january and i have been following this closely. it includes the juarez drug cartels from mexico. if drugs were legal in this country, how many people would get killed over the illegal drug trade? it would undercut the black market. we would not be talking about the border patrol agent, although we still have corrupt politicians, i'm afraid to say. i mean, i think we have a political posturing. obama is invoking these executive privileges. right before a reflection. the only sector privileges he has is the constitution and bill

of rights. host: lead editorial this morning in "the new york times."

host: in letter sent by the department by senator charles grassley.

host: the show every issue can be turned into ammunition for political combat. that is "the new york times" lead editorial. hi, kathleen. caller: i am appalled at this. let's start with actual facts, not fox news spin or darrell issa spin. this stupid thing started as a conspiracy theory started by a right-wing crazy fringe goofball that started when the health law, affordable health lot was asked. -- let's break

them around the country. he started this conspiracy about the gun-running thing. remember, people, this started under the bush administration and under michael o'casey, the a.g. under the bush administration. he started it. eric holder stopped it. this right wing fringe goofball was on fox news as an online journalist, this right wing goofball. host: we think you got your cpoint. caller: this is an example of both parties failing the

communities. you mentioned president obama. you mentioned an article of 1994 , pressing clinton repeal estate trade against vietnam in support of free-trade agreements. i wonder if we have found those 2300 missing in action in vietnam. and brian terry also. host: thank you for calling in. we have a tweet.

host: that is not related to this conversation. "the wall street journal" editorial this morning. they conclude with this paragraph -- the committee voted 23-17 wednesday to hold mr. holder in

content. if the entire house follows, the matter will be referred to a u.s. attorney who works for the attorney general who will no doubt tell him not to prosecute. meanwhile, the american people can reach their own conclusions about mr. holder pause credibility, his serial privilege crams mckim and now the president, very hard to believe. that is the "wall street journal." democrat, virginia. go ahead. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. i want to make a comment on our government of the united states. i will be 85 years old in august. i think our government is so corrupt, and there is no way of anyone cleaning it up and make it work like it is supposed to work for the people. i am so disgusted with the way

this republican party is trying to get obama out of office. they made that start from the very beginning, they made those comments about the wanted him to be a one-term president. they are driving as hard as they can. i want him to be reelected, very highly. i think he will be. but anyway, i just want to make a comment. they should rename this country instead of calling it the united states of america, they should call it the un-united states of america. all they do is argue back and forth and get nothing done for the people in the country who are suffering from all of the jobs being sent to foreign countries. host: thank you for calling this morning. we appreciate your comments. in other news, with about 15 minutes until our first guest niki tsongas will be here to

take your calls. this is from "new york times." that is from "the new york times." it is the lead story, "cia."

a small number of officers are operating secretly and turkey, helping allies to a which syrian opposition fighters crossed the border will receive arms to fight the syrian government according to american officials and arab intelligence officers. the weapons including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some anti-tank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the turkish border by way of a shadowy network for intermediaries. again, the lead story in "the new york times." next call on fast and furious and executive privilege, republican, minneapolis. caller: i sure wish you would

have read from "the wall street journal" and explain actually what happened. just a few points, eric holder lied blatantly to congress. the first one was when he knew about it. the second one was to try to blame the bush administration. that is getting so old, by the way. then it is say that he was wrong about that. people really do need to watch foxberry that that woman from indiana is so misinformed. you really do need to watch because even you are just talking about who invokes executive privilege. go through the time line about went -- what eric holder lied about, when it happened. people have died. this is not breaking into some hotel room.

a beautiful man, one of our agents, was killed, not to mention all of the mexican people that have died because of this. people should google eric holder and find out who he actually defends and does not prosecute. you would be surprised. could you please read the rest where it says in summary when it kind of explains to these unformed democrats would actually is going on? host: i would recommend anyone who wants to read the editorial can go online and read it there.

that is just one paragraph. the supreme court could decide that case today. those cases -- the decisions are released at 10:00 a.m. and c- span has cameras of the supreme court, and ready to take your calls at the supreme court rules on the health care law. there are a couple of other decisions still pending. the supreme court finishes at the end of june, their first session. all decisions must be rendered by then. there is an immigration case, the u.s. presses arizona that is still out there. there is the decency case on tv still out there as well. just a couple of the case is still out there along with the health-care case. in "the washington post," republicans won while official

washington wipes bated breath. -- ways with bated breath. that is just a little taste from "the washington post" this morning. front page of "the wall street journal." federal reserve officials extended their efforts to boost the sluggish u.s. economy and

said they were ready to do more if necessary to spur job growth. c-span covered in bernanke's press conference yesterday. you can watch that online at c- span.org if you like to. the lead article, "economy expected to live along." the fed expects the 8.2% jobless rate to be little changed by year's end and unemployment would still be 7.58% by the end revised the fed's forecast says. back to your calls on the president invoking of executive privilege on fast and furious. new jersey, independent line. caller: thank you. under fast and furious, i have seen this kind of thing going on since 1966. the big question here is, who

authorized this program and why it was authorized. because i believe it was authorized to try and undermine the constitution and brainwash people into thinking we need more gun laws when they're not enforcing the laws already on the books. if they had enforce the laws already on the books, then they could have stopped those guns from going to mexico. thank you for your time. host: farmington, new mexico, republican line. good morning. caller: that is fantastic. i have not been able to get on for quite a long time. the guy who called before, upset because the republicans wanted to make obama a one-term president. are they supposed to come out and campaign for him? this air older stuff, it is nonsense eric holder is claiming

he did not know anything about it. if holder did not know anything, obama could not have known anything. how can they claim executive privilege if it is something they never discussed? you folks on the left onto really do some investigating on your own. you can google any of this stuff. it is out there to be found. just taking the word when eric holder says it is unprecedented, it obviously isn't. it is just so much nonsense. thank you for taking my call and i hope i can get through in another month. host: from the front section of or the style section of "the washington post." rep obama bio still is an flinching.

back to your calls on fast and furious and executive privilege. democrat, alabama. caller: i called -- i am on the same subject.

[unintelligible] i know what race is. this seems like every time the government don't do something right, they want to blame the president. they need to do something for themselves and quit waiting on the president to give them somethingthe gun thing, like the the man said, they do not need no more laws just enforce the ones they have. i want to say to you black folk, do something for yourself. host: on book tv this weekend, fast and furious will be the feature of our "afterwards" program. we will have an author interviewed by major garrett on fast and furious. today, the senate will take up the farm bill at 11:00 a.m. this morning on c-span2.

the president will be making speech about student loans later today and c-span will also be covering that. from "the washington post," they do a periodic update on or death. here is the current or the most recent numbers for the afghanistan war deaths. 2005 fatalities. 1580 military personnel lost and hostile action. 425 lost and non-hostile action. honolulu, independent line, you are on "the "washington journal." what is your opinion about fast and furious? caller: president obama criticized president bush of using executive privilege. what is he doing now? is he doing the same thing bush had been doing? he criticized bush so much. the bottom line, a man has died

serving his country and it is a disgrace for people to say, "hey, we cannot have all the paper to find out why this honorable man has died." maybe it is not important he has died. maybe they want to overshadow it by using executive privilege. i don't understand. a man has died. host: from "the new york times" business section. shackup expected today, that ann curry may be replaced on "today." the former attorney general this morning has an op-ed in "the wall street journal." "plugging the national security leaks." there's every reason why this inquiry on the national security leaks should proceed in congress or oversight authority resides. but the bipartisan outrage is

genuine, congress is particularly well-suited to investigate and disclose what went on here, and who is responsible. in informed electorate would be grateful. from "the wall street journal" democratic convention proms bills to let liquor flow. north carolina is moving to allow liquor stores to open the slipper day when thousands of democrats and journalists will descend on charlotte for the democratic national convention. last call on fast and furious and executive privilege comes from new york. caller: good morning. i just want to say it is kind of

strange the democrats accused republicans of conducting a witch hunt and the conduct of a witch hunt in george bush for most of his term. he is not even president for three years, and they still blame him. the reason why the republicans -- they are trying to get to the truth. what happened with fast and furious that cause the death of not just brian terry, but hundreds of thousands of mexicans in the -- with weapons used by the drug cartel. and nobody wants to tell the truth. instead, they want to cover it up and accused george bush and republicans. host: thank you to all of the callers. the house is out at 9:00 this morning or in at 9:00 this morning.

we have two guests coming up. first, rep niki tsongas, democrat of massachusetts will be out here followed by michelle bachmann from minnesota. that is what is coming up in the next hour and 30 minutes, hour and 40 minutes or so. first, ben bernanke held a press conference after the fed action yesterday. here's a portion of his press conference. we will be right back. >> i but like to ask you to respond to a different set of criticisms. this criticism which to hear from capitol hill and different places is that the fed has already pushed interest rates to an extraordinarily low level and that there is not anything more the fed can do to help the recovery. that the criticism is that the fed at this point should stand down and the congress or the

white house attend to the economy's bellman's or let market forces tend to the economy's elements. what you think of those arguments and how would you respond? >> as i've said many times, monetary policy by itself is not one to solve our economic problems. we will come help and support from any other part of the government from other economic policy makers. collaboration would be great. i would not accept the proposition the fed has no more ammunition. i do think our tools, while they are non-standard, still can create more accommodative financial conditions, can still provide support for the economy, can still help us return to a more normal economic situation. that being said, any other support that is forthcoming, any

other economic policies that are undertaken that are helpful in terms of making our economy stronger are welcome, but i do think monetary policy still does have some capacity to strengthen the economy by easing financial conditions. >> "washington journal" continues. host: where please niki tsongas to have come a democrat, of the natural resources committee. if we could start with what we're talking about earlier this morning and that is the house oversight vote, a committee's boat on holding their colder in contempt. what are your thoughts about that? >> i think the policy itself called fast and furious was ill- advised whether it was put in place under presidentush who

initiated -- did not initiate but was part of his the ministration, and still is ill- advised under president obama. it has led to a tragic consequence with the loss of a border patrol's life. i think there's a proper role for congressional oversight. i also think there needs to be some accountability which we have seen with the firing of some of those who were held responsible. i think our attorney general has released about 7600 pages of documents. the fight really owes over a narrow band of documents around which -- is over a narrow band of documents. there is privileged information that could compromise ongoing investigations. in terms of the contempt itself, i have yet to see the resolution. i will be looking at it before and make a decision. i am sad it has come to this. i think there was a way forward that did not necessarily have to lead to this point. when you look at what else we

are doing or not doing in congress, we of a transportation bill whose authorization is about to expire, student loan rates about to double for millions of american students -- i think those are the things we should be dealing with. host: one other issue i want to bring up, potentially the supreme court could rule today on health care. guest: i was a strong supporter of health care reform. coming from massachusetts were under governor romney's the minister shall we created the template for the law enacted. the goal was multipronged, to create access to health insurance for the millions of uninsured americans. we saw a great success in that with massachusetts. we know we have to deal with the rising cost of health care if we do not do that, no matter who is paying for it. there are many elements in accountable care act that would do that. we have many americans who seek out and are given health care,

but because they are not insured, it is left to government and the rest of us to pay for that coverage. we wanted some important insurance reforms. my view is does congress have a rational basis for moving ahead in dealing with it as it did in this way? my hope is that the supreme court will defer to the role of congress and to the political process, that it should resolve this and not our supreme court. >> but the supreme court does not rule like to suggest, to the democrats in the house have a plan b? >> i do not know we have a plan b, but i think we're all in our own way trying to the way the process. whether or not they just do with the individual mandates or they look more broadly at the entire piece of legislation. i think we simply have to wait to see what the outcome is. my hope is the supreme court defers to the political process

and the role of congress and the legitimacy of the issues it was trying to deal with an address nationally. >> you are a member of the armed services committee. before we got started on the program, you mentioned you had traveled to afghanistan. how many times have you been there? i know laura bush was active on the role of women in afghanistan. was that also one of your issues? guest: i have been there four times. i have seen quite a change over the course of those four visits. in my last two, it was the focus on visiting with our women serving in combat or in support roles, which given the nature of these wars as a service puts them in harm's way virtually at all times, but also to meet with afghan women who have benefited from our presence there and investment in education and health care, in particular. i am a strong supporter of the timetable the president has put

in place. i would support more aggressive timetable, but i am very concerned we do not walk away from the game of women and children. we visited a school and a small village where 1000 young girls cycle to that school on a given day. we were able to visit with some older students. the school went for the full gamut bridge but we ask these young girls what they would like to do. "i want to be a lawyer, journalist, a teacher." id does not take much to raise the sidelines when to exposure on people and young women to education. i remain very committed and supportive and hold our administration costs feet to the fire that as we negotiate a way out, we're also very supportive of the gains we have made for women and that we hold the government's the to the fire as well. >> our recent report in the news about congress not allowing

another frack round to happen. is that a correct report and do you agree with that? guest: i am on the armed services committee and we did not allow the brac process. coming from massachusetts, we are not home to many bases, but we are home to one that has a very unique to the ability because of its proximity to many research and development facilities, extraordinary universities that partner with the air force base. i am a strong advocate for the particular case that we're so proud of in massachusetts. but we note the process is coming. as part of the larger effort to deal with our debt and deficit and spend our dollars wisely, it

will inevitably be presented to us. i do feel strongly about the particular case we have in massachusetts, given its unique capabilities and its ability to meet the challenges of the future. host: do you think the process in the past has worked as a structured? guest: i know we have a base that has been a model for how to redevelop, use the land that is left behind are the buildings left behind. it is not an easy thing at all. my preference would be that we look at foreign bases. there are a lot of questions around so many locations where they're no longer necessary around the globe. but we know we will have to do with this process going forward. we wanted to be in a reasonable way that allows us to each make the case for the particular strengths of the bases would happen to represent. host: i want to talk about women

in combat or women in the military before we take the calls. the numbers have been on the screen. should women be allowed in combat? i mean, officially allowed? guest: absolutely. they are in combat today. i have met with female engagement teams that are part of the marine corps, units that were created where our male soldiers cannot really interact with afghan women. there was a necessity to create these units. women could go into these villages and interact and learn more about the threats and get a better lay of the land. they are absolutely in harm's way. they have been trained to engage in combat. they are remarkable women. whether or not they are trained to be in combat, i have also met with a woman who was in charge of dealing with all the

logistical challenges of getting all the supplies and whatever was needed across the southern portion of afghanistan. so the different operating bases. always in harm's way as the help support the effort. i think we simply have to acknowledge there is no front line in war today. that by 2025, 25% of our military could be women and they're going to inevitably be in combat situations. they need to be trained for it and protected so that have all the adequate protections and understanding of how to deal with it and also be given credit for it. host: representatives niki tsongas is our guest. she has been in congress since 2007. her late husband was a senator from massachusetts and ran for president in 1992. first call comes from robert and was virginia, republican line.

caller: good morning. back to the fast and furious, it strikes me that the whole reason why the bush administration and now the obama administration have had to resort to such a risky task. the sole purpose of assault weapons is the lifting of the ban we had for a number of years on the sale of assault weapons. although i am in a strong second amendment state, in west virginia, there's absolutely no justification for a private individual to be in possession of an ak-47 or m-16.

i would like to know if there is any move in congress to reinstate a ban on the sale of assault weapons. host: representative tsongas. guest: that's a good question. i absolutely agree with on the limitation that should be in place around assault weapons. but there has been no recent efforts to deal with that. back to the fast and furious, i do think it was a very ill- advised strategy under president bush as it was under president obama. i do think we have engaged in the necessary oversight that it calls for, in particular with the tragic outcomes. the responsible individuals have been held accountable and removed from their positions. our attorney general has delivered 76 under more documents that he felt were appropriate. ofre's only a small band

documents left. it is unfortunate it has come to this. i think there was a better way to deal with this. -- the attorney general has delivered 7600 documents that he felt were appropriate. as for assault weapons, they do not belong in the hands of individuals who have no necessity for using them. host: there's a recent article in the paper proposing new sexual assault rules for the military, from leon panetta. guest: as a newly elected member of congress, i was assigned to the armed services committee and the military personnel subcommittee. we had a hearing where the services and to talk about the the various programs they had put in place to help those who had been assaulted. it was a new issue to me. and i happened to go to a wounded warrior luncheon soon

afterwards and it was filled with primarily men who had been badly injured in their service to our country, but there were several of women in the room and i went over to see what their experiences had been. i asked one of them, are the statistics in information i'm hearing about sexual assault real? one of the women was a nurse. she had been deployed several times to iraq and in afghanistan, in her late 40's, had never been assaulted, but she said if i am more afraid of my own soldiers than i am of the enemy. as she traveled around whatever bay she happens to be stationed at, she always had a capacity to descend --defend yourself from our own soldiers. one out of every three returning female veterans report having been the victim of some type of military sexual trauma. it encompasses a lot of behavior. women seeking to serve our country being victimized by our

own soldiers. we have worked very hard on this through the sexual assault prevention caucus that congress and mike turner and i formed. recreated a bill to put many more tools in the toolbox to assist the defense department and services to better deal with this. we learned victims don't have access to a lawyer. the military justice system is mysterious. it can be very confusing. we want to make sure victims, as they seek justice, we wanted to make sure they understood what the process would be like and that they would be well prepared. we learned that congressman turner had a constituent whose daughter was raped, requested a transfer out of the unit because she was serving in the same unit with her assailant. that transfer was denied. she was subsequently murdered. now in this bill there is a

provision that would allow someone who has been assaulted to request a transfer. if the transfer is denied, there's a process for review. a very quick process for review. we learn that all these people who had been put in place to help victims, if you went to seek help from them to have a conversation with them, that conversation could be used against the victim to in a court proceeding. so why would you go get this help if you knew that somehow it would be used to hurt you in a court proceeding? that was taken out of the bill that president obama made an executive order to create that privilege. secretary panetta has heard these stories and understands the challenges and has actually upped the ante. he has come to understand that often these cases are brought to a very young commander who does not understand the process, who

is trying to hold his unit together, to do many other things, often will try to minimize the significance of the charges, does not have the understanding as to how to deal with it, is often in nearly completed because he is responsible often for the assailant and the victim. it has been moved up the chains of command. the first official to deal with it will be aat the captain or kernel level. secretary panetta has created special units to investigate these crimes. they are unusual crimes and require a particular type of understanding and processed. it's a very important step. it is an untenable situation. i think the window of opportunity is here. a lot of new tools in the toolbox. a lot of understanding across the services that this cannot go on. we in congress need to monitor it very closely to make sure we see many more successful prosecutions and a changed culture that does not tolerate it.

host: next call for representative tsongas comes from florida, melvin, a democrat. caller: good morning. i recently had a question, i was asked about the problem with the content situation and atf. they went to trying to be pleasing. they continue to do these type things. you should be looking into their actual policies. they had a lot of officers put in those positions. i know this personally from working with them in d.c. my main issue is you started off with a contempt situation with eric holder. you normally bring on the democratic individual and you ask her to deal with the issue that she is dealing with, which she does an excellent job, but

it is limited. she is there to deal with the topics of the day. she is just one to run over and do the normal talking points. you always bring on a democrat and asked them to deal with a committee issue and then you let the republicans run wild in dealing with all the issues. you end up getting all the talking points from the right. >> thanhost: thank you, melvin. richard is in wisconsin on the independent line. caller: representative tsongas, i understand that you are for the timetable to withdraw the troops from afghanistan. i wonder if you don't think that you would like to expedite the withdrawal of troops, if you're not afraid the same thing will happen in afghanistan that happened in iraq where iran has taken them

over. i left a son -- lost a son in afghanistan and would hate to think his death was for nothing. guest: i'm sorry for your loss. we have lost many young americans. one of the things i do see as i go to afghanistan or iraq when we were still engaged in conflict, was the extraordinary commitment of our young people, who are doing everything we have asked of them. they can take great pride in the progress that was made in afghanistan. i spoke earlier about the school i visited where i saw the extraordinary impact, being exposed to a young women has had. i met some young afghan women who were being trained to become helicopter pilots. we met with women who have seen tremendous benefits in their

health care. we have primarily focused on women, because that was the nature of our trip. we were going over mother's day to see our young women serving on our behalf but also to see the afghan women. the reality is we have been there over 11 years. we have made tremendous investments there and we have seen strides in the population. we have worked and trained the national security forces, the afghan police, and the afghan military. now i think it's time for them, given all that training and understanding of how to better protect their country, i think it is now their responsibility to take on the challenges that their country still confronts, but i do believe it is now their role. we will always have a role to play to our diplomatic efforts. i think that is quite important, especially around securing the gains for women and the way in which we invest over there and continue to invest in education. if we were to walk away from

that, we would do the country a great disservice. but i do firmly believe that it is a broker to put in place a timetable. i said i would favor an even more aggressive one, because i have the confidence and i do believe as a country we have made a tremendous investment over there that will serve the afghan people well, what they do have to assume the responsibility for that. -- but they do have to assume the responsibility. i thank your son for his service and i'm sorry for your loss. host: representative, what is our military presence in iraq today? what is still left? guest: i believe it is very modest. i think it's primarily contained within the embassy grounds. again, aid related and providing diplomatic resources as needed.

host: does the armed services committee keep an eye on iraq still? guest: yes, we have not had a hearing on this in recent times. we were very much on top of it when we were fully engaged, but we have not had a recent hearing, given the many challenges we have been having around the globe. host: represented some this is a graduate of smith college and boston university law school, a member of the armed services and natural resources committee. prior to being elected to congress in 2007 she was dean of external affairs at middlesex community college. the president later today will make a statement on student loan rates and their impact. guest: we know the rising cost of education is becoming more and more challenging for american families. we know that the issue of

college education is ever more important, given the level of innovation, the kinds of jobs we are creating across this country, so that it is ever more necessary to have some form of higher education, whether it is community college, four-year degree, or more. the challenge we have is to make it possible -- if we were to let these interest rate loans double, we know the further economic burden that would put on families already squeezed by the talented times we are in. it is the way in which the federal government can be a partner in helping educate our young people, is to provide loans in an affordable way. i have two kids who borrowed a lot of money not so much for undergraduate school, that is a commitment we were able to make as parents, but to go on to graduate school. it is a real burden. we in congress have to do our best to keep that as affordable as possible. one way we can do that is fine

demand to hold the loan rates at 3.4%. we have to act before the end of this month. i think we owe it to our american families and our young people. host: do you agree with your late husband's economic call to arms for a cut in the capital gains rate? guest: i probably would have to disagree with that. given that challenges we have today, we see the tremendous differences in the way in which investment income is taxed and the way the average american is taxed. the and i would have to have a dinner table discussion around that. host: representative niki tsongas is our guest. paul is on the republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. the representative, i think she is sidestepping of the questions about mr. holder, what he has done. the president has bailed him out by taking executive privilege.

this is his privilege. he can do this. but he seems to only do this when he is in hot water. the facts are this program fast and furious was not a program under the bush administration. i want to hear this representatives say that. this was not a program under the bush administration. this is a program under the obama administration that is called gun lobby. they sold guns to the cartels that got one of our border agents killed. now i want to hear this lady say -- host: we got your point. guest: i think it was a program that was initiated by two presidents, may be under different names, but with the same goal. it was ill-advised in both instances. i do believe congress has an appropriate oversight role to play. we have to remember the

president, as he has issued an executive privilege, he is doing this much later in his administration than previous presidents. it is really because the remaining slice of papers being argued over do potential compromise ongoing investigations. so it is very inappropriate that the president has served his privilege. host: is it on the matter of time before drones can be used by our enemies -- guest: i know that they save american lives and have been a great resource as we have been fighting in afghanistan and seeking to bring al bayda to justice and minimize its impact. but it raises many questions. it is worthy of a very serious debate as to the rolls around its usage. host: next call comes from

wisconsin, dale on our independent line. caller: good morning. are you there? guest: i am. caller: first i would like to tell you the story why i'm going to ask a question. i have four grandchildren in the service. nine grandchildren total. my granddaughter abigail went into the navy and she was on the george w. bush ship. she did four years active. and then will hopefully not have to go back after doing four more years in active. she was married and her husband went to virginia with her. they have a two-year-old baby. when my granddaughter came back home, her husband was doing cocaine, was partying, she was fearful for the baby. because she was in the service and she did not want to have a

dishonorable discharge, she continued in the navy. she tried to do the best she could with having marriage counseling and drug rehabilitation and held up her end of the marriage. he and his father, his father being from yugoslavia, they depleted her bank account. he never worked all the time they were married. host: i apologize, but we need to move on. if you get to your question for the congresswoman. caller: because he was in the military and because shhe was able to deplete the bank account, is there any protection? i found out there are more young women that go through these things. are there any protections that the military can give these young women to protect them and their children? guest: it is a good question. answer fore a ready

you. i know that the issue of financing -- personal finances as somebody serves in the military and is often away from the family unit is a very isone. congressman ed markey and i recently introduced a bill that would encourage financial institutions that are located on bases to encourage savings. we find that military families often resort to pay lenders as a very expensive way of financing the needs you have to support your family. and so, we want to encourage legitimate financial institutions to look at other ways to encourage families to save. in general i know that this is a real issue. i don't have a specific answer. for the question answer. i would be happy to follow up with you if you want to call my office in washington. 202-225-3411.

we would be happy to look into it a little more. host: whether not recent legislation on the payday loans? are those not often set upright outside military bases? guest: yes, the needs can be immediate and not a lot of other resources, so this is an attempt to deal with that. host: next call comes from houston, henry, a democrat. good morning. caller: i have a question. seems like the whole investigation is focusing on arms that. congress should be focused more on assault weapons ban and the root cause of the whole operation. do you think that might be possible? guest: that is a question that came up a little earlier and it reflects a common concern across this country about the prevalence of assault weapons, which there seems to be no role

, in my view, in the society, especially in an urban context where there is such great risk posed by assault weapons. but it is a good point that you raced. host: lafayette, louisiana, dan on our independent line, please go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i, also, told mr. holder in contempt because he has not investigated any of these financial crimes in the height of financial crimes. there's been less than half the prosecutions of during the bush administration. back to the fast and furious, i think it's unfortunate that this young man died. i also think it is very unfortunate that so many people died in iraq and there's been no investigation over that period our government is dysfunctional. we should also have an investigation about why there are 20 million refugees from mexico in this country.

we need to look at the mexican government's. there are so many things to be investigated and our government is so dysfunctional that we are were about a few guns and one man getting killed as opposed to the rest of the disasters in this country. guest: well, as i said, the dispute is over a very narrow band of documents. i am sorry that it has come to this. i think it could have been resolved in a more measured way. nevertheless, this is the process that now confronts us. the reality is we are facing expiration of a transportation bill that could provide thousands of jobs across this country. we face millions of american rates andinterest loans going up if we don't do something at the end of this month. there's much we could be doing that would have a real impact on the american people in our economy. i would hope we could get back to work on those matters rather than spending a lot of time on an issue of a very narrow

issues. host: reports that the cia is helping to get weapons to the syrian rebels, from the new york times. should the u.s. be more involved? guest: we are observing a deplorable situation in syria with a deplorable leader who is killing thousands of his people. i think we are all very concerned about it. i think we need to be very, very watchful. i do have concerns that it's not clear yet where these rebel groups are that are well poised to take this to another place. i know that military action, we have to take into account what the consequences would be, what the potential loss of life could be if we ever engaged in a no- fly zone. they have a very robust air defenses that we have to be mindful of. i think our efforts should continue to be on russia, a

strong ally of the assad government and encouraging russia to do all it needs to do to encourage him to leave office. host: are we doing the right thing with regard to iran in containing their potential ambition? guest: we have to be so mindful of it. we had a hearing yesterday on this issue that i attended for while. it's to monitor the situation so closely, to try to determine what iran pose the intent is, with its capability is -- , what itsents is capability is. we need to continue to have robust sanctions and engage in robust diplomatic efforts. host: cincinnati, tim on our republican line, the morning.

it helps if i push the button. please go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. good morning. i just think that --i am 47 years old and i have never been so insecure about the country that i live in. i see our government just digging in and fighting each other and the instability. i can remember when our leaders used to be more respectful of each other and they would work together as a common goal. i am not content to take the opportunity --i am a republican, but i am not going to take a shot at our president. he is our president, regardless of what my party affiliation is. he is the president of the united states.

therefore, if i will not disrespect my president. i love my country and would die for my country. i think this whole deal about the fast and furious does need to be investigated, however, i don't think our government should be attacking our president and closing them into a bunker. i am worried about that. i think a lot of people i know are worried about that. regardless of whether you are democrat or republican, the fact of the matter is we are all americans. i think that we should investigate it it, but i don't think that we should all be fighting each other over it. just look at the facts and put the facts out there, and if anybody has done wrong, hold them accountable. just like i've always been held accountable, like i hold my children accountable, if like my employer told me accountable. i think everybody just needs to gear things down a little.

we -- our economy is going in the crapper and there's hardly any jobs and a lot of things going on. i feel bad for the perry family. it's a tragedy. but at the end of the day, call moorhead's need to prevail. -- calmer heads need to prevail. host: what kind of work do you do in cincinnati? caller: i am an entrepreneur. guest: what do you do? caller: the black algae that it's on the roof, i was looking for job one day and a lady asked me how do i get that off my roof? i said i don't know but i will find out. i have been doing it ever since then. guest: that is the american spirit. it troubles so many people.

what this gentleman, tim, has expressed, is a common theme i hear from so many people. constituents are so concerned about the lack of civility in washington. we do have deep differences. we cannot deny that. those differences are real. they are rooted in what we view the role of government to be, in particular the role of the federal government. those who have come to washington have been elected because we represent these points of view. and they're not easily resolved. that is one thing. the second thing is the way in which we express them. i think people are as dismayed by the which we express them as the fact that we happen to have these differences. we have a lot at stake. as we confront the end of the year, we know that financially if we don't resolve so many

issues, whether it is sequestration coming into place where you will have $1.20 trillion taken out of the federal budget, half out of defense and half out of non- defense, we will have tax cuts expire that will be particularly hard on middle-income families, we will have a payroll tax cut that will expire. host: the support the continuation of the middle-class tax cuts? guest: absolutely. middle-income families need them. our economy needs middle-income families to have those funds in their hands. we also have to deal with the dead and the deficit. i have always been supportive of growing big. we have to come together in a fair and balanced way. that includes revenue. you cannot do this in a fair and balanced way without having at

least part of the resolution including new revenue. it's very important that we resolve this by the end of the year. if we don't, it could have a tremendous impact on our economy. the differences are real. we cannot turn our back on those. but the way in which we deal with those differences is very important. host: how potentially real is sequestration at this point? guest: nobody wants it. nobody wanted to go into effect. as a result, i think it's very unlikely, but on the other hand we have to come together to resolve it. many companies in my district work with the defense department. they are not sure how this is one to resolve itself. as a result, they are beginning to cut back already on some of their expenses. that is true on the defense side. i imagine there are other entities across the country that are doing the same.

it would behoove us -- and we do take it seriously -- that we have to come to some resolution on this. but it may not take place until after the election. host: tell us about. the about. you have been redistricted into the third district. guest: my district is remarkable. i call it revolutionary district, because in has been home to some remarkable pieces of american history. the american revolution began in concord, massachusetts, which i represent. the industrial revolution began in lowell, massachusetts and other towns i represent. we are home to jack kerouac, who was a revolutionary literary figure. in my district, massachusetts elected the first woman to congress and she served in congress 35 years. it is a remarkable district. i'm inheriting the new communities that go west and have similar economic history, similar challenges.

i look forward to earning the right to represent them. host: niki tsongas has been our guest on the washington journal. the democrat from massachusetts. thanks for your time. next, representative michele bachmann, minnesota republican. we will be right at. >> at 2:00 eastern, more on defense department issues. a veterans affairs executive hopes his department can reduce suicide rates by treating more patients through videoconferencing and gradually integrating the health records with those of the defense department. there's been an uptick in suicides this year among active- duty troops, about 1 per day. that compared with about one every 36 hours in previous years. among veterans from all the nation's wars, 18 commit suicide every day. u.s. troops still in afghanistan as the u.s. continues a multibillion-dollar effort to rebuild the country, we learned a government watchdog is looking into the country's practice of

taxing u.s. companies involved in the reconstruction. the office of the special inspector general will audit fees charged to contractors. include tariffs, custom duties, and other taxes that eventually come out of u.s. taxpayer dollars. reaction today from attorney general eric holder to yesterday's contempt vote against him by a house committee. speaking earlier today in copenhagen, he said, "the action the committee took yesterday was on wanted, unnecessary, and unprecedented." he remains optimistic the conflict with the republican- controlled house oversight committee could still be resolved for on the basis of the administration opposes a proposal. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend on american history tv, a harvard professor on the civil war and the movement to end slavery. >> one of the fascinating aspects of the abolitionists.

when lincoln gives his inaugural speech, self-described abolitionists are still a tiny minority. what transforms abolitionists into respected critics of the american scene is sports under. but and more on our series of key political figus wh o ran for president but lost, but changed american history. we will look at eugene debs. american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is representative michele bachmann, a republican of minnesota, representing the sixth district. congresswoman, it is a long way from the iowa straw poll last august. guest: it is. that was almost a year ago.

coming up on the one-year anniversary when i announced my candidacy for president of the united states on june 27. this is the first real full day of summer and it brings back a lot of good memories. in memories host: you won the straw poll that year. guest: i did and i was the first republican woman ever to win the straw poll. i don't think republican or democrat any woman has ever won that before. it was the first presidential contest and i was honored to win. host: have you endorse mitt romney. guest: i did, in fort smith, virginia. very excited about his candidacy. he has an excellent opportunity, an excellent way forward. his focus is on turning the economy around and creating jobs. if he has wonderful experience doing that. he is very savvy and optimistic and a lot of people can trust him because they know is that brown to do what needs to be done. host: would you like to be considered for vice president? guest: i would like to see our

economy turned around as quickly as we can. i'm confident romney will and that he will make a wise decision on what is -- who is vice president will be and i trust him on that decision. host: the supreme court could put out its ruling on health care today. guest: they could. that decision could come today or next monday. we've also rumors a few days could get tacked on and it could go into next week. it's very possible. i know one thing. 70% of the american people now say that they either want the current president's health care plan performed or completely repeal out. people are not happy with it. the reason why, i think, is because people are singing to the future of this will mean for them,. already we've seen huge spikes in health insurance premiums. all sorts of 9% or more. we of also seen people get denial of care. they have been told you cannot have access to something. that's not a pretty future for a

lot of people. the real problem in health care is cost. that is what has to be addressed. unfortunately, the president's health-care plan took us in the opposite direction. rather than costing all of us less for health care, now under the president's health-care plan, if we are all paying a lot more for health care. that means less access to care. what has to change is that. that's what the american people are demanding it, i think. host: if they overturn the individual mandate at the supreme court, is there a plan among house republicans to do something on health care or to leave as is? guest: there's absolutely a plan. no one wants to leave as is, because we know there's a problem with the cost. it costs a way too much for the average american. that's what we want to do. i have a plan. the number of members have a plan. mine is to let an american bridge is any health insurance policy they want to come

anywhere in the united states, with no requirements -- no themum requirements ffrom federal government and let them pay with it with their own money. paige ford with your own tax- free money and then have some medical malpractice liability reform. just those three things alone is an 18 page bill, simple to understand, that will dramatically drive down the cost. that is what people are crying for. will congress bring down the cost of health care/ that is what my bill accomplishes it. host: representative michelle bachmann is our guest. we will put the numbers of on the screen if you would like to talk with her. she is a graduate of winona state university and got her law degree at oral roberts university and has a master's from william and mary college. guest: it is a post doctorate degree in tax law. i spent a number of years

litigating tax cases in the u.s. federal tax court. i learned that high taxes are devastating on the economy and devastating on individuals. that is one thing i want to do, reform our tax code. host: congressional approval ratings around 12% or 10%. guest: are they that time? i thought they were much lower. host: republicans are in charge in the house. guest: and harry reid is in charge in the senate, he is the democratic leader. i think the american people are rightfully upset with the u.s. congress, because they don't see a lot of action happening right now. the house of representatives has passed a budget. we have passed all sorts of bills and have sent over to the senate where they have died at the door of harry reid's democratic-controlled senate. this should not be about partnership -- should not be about partisanship.

the country needs us to turn the economy around. i don't want to see as wait until november 4 election. people cannot wait that long. a lot of people are really suffering. they are suffering in my state and in my district. we want to see things happen. the house has passed a budget. unfortunately, in the senate, they've not passed a budget for years now. that is malpractice. that is negligence of duty. it's time they get. with it host: first call comes from richmond, virginia. on our independent line, go ahead, cherylynn. caller: thanks for taking my call. my initial question was going to be about the economy, but in listening to her talk about the partisanship in washington and how we need to work together, that to me for a loop, because it seems like it is so much bickering, going back and forth.

why are you willing to say to the republican party we need to put all this bickering aside and we need to come together and work out our differences and compromise? it seems like you guys are always talking about the need to work together, however, when someone says compromise, it is like a dirty word to you all. if i have not seen any of you step up and told the republican leadership accountable for working towards compromise. are you going to do that, michelle bachmann? guest: i am not only willing, i have done it this year. one of the most significant pieces of legislation went through this year and it was one that i led on. i brought together republicans and democrats from two states. we were able to finish the longest unfinished bridge project in the history of the united states. this was not easy. we had to have two thirds of the members of the house of

representatives votes in favor of this bill. i actively worked with democrats to get this done. as a matter of fact, i even reached out to former speaker of the house nancy pelosi. she voted for this bill as well. why don't you and all of the c- span -- i want all of you and the c-span viewers to be encouraged, because it can be done. when you can have michelle bachmann and our u.s. senator al franken agree to get something done, you know you have had a good day of compromise. of course it can happen giv. am on the cusp of introducing brand new bipartisan bill. i'm reaching out to have democrat co-sponsors first on my bill, because this is very important. one thing we see is a lot of poor people need health care services. they are suffering. what we discovered in minnesota

is there is a stunning amount of fraud going on in medicaid. not medicare but medicaid. that is held care for poor people. we are coming together because we found out something really shocking. for decades there has not been a third-party auditor of where the money's being spent. it is not going to the poor people who need it, but somebody is getting this money. i'm trying to bring republicans and democrats together if to get this bill on the floor, because when the president's health care plan is in full bloom, that will expand medicaid in my home state of minnesota by 21%. if we are seeing billions of dollars in my home state potentially lost to fraud, imagine when we make that pot of money 21% bigger. that means 21% more fraud, in all likelihood. then passed to end. that's why we have to come together and do something good

for the american people. that is to make sure your money is spent right. that's what -- why i want to bring democrats and republicans together. host: you recently called for audit for the minnesota's medicaid program. guest: i did. i called on the federal agency tries with doing audits. i said don't wait until the legislation has passed, do it now and take a look at what is happening in my state. that is a remarkable thing for members of congress to say look at my state and see what the problem is and what's going on. right now when you have billions of dollars -- we are relatively small state with a population of 5 million people. imagine, under the president's health-care plan in my state alone, medicaid will expand 21%. if you went to the grocery store and post your grocery cart up to the cashier and figured maybe

you have $35 worth of food in the cards and the cashier says that will be $300. you say, $300? i only have $35 worth of groceries, so let me see the tape. then the cashier says you cannot see the gross retail, give me the $300. that is what is happening in medicaid. the managed care organizations are passing the bill along. we don't know what they are charging for. we don't know who they are charging for. we don't have any data. my state of minnesota is not even demanding more information on the bill. they are handing the bill over to the federal government and the federal parliament is paying. -- and the federal government is paying it. we don't have money for fraud, so we have to spend this money right.

it's not a partisan issue. it's not about beating up on democrats or republicans. this is just an issue of fraud. that's something democrats and republicans can come together on because nobody likes fraud. i also sit on the committee that deals with intelligence, classified secrets of our country. i'm your viewers know that this is probably the most bipartisan committee we have in congress. is that not good news? the committee that is tasked with dealing with our nation's classified secrets, both republicans and democrats might now are absolutely outraged by all the national security leaks that are coming. . both parties want this to stop. that is one more area where we are working together. host: mike rogers shares that, from maryland? guest: i can say enough about him. he is the chairman of the committee. he has done more to set a positive tone for bipartisanship.

we take our job very seriously. every member on that committee? shows up, they worked extremely hard. unfortunately, your viewers don't know that because everything we do is behind closed doors. it has to be. these are classified secrets of the nation. but this is the most highly functioning committee i have ever been a part of. the ranking member is a democrat, dutch ruppersberger. we get along great. i get along with every person on the committee. it is marvelous. i think it's important people know that. a committee that you don't hear a lot about, because all of our work is behind closed doors, a very bipartisan. we're getting a lot done, but we are equally outraged about the national security leaks. that hurts americans, our safety, and it can get innocent people killed. we are trying to get to the bottom of that make shortstops. host: today's lead story in the new york times -- guest: i was extremely upset.

host: the cia working on getting rebels to this -- getting on weapons to the syrian rebels. guest: two weeks ago i was with a general who said to me in 55 years in the military i have never seen this level of national security secrets being leaked. this is unprecedented. in the last week alone -- i don't want to repeat what been going on out there, but this is very concerning. it has to end. i just want people to know that this is another area where you can feel good, because democrats and republicans are coming together. both of us see this as very serious. the administration, frankly, as a lot of answers to give to us. host: the new york times reported that cia officials in turkey have been working on this several weeks. the story this morning was not news to you? guest: i will not confirm or

deny anything that is in the new york times story. it's reprehensible that the story is even in print. what is even more wrong is that the leaks continue coming out and they have to end. i do have real concern with the administration. the new york times put another story out that said the president's political adviser, a guy concerned about the president's reelection, is sitting, apparently, the in the most secure room that we have in the united states, that is the room that the president makes his decisions on tuesday's when he holds something like baseball cards with terrorists pictures on them and decides who he will kill. it's not just the president making those decisions. the most sensitive natural security secrets we have, sitting next to him is his political adviser, david axelrod. i call him a general axelrod.

now he is in this room. as a member of congress that i would not be allowed in the intelligence committee one minute after i was no longer on the committee. you have to have that clearance to be in the room. a staff member on the intelligence committee, one minute after they are no longer a staff member, there would not be allowed in that room. why in the world is the president's political guy in the room when he is making national- security decisions? that is absolutely reprehensible. no one has ever seen anything like this before. you cannot do that. the is the president of the united states. when it comes to national security, to be a very vital area that cannot have anything to do with politics. politics cannot touch financial security decisions. host: next call comes from tennessee, daniel, a democrat, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call, peter.

i want to express my appreciation for the congress y for appearing on your program and taking calls. i wish more congress people would do that. it shows a degree of honesty to the american people. guest: thank you, daniel. caller: when you start getting carried away with obama and becoming a political toward the end of your five-minute diatribe, i was going to ask another question, but now i will ask this question. the gop shunted george w. bush at the last convention. he was not allowed to speak. are they still embarrassed? is he able to speak at this convention? mission accomplished. how about the yellowcake? you brought out the partisanship with me at the last minute. i was going to ask you

regarding whether homosexuals are born that way or whether it is a choice. host: we have a lot on the table. guest: spanx for calling. i really appreciate the fact that you did. your question began with the fact of being political about president obama and national security. that is really the issue right now. we're very concerned, because it seems the president of the united states is being political about national security. this is what i think is very concerning not only to myself but millions of americans across the united states. the one area where you should never ever be political is the issue of keeping the american people say on national security and revealing intelligence secrets. no one has ever seen this level of highly sensitive national-

security secrets revealed before. secrets have gotten out in previous administrations, but never to this degree, never to this level. so much so that republicans and democrats agree, from the lead democrat to the lead republican, all the way down to the newest member on the intelligence committee, we are in agreement, this is wrong what is happening. it has to stop. clearly, there is some bragging that was going on when the information came out, that the president's senior political adviser -- this is not his national security adviser -- sitting next to his shoulder, apparently in the room when the president is making the decisions about who will be killed on the next list of terrorists. why in the world would his political adviser be there?

is he doing a focus group test on what would be best for the president of the united states? this cannot be about the president's next election. when it comes to terrorism -- and this is a real issue -- we are sitting here and you can see the capitol dome. it was only a few months ago that an illegal alien from morocco strapped what he thought was a bomb to his body and he was making his way to the capital. i was inside voting along with over 400 other members of congress. he was interdicted by the fbi three blocks away from that capital. had he been successful and had the fbi not stop him, that capitol dome would not be there today. maybe 400 members of congress would not be alive today. this is the real issue. i am serious about it. i know the american people are serious about its. we have to pull out the politics and do what's right for the

american people. host: a tweet -- guest: i would get it done. i would get a long-term transportation bill. part of the problem, state and local governments need certainty. they need to know what's going to happen. when congress does one stopgap bill after the other, for instance a 60 day bill on transportation or even a six- month bill, how does a state or local government plan? i mentioned earlier when i was on that i had helped to build the stillwater bridge, along this unfinished bridge in the history of the u.s., in a bipartisan way. if you have to no long-term what money you have to work with, with a policy will be. this is a legitimate function of congress. i am a strong fiscal conservatives. i believe it is the function of government to build roads and

bridges and interchanges, though. that's our job. we should have a long-term transportation bill. i would like to see us pass a five-year bill so state and local governments know what they have to deal whipping. host: the house starts in four minutes. butler, indiana, walter, a republican. good morning. caller: praise god, it's a privilege and an honor to deal e.th you, michelle i am an old reaganite. when i see the tea party common sense folks, when you came on the scene, my eyes lit up and my heart skipped a beat, i was so happy. i have a 12-year-old daughter live love. when i moved from new york with taxes and regulations come out to indiana with low taxes and common-sense regulations, the economy improving despite our

government. i want to give you a shout out and say keep up the good work. always remember 2 + 2 is 4. you are a shining light in the darkness. balance our budget. never give up. i'm so happy to talk with you. god bless you. guest: walter, thanks for your words of encouragement. i'm the chair but the party caucus in the u.s. congress. we are concerned about overspending and debt accumulation. we will continue that focus. people don't recognize the tea party has been wrongly . they stand for three things. it's following the constitution, not spending more than what we take in. and to make sure that people realize we are taxed enough already. racking up more will not be the answer. indiana has done the right thing. under governor mitch daniels and agree legislature, you've been able to pass a really good

common-sense legislation. that benefited the people of indiana. i know that our current representative mike pence is running to be the governor in indiana. he will continue that great effort. indiana long into the future will be a great state. thank you. host: it was just announced that mitch daniels goes out of office and will become the new president of purdue university. guest: the will of that job. that's a great job for him. he's a very smart guy. host: we have a minute left. this is from john in north carolina -- guest: what we need to do is stop the out of control spending, because right now the current tax rate will become the greatest tax increase in the history of the country. if we fail to keep the tax rates

where they are, the average household is looking at a $3,000 per year tax increase by january 1. i don't know people who can afford that when gas is $3.60 a gallon or whatever it is in your neighborhood. that's what it is in mine. an additional $3,000 to go to the government. place that is spending billions of dollars per year in fraud just in one state along on medicaid, this has to end. the answer is not for us to give up more of our own money to the federal government. the answer is for the federal government to get its act together. when you have an out of control situation, you don't feed the fire. that is what we have to do. we need to get some more common sense into this government so the government starts reflecting the lifestyle of a lot of commons and the american spirit host: michelle bachmann has been our guest the last 25 minutes. thank you for being with us.

the house will be working on energy legislation. the senate today is taking up the farm bill. begins at 11. that's on c-span 2. speaker john boehner and leader nancy pelosi will hold news conferences. those will be available later on c-span. we will be ready if the supreme court decides at 10:00 and take its decision on health care. we will be on air and will take your calls and keep that up to date. . host: [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 21, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable ted poe to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the chaplain, father conroy.

chaplain conroy: let us pray. almighty god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we pray for the gift of wisdom to all with great responsibility in this house, for the leadership of our nation. may all the members have the vision of our nation where respect and understanding are the marks of civility and honor and integrity are the marks of one's character. give them the grace to see the best in those with whom they find disagreement and the courage to move together with them towards solutions that best serve our great nation. raise up, o god, women and men from every nation who will lead toward the paths of peace and whose good judgment will heal the hurt between all peoples. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done within these hallowed halls be for your greater honor and glory.

amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. ms. delauro: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> soon we will know if the supreme court will defend the

constitution and strike down obamacare or let it stand. mr. garrett: ben franklin warned that the frew jilt of limited government when he claimed at the convention they produced a republic if we can keep it. and now it's 225 years later and a moment of truth. we will soon know if our republic reaffirm to the commitment of the constitution or succumbed to the unchecked power and erosion of our liberties. i hope obamacare will be struck down. the founders left it up to the people. i know if the supreme court won't rise to the defense of the constitution the people will. so for all the patriots throughout the country who have dedicated themselves to the repeal of this law, let me remind you of the words of thomas jefferson who said the grounds of liberty are to be gained by inches. i stand alongside you, inch by inch to defend the constitution and repeal the obamacare law in its entirety.

with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: to speak for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. delauro: one year ago yesterday the supreme court voted 5-4 in the case of wal-mart vs. duke to make it harder for workers to challenge discrimination in the workplace. up ending decades of judicial practice and precedent, the court erected new unwarranted and challenging barriers for groups of private employees to challenge unemployment discrimination. as a result, 1.5 million female wal-mart employees were denied remedy for discrimination that resulted in smaller paychecks, limited professional advancement and increased financial pressures for families trying to make ends meet. in fact, all workers throughout the country will find it more difficult to challenge any discrimination in the workplace

because of the court's decision. yesterday i introduced the equal opportunity restoration act, a thoughtful, careful and effective legislative response to this flawed supreme court decision. it restores the rights of groups of plaintiffs to pursue actions against employment discrimination. we need to seek workplace discrimination addressed. we need to bring suit together. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. help restore the legal rights of ordinary citizens over corporations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. roe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. next week the supreme court's expected to rule on the constitutionality of president obama's health care law. while we don't yet know the outcome, there are things we do know. we know no matter what happens that you'll still be able to see your doctor. the emergency room will still treat you if you are in an accident or have a problem and the pharmacy down the street

will fill your prescription. we know that the american people don't want government bureaucrats making their health care decisions. but they do want us to address the real problems like skyrocketing costs of care or the challenges that many people have of finding a physician. and we all know this law must be repealed. in its place, we must adopt reforms that will lower the cost of care, increase access and enhance quality. this must be done in a transparent, bipartisan way. no matter what the court determines, our work here has just begun. as representatives of the american people, we have the responsibility to fix health care in the right way. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lankford: thank you. mr. speaker, i come from an energy state, a state that's done hydraulic fracking since the 1940's, a state that has

beautiful, beautiful land, clean air and clean water. but energy requires a tremendous amount of capital and so it needs consistency in its laws and regulations. at this day and age that's a problem, apparently, because federal regulations continue to change. it shouldn't be a nation. we are a nation of laws, not a nation of leaders, and as a nation of laws, we center around what is consistent and stable so business can invest. when that's destabilized, no one knows what to do, no one knows how to invest and jobs can't grow. the recess appointments done by this president just a few months ago destabilizes things at the nlrb. the boeing rule that was put down just two years ago now by the nlrb telling boeing where they can't and can build, the immigration laws will destabilize so no one know when the law will be enforced and when it's not going to be enforced. the defense of marriage act that's not going to be enforced any more by this

administration. the h.h.s. decision that tells a religious group what they can practice as their doctrine and what they can't practice. and then yesterday a requirement for executive privilege based on fast and furious. the missouri senate has experienced this. a 9-0 supreme court ruling kicking out the obama administration's trying to redefine what is a minister. it is time for stable regulations, stable rules and the law to come around to congress again. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: and without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the government continues to hide the evidence from fast and furious and that gun-running scheme. the attorney general says he didn't know who authorized this reckless and deadly operation but he still conseals documents to show what occurred. the president claims he was not involved, but minutes before congress began the process to

hold the attorney general in contempt of the president, the leader of the most transparent administration in history, he desperately asserted executive privilege to withhold the documents from congress. according to "the washington times," when the president was a senator, he said this about the previous administration -- there has been a tendency on the part of the administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there is something a little shaky taking place. i think the administration would best be served by coming clean on this. there doesn't seem to be any national security involved. mr. speaker, that was then and this is now and this president conveniently does exactly what he criticized others for doing. so the saga of the republic continues and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. cleaver: thank you, mr. speaker. unless we act now, the highway and transit programs will expire in a few days, endangering our roads, bridges, transit systems and everyone who uses them will experience a decline in what they view as america. and so i'd like to list quickly the reasons we need to move quickly to pass a highway bill that is not simply an extension. one, we must raise america's standards from 24th place to one. three months ago the senate passed a reasonable bipartisan two-year transportation bill that would save or create two million jobs. we have a 2.2 million construction and manufacturing

workers out of work. 1,060 dallas is how much we could save families in transportation costs if we could come to an agreement. h.r. 7 was called by my friend, secretary lahood, the most partisan transportation bill that he'd ever seen. the worst transportation bill. thank you, mr. chairman. i have some more points. i'll try to get them in later. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. gardner: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 4480. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. and pursuant to house resolution 691 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4480.

will the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, kindly take the chair? mr. poe: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4480 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for the development of a plan to increase oil and gas exploration, development and production under oil and gas leases of federal lands under the jurisdiction of the secretary of the agriculture, the secretary of energy, the secretary of the interior and the secretary of defense in response to a drawdown of petroleum reserves from the strategic petroleum reserve. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on june 20, 2012, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 17 printed in house report 112-540

by the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell, had been postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 18 printed in house report 112-540. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in house report 112-540 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 691, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: thank you, mr. chair. much of this bill deals with new giveaways to big oil. the issue that i'm raising right now is to deal with a continuing, long-standing

giveaway. the big five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last year, and the first quarter of this year they continue to capitalize on the pain the americans are feeling at the pump, raking in $368 million in profits per day. oil companies are not paying any royalties to the american people on oil produced in the gulf of mexico from leases issued between 1996 and 2000. zero. no royalties. they're pumping this oil for free without paying the taxpayers a single dime. now, they got this giveaway because of an incentive back in 1995 to companies to drill for oil when oil was selling for less than $20 a barrel. in recent years, the amount of free oil these companies have been pumping has gone through the roof. as more of these faulty leases have gone into production. in fact, right now more than

25% of all oil produced offshore on federal lands is produced royalty-free, no payments to the taxpayers pour the use of their -- for the use of their land. these oil companies are getting a complete windfall on 25% of all the oil they produce offshore in the united states. they do not pay the american people one penny for this right. . regardless of the fact that now oil is selling at about $80 a barrel. the number one entitlement program that should be on the chopping block for congress, shouldn't be medicare, shouldn't be social security, shouldn't be health care for children, it should be the free drilling entitlement that oil companies are enjoying on public lands. according to the i tenor department, american taxpayers stand to lose -- interior department, american taxpayers stand to lose about $9.5 billion

over the next 10 years from this give away alone. this give away to big oil. the government accountability office projects that all this free drilling will cost us as much as $53 billion over the life of these leases. my amendment would recover those revenues because they belong to the american people. these oil giants already receive $4 billion a year in tax subsidies. they don't need an additional billion or more per year in free drilling. the amendment would offer oil companies a choice. they can choose to either -- either to continue to produce royalty-free oil in the gulf, but not be able to receive new leases. or they can agree to pay their fair share and be able to bid on new leases under this bill. and this amendment would not force companies to give up their leases. it would just simply impose a condition on future leases. the congressional research service has agreed repeatedly

that this amendment would not be an abrogation of contracts, would not constitute a takings as some of my colleagues have suggested it might. c.r.s. has stated, as a general matter the united states has broad discretion in setting the qualifications of those with whom it contracts. these oil companies are the most profitable companies in the history of the world, yet they receive, as i said and it's worth repeating, $4 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies. they don't need to be drilling for free on public lands as well. if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about paying down the deficit, and realistically financing the necessary investments that this -- in the people of this nation, then there is no excuse for not supporting this amendment to recover roughly $1 billion a year that is rightfully owed the

american people. it's time to end this taxpayer rip-off, this give away to big oil. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? million gardner: i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gardner: while i respect the relationship i have with my friend and colleague from new jersey, i appreciate the fact that mr. holt is the ranking member of the subcommittee on energy and minerals in natural resources. i appreciate the fact that he came to denver recently for a field hearing that the subcommittee had on hydraulic tracking -- fraking. i do appreciate the work he does on that subcommittee but i have to disagree with him on this amendment and urge opposition to this amendment. it's identical to one that failed on this house floor by a bipartisan vote earlier this year in february. and i have to remind my friend and colleague that this issue

has been repeatedly settled in the nation's courts of law with the courts determining that rewriting the terms of these leases to include price thresholds which the clinton administration apparently forgot to include in the leases, would be a direct violation of contract law. specifically the u.s. supreme court found that the department of the interior did not have the authority to rewrite these contracts that were issued during the clinton administration under the 1995 law. i also remind the gentleman that the department of the interior has lost this issue in the district court, appellate court, and supreme court. if this amendment passed the issue would most certainly be challenged once again in court where the department would use taxpayer dollars to lose again. ultimately this amendment seeks to force u.s. companies to break a contract negotiated under then current government law, or else be denied the opportunity to do

business in the united states. the amendment aims to back companies into a corner and attempts to force them to break a legally binding contract. again this amendment has failed on the house floor before. and i urge continued opposition and a no vote. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. the gentleman from new jersey has 30 seconds. mr. holt: i thank the chair. let me move to the other podium. mr. chair, this amendment breaks no contracts. we are here because the congress more than well over a decade ago when prices were less than $20 a barrel decided this give away made sense. if it made sense then, it certainly does not make sense now.

oil companies drill one quarter of all offshore oil for free. if the other side is serious about addressing the deficit, this is revenue that should be received. please support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i urge opposition once again to this amendment as we have done pf in the house. and -- before in the house. i urge a no vote. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i ask the chair for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in house report number 112-540, offered by mr. wittman of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 6 91, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. wittman, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: mr. chairman, today the house is taking an independent and important step forward to develop domestic sources of energy, create american jobs, and reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy. and i'm a strong poe opponent of an all of the above energy policy. as a scientist by trade i understand the need to achieve a balance to foster development of american energy, while at the same time protecting the

integrity of our environment. we can acheeve efficiency and protection and this bill helps us achieve both goals. offshore wind energy is an important component furthering development of clean, renewable, american energy sources. unfortunately the process is often unnecessarily slowed for years by bureaucratic hurdles in the permitting process and numerous other delays. the cape wind project in massachusetts only recently received federal permitting approval. a process 10 years in the making. the u.s. built the hoover dam in five years. during the height of the depression. within a decade of president kennedy's call to put a man on the moon, the u.s. had won the space race. americans have proven that we can accomplish great engineering and technical feats in small periods of time. however today it's frustrating

that this administration cannot point to one wind turbine operating offshore in terl waters. -- in federal waters. they can point to layer, after layer, after layer of regulations, bure bureaucracy, and red tape. -- bureaucracy and red tape. the process must become more efficient. this amendment facilitates the development of an all of the above energy strategy by stream lining the process for the bureau of energy management and to develop offshore wind power. my amendment will speed the production of wind energy as it sets a 30-daytimeline for the secretary of the interior to act on permits for all weather testing and monitoring projects in the united states, outer continental shelf. this amendment will also streamline the environmental review process for these small wind testing towers. this amendment also requires coordination with the department

of defense and other affected agencies so the projects do not disrupt national security or other critical projects. this provision is especially important for the commonwealth of virginia with its active defense community. this amendment is identical to h.r. 2173, legislation i authored that will passed out of the house natural resources committee last july. this effort has been endorsed by the u.s. chamber of commerce and the national ocean industries association. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. markey: i claim the time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the amendment creates a brand new burdensome permitting scream that would complicate the process for obtaining a permit to construct a meteorlogical tower offshore, and undermine offshore wind

development. let me say that again. this will actually make it harder to build an offshore wind project, not easier. this amendment is similar to h.r. 2173 which was reported out of the natural resources committee last year. when moving this bill through committee, the republican majority was unable to find a single industry, wind industry witness to come to testify on this bill. and that is because the industry that the majority is trying to help with this bill doesn't think that the measure is helpful. so the wind industry does not support this bill. just make that clear. if you are interested in helping an industry to grow. the bill has not been endorsed by any offshore wind companies or trade groups. and those kinds of companies that popped up all over the country now.

and none of those companies are endorsing this bill. i'm going to read a statement part of the legislative hearing record on this amendment. it is from jim lynnard, the president of the offshore wind development coalition. here's what he says. on behalf of the coalition. streamlining approvals of towers to test wind speeds offshore is an important goal. we believe that nepa will allow this goal to be achieved. so nepa clearly is not the enemy here, but in case there is still doubt, he says this regarding the bill's nepa exclusion. we believe, this is, again, speaking for the offshore wind development coalition, we believe that current practices are adequate for the approval of these towers of buoys.

this bill represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the offshore wind industry really needs. a company is simply not going to invest millions of dollars engineering and constructing a huge meteorlogical tower on the outer continental shelf unless they have a guarantee that they'll be able to use that area to build a wind tower. to be very clear, the industry wants a lease before they invest millions of dollars into a project. to get a lease we should and we do require consideration of the impacts of development on the environment and the competing uses of these public waters. we should and we do require coordination with the other agencies using the outer continental shelf like the navy, the f.a.a., and the f.c.c. this amendment would dismantle that process. this amendment says, sorry, wind

industry, you may have sunk millions of dollars into your meteorlogical tower, but it's time to tear it down. we let you build it without fully considering the impacts, and no wind farm plain and simple, this bill certainly reduces the likelihood that we will see wind constructed off the shores of our country. the companies affected by this bill were not consulted before creating it. i have a document here from the navy commenting on this bill. essentially it says the 30-day limit on consultation in the amendment is problematic. the federal aviation administration has expressed similar concerns. the federal communications commission has expressed similar concerns. this bill will make it harder to construct offshore wind projects and maybe, and i think this is what it's all about, that's the point after all. let me at this point reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to yield one minute to the subcommittee chairman on energy and mineral resources, mr. lamborn from colorado. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. . mr. lamborn: this administration has not yet seen the completion of a single wind tower off the shore of the united states in over three years. not a single one. this is a sincere and genuine attempt to cut through some of the red tape that's causing this kind of delay. how in the world can you have less red tape being bad for the construction of wind towers? this is truly a good solution. i applaud this legislation. representative wittman has

offered a bill that embodies the same concept that passed the committee by a bipartisan vote earlier this year. this is a good bill, a god amendment from that bill and i would urge its adoption. i yield back to the sponsor of the amendment the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia has one minute. mr. rigell: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. mr. markey: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: you have 45 seconds, mr. markey. mr. markey: the bottom line is that president bush's interior department sat on offshore wind regulations for four years. hear that again, president bush's department of interior sat on offshore regulations for four years, did not promulgate them. president obama got them done in his first six months. so the obama administration passionately believes in new

wind. in fact, 35,000 new megawatts onshore and they desperately wanted offshore as well, and the process is working. there were no rules that were promulgated. obama did it. the project is moving forward with cape wind. i urge a no vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman this will be raised by other departments, concerns, that all the thoughts and ideas are put into place and considering this permitting process, it streamlines it. it gets to the point much quicker. instead of taking three years to permit a data gathering

tower, now it goes to 30 days. it seems to me counterintuitive to say longer is better. in this case, since there are no active mills, windmills offshore, wind turbines offshore it seems we need to quicken the process. this allows for proper due diligence, proper consideration of all the different concerns, and this amendment indeed facilitates an all-of-the-above energy process with the bureau of ocean energy management and support good-paying american jobs. let's not forget about that. i ask my colleagues to accept the amendment and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. markey: on that, mr. chairman, could i request a recorded vote? the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed.

the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 20 printed in house report 112-540. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. westmoreland: to address the amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 0 printed in house report 112-540 offered by mr. westmoreland of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 691, the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. westmoreland: thank you, mr. chairman, and i rise today in support of the bipartisan amendment to h.r. 4480 with my colleague from iowa, mr. braley. like this legislation, the amendment that we offer today would ease expensive and burdensome energy regulations and help save american jobs by placing

service-over-the-counter refrigerator units, which is a fancy way of saying refrigerated display cases in markets and delis. currently these dele display cases are in the same as commercial reach-in refrigerators, similar to those you have in your home. this means they must also meet the energy efficiency standards of those refrigerators. but this doesn't make any sense. these two type of refrigerators are designed for completely different purposes. your refrigerator at home is only opened so many times. it has a light that comes on only when you open the door. these display cases are well-lit. there's a lot of glass which makes it harder to keep the energy efficiency at the same level as a reach-in refrigerator.

and, you know, if you don't want to reach in and grab your pop sickle and just come -- popsicle and come up with a stick, we need to put this in a different classification. in my district it will mean the cost of 1,100 jobs. across the united states it's about 8,500 jobs that will be lost if these people are put out of business. and as this bill does and this amendment does, we thinks it helps save jobs. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. markey: i rise in opposition to the westmoreland amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: thank you. i mean, let's just get to the heart of the question of energy efficiency. back in 1987 i was the author of the appliance efficiency act of 1987 which is the constitution for energy

efficiency in the appliance field. and since that time, the efficiency of appliances has increased so draw matcally that we have -- dramatically that we have increased new coal fired plants from ever having to be constructed in the united states. and why is that? well, electricity that is not consumed results in less need for new coal-fired -- any kind of fired electricity, saving the consumers, saving the environment and just working smarter, not harder. if you can keep the pop cycle cool with a more -- popsicle cool with a more better refrigeration process, if you have the toast pop up with a more efficient toasting process, if you can have every

one of the appliances that we use, including the air conditioning in this room, the air conditioning in this room is just as good as it was in 1987 but it is 50% more efficient in its generating capacity than it was in 1987. that reduces the need to generate new electricity that is needed. that saves money and it saves on environmental damage as well. so right now we're about to consider something that deals with deli-style refrigerators. now, we're having this conversation having had no hearings on this issue in the energy and commerce committee. we've had no testimony from the industry, no testimony from the department of energy on what this amendment could mean in terms of its impact, and we've had no evidence of -- in any

capacity to be able to comply with these rules except for the fact that no one ever wants to necessarily become more efficient if they have to go through the extra effort and they have not been required to do so but because we have these energy efficient rules is that we are doing it for the betterment of the whole country and moving industries along making sure that we do not have to produce this additional new electricity. so i think it's better if we save money and save energy at the same time. that's what efficiency is all about. that's what working smarter, not harder, is all about. the evidence is clear. since 1987 we've done it and we've moved every other device along and made it more efficient. so i just don't know the reason why we would need a provision like this, and at this point i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. westmoreland: thank you, mr. speaker. and, you know, sometimes up here we have people that think

they know more than the industry. and this industry has jobs. it employs people. and they're trying to do the best they can with their technology, but we can't be up here and tell industry what's best for them if we don't know anything about refrigeration or the energy efficiencies that they're trying to do. these folks are trying to do the right thing. they are trying to do it to the best of their ability, but with these regulations they're unable to do it right now. and all we're asking for is to save 8,500 jobs across this country, and with unemployment in georgia above the national average, it's 1,100 jobs just in georgia. so i hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this amendment and let's save 8,500 jobs and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i thank you. i yield myself again as much time as i may consume. you know, this is just a continuation of the republican obsession and opposition to increase deficiency in our society. you know, just a couple weeks ago they brought a bill out here on the floor that would roll back the efficiency of light bulbs in the united states even though the entire industry has already complied with it. they were still trying to roll back the efficiency of light bulbs and this is -- and now we have the deli freezer and we will move on product by product they don't believe it is necessary to improve its efficiency whatsoever and they just respond one by one almost to an incomprehensible set of demands made by as yet nonexistent experts telling us that it's impossible to comply.

so why don't we have a hearing? why don't we get the evidence? why don't we hear what every company in the united states says about deli freezers and then we can act upon it after we hear the evidence? but acting this way, you know, congressional experts is an oxymoron. we are not experts compared to real experts. we are only experts compared to other congressmen. like jumbo shrimp to salt lake city nightlife. we should not be acting this way on the house floor trying to make ad hoc changes in efficiency rules. it just doesn't make any sense. again, i oppose the way in which this is occurring and i urge a no vote on the westmoreland amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the we is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 21 printed in house report 112-540. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. bass: i have an amendment at the desk, number 21. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in house report 112-540 offered by ms. bass of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 691, the gentlewoman from california, ms. bass, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. bass: thank you. mr. speaker, my los angeles district is home to one of the largest urban oil fields in the united states, the engelwood

oil field. my constituents suffer because of the oil drilling. drilling operations were ramped up and the release of harmful fumes forced nearby residents to evacuate their homes. in april, 2012, the county of los angeles conducted a study in which over 70% of residents living near the oil fields expressed concerns about exposure to emissions from the oil field. meanwhile, my colleagues, unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle continue to push for more domestic drilling and relaxed regulations. the bill before us today is based on two claims that appear to have become articles of faith. the claims are that gas prices will fall if we weaken environmental protections and if we open more areas for drilling in the united states. . the problem is there is no evidence supporting these claims. oil prices are set on a world market and no amount of domestic

drilling in the united states will have a meaningful impact on that price. this isn't spin of some interest groups, this is conclusions drown by experts. it has been collaborated by the associated press and congressional budget office. the a.p. conduct add thorough study of gasoline prices and u.s. oil production over the last 36 years and found zero correlation between the two. in other words, changes in u.s. oil production had absolutely no effect on gasoline prices. but that doesn't mean there's nothing we can do to help american families burdened by high fuel costs. c.b.o. recently released a study on energy security. they found that boosting u.s. oil production will not protect americans from gasoline price spikes. instead the c.b.o. found the overwhelm way to protect consumers from these spikes is to use less oil. gasoline prices are linked to the global oil market. that's why japan which imports all of its oil it uses, and

canada which exports more than 75% of the oil it produces, experience the very same gasoline spikes we experience. the best way to save money at the pump is to drive right past it. the obama administration has been helping consumers do just that. we know that efficiency works to reduce costs. the energy information administration has found that the cost per mile of driving has fallen by more than 25% since 1980 due to improvements in the efficiency of our vehicles. president obama has already taken action to reduce costs further. the new vehicle efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for model years 2012 through 2016 will save consumers on average over $3,000 over the life of the vehicle which is hundreds of dollars per year. the millions of americans that have brought model year 2012 cars are already enjoying savings at the pump. in fact, the new standards are currently savings consumers 14

cents per gallon. furthermore, the energy sector is a booming job creating field n my district, codea automotive, an electric car company, recently opened their new headquarters. in a few short months last year they created 300 new jobs and hundreds more will be created in the coming year. this is the type of job creation and cost savings we should be focused on. my amendment simply improves the bill by adding a provision that actually has something to do with gasoline prices. this amendment would require the newly created interagency committee to analyze how to protect american consumers from gasoline price spikes by reducing america's dependence on oil. i hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing that efficiency works and must be part of the solution. if not this legislation will continue to ignore the only approach identified by c.b.o. as helpful in protecting consumers from supply disruption and price spikes. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i seek time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i have great respect for the gentlelady from california who joined this congress in the class of 2012 election and served as speaker of the house in california. it's great to work with you on the house floor. unfortunately i'm going to have to oppose the amendment. mr. gardner: the best way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to increase our energy opportunities right here in our own backyard. that's what the domestic energy and jobs act is all about. the components and pieces, seve parts -- seven parts of this bill, are designed to reduce red tape to increase opportunity for american energy production. those productions occurring on our federal lands including renewable energy. the opportunity to create wind energy, solar energy on federal lands. making sure the department of interior's planning for that. taking a look at it. the best way, the best way to reduce our reliance on oil imports is domestic production.

the opportunity to increase that production right here in our own backyard. that's what this bill is b it's about creating jobs and opportunity for the american people. it's about making sure we can reduce the price at the pump. let me talk a little bit about reducing the price at the pump. the gentlelady from california mentioned the issue of cafe standards increasing efficiency in cars. you are only going to achieve those higher efficiencies through cafe standards if you are able to afford a new car. but we know that that is going to make cars more expensive. it's going to cost $1,000 in the near term, it's going to add $3,000 by 2025 to the cost of a vehicle. that's going to be higher if you talk to the national association of auto dealers. so if you are not struggling under the burden of higher gas prices, then i guess you can afford a new car. maybe you can, i don't know. but if we continue to allow energy increases to increase nearly 100% as they have over the past three years, the

american people, our constituents, will be priced out of the ability to even contemplate the purchase of a new vehicle. continuing their struggle to make ends meet. to heat, cool their home because of the cost of energy prices. we know we have opportunities right here in our own backyard. the keystone x.l. pipeline, north american energy. energy from the oil fields of north dakota. the cause of gasoline price fluctuation is already known. the gentlelady from california mentioned the c.b.o. study. the c.b.o. study talks about demand as a factor in price, but seems to neglect there is no supply connection. supply matters. supply and demand matters. let's take a look at natural gas. we have -- production of natural gas right now the price is at low levels because there is almost a glut of natural gas. as a result the price of natural gas is low. supply matters. secretary chu testified before the energy and commerce

committee that supply matters. it's not just the demand equation. you can't turn around and say as more people consume oil that increases the price of oil without looking at the other part of the equation, supply. more supply, secretary chu said so. with that, mr. chairman, the best way, the best way to reduce our reliance on foreign imports is to create american jobs with american energy. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. bass: yield back my time. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i urge opposition to the amendment. yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, -- the gentlewoman from california. ms. bass: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed.

the chair understands that amendment number 22 will not be offered. it's now in order to consider amendment number 23 printed in house report 112-540. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? miss caps: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. it is -- mrs. capps: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. it is number 23. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23, printed in house report number 112-540, offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 691, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, it is my hope that we can all simply agree to this amendment.

among this bill's many provisions is one that creates a new interagency committee to do the impossible. it is charged with conducting an analysis of the e.p.a., air quality rules, that have not been proposed using data that does not even exist. i'm concerned this new interagency committee is being set up to fail. first, the bill before us requires the new committee to examine the potential impact of several e.p.a. air quality rules on gasoline prices. there's one significant problem. these rules have not yet been proposed. now we can argue about whether they have been initiated, contemplated, discussed, mulled over, considered, and so forth but the fundamental fact is that the rules and their requirements have not even yet been proposed. the committee simply has nothing concrete to analyze. as a result, any report that this new interagency committee would complete would be the product of a series of best

guesses, estimates, approximations, and assumptions that cannot possibly provide credible assessment of a potential impact of these potential rules on gasoline prices. moreover, it may not even be possible for the interagency committee to complete this analysis as insufficient as it will be without a significant investment of resources at the department of energy. we ask the energy information administration what it would take to complete such an analysis. e.i.a. which is better positioned than any other government agency to tackle this project said it currently does not have the analytic capability even to conduct the state or regional level breakdowns required by such a bill. the agency also would have to collect or purchase new data despite the bill's hollow assurances this isn't necessary. and the department of energy would have to devote significant new staff and contractor time to be able to comply with the

bill's requirements. in essence, is bill proposes to devote scarce taxpayer dollars to produce a report that will not be reliable, credible, or even valuable to anyone. my amendment simply states that if the energy department determines that this analysis is not feasible to conduct, requires data that does not exist, or generates the results that will not be reliable or useful, then the interagency committee does not have to repeat -- to complete the report. if it determines such an analysis is feasible, the six-month delay of e.p.a. rules would not go into effect. this amendment is a good governance amendment that ensures effective use of taxpayer dollars. it's common sense. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i rise in opposition to the

amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. i have enjoyed serving on the committee with the gentlelady from california, but i must oppose the amendment. talking about the process that we are going through on regulations. this is the very heart of the bill to understand the cost, feasibility, what pressures regulations can put on the price of energy, price of gasoline. and whether or not these regulations are going to cause price increases. in fact, we know very well that they are going to cause price increases. because we have had testimony from the environmental protection agency admitting that some of these regulations, proposed regulations they have on the books or that they have promulgated or contemplating will increase the price of gasoline, other prices in other energy areas. these have real effects on consumers. if you just increase the price of gasoline by a penny gallon, it will increase the daily cost to the american consumers, businesses, millions and millions of dollars each and every day.

one penny a gallon. costing our economy millions and millions of dollars a day. so with this we are trying to say let's take a look at it to understand. we are not stopping them from going forward with their plans or developing rules. certainly want to encourage the protection of our environment and make sure they are doing their job to protect our environment. but we also need to have our eyes opened and make sure that we are -- that we have a chance to look before we leap when it comes to these regulations. deviling into the e.p.a.'s only -- delving down into the e.p.a.'s own process, the analyses are feasible and required by the clinton, president clinton's executive order, 12866 and president obama's executive order, 13563 as recently as march of this year. just a couple months ago the white house issued a memo reiterating, i quote, agencies should take active steps of the account of accumulative effects

of new and existing rules. the e.p.a.'s own action development process, internal process of the e.p.a. requires that the analysis start early in rule development. that doesn't say you wait until the rule is developed. it doesn't say you wait until it's all done, complete, out there. early in the rule development process. action development process. taking a look at it. this information's available. they've got the data. they have the studies. it's time that they use that information to understand the impact that it will have on our constituents back home who are finding it increasingly difficult, increasingly difficult to balance the cost of energy with costs like paying for their home mortgage, putting food on the table. and that's why we have an opportunity with this bill to create american energy security and to create jobs in this country. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: mr. chairman, i have no further speakers. no further speakers. i'm prepar