the bill as amended shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waved. no amendment shall be in order except those printed in the report in the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered in the order printed in the report and may be offered by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read and debatable equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such further amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill as amended to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and any further amendment thereto to final pa

and it's almost the most antisafety bill i've ever seen. it hollows out our number one priority which is safety and frankly it hollows out the guts of the transportation efforts that we've been about for the last three years. he concludes with, it's the worst transportation bill i've ever seen during 35 years of public service. ray lahood, republican, secretary of transportation. now, whatever time the gentleman has spent that he thinks exposing this bill, he didn't expose it on our side because -- and he apparently didn't expose it in a way that reached bipartisan agreement from the secretary of transportation, i will tell you i lament the fact, mr. leader, when i was in a majority leader, and the gentleman likes to refer to, that transportation bill passed with a overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. every transportation bill that i've seen in the 30 years i've been in the congress of the united states has passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. and it came out of committee almost unanimously. this bill, as the gentleman knows, came out on

senator carper was a co-author of the bill. both have had a major input on this bill. senator hutchison and her staff worked with us a good part of the past two years. she's my ranking member and superb. i call her the co-chair, too and we have tried hard to address all of her specific concerns, and i think that we have in fact met most of her concerns. we have sought to engage senator chambliss and before him senator bond in the same fashion. there was reluctance at some point to discuss but it didn't make a difference. we were interested in what they had and it was something good we put it in the bill. we wanted it in the bill and then it had to pass the future test has become by all the efforts. senator kyl and senator whitehouse contributed and untie your title regarding cybersecurity awareness and senator kerry, linker, children and hatch did the same thing regarding diplomacy. because of senator mccain's concerns, we owe significant language pertaining to the white house cyber office. when colleagues have ongoing questions about the provision that i first believed

in the right bills? host: the president can veto any bill he wants. caller: i understand that. why are they putting in bill that they know he will veto? i do not understand that. host: we are going to leave that as a rhetorical question. next phone call is from parker. what do you think? it helps if i punch in the right number. sorry about that. parker. las vegas. good morning. caller: it seems to me ridiculous to pass a rating on congress. all the democrats are going to vote against republicans and republicans will vote against democrats. the rating would naturally benefit the republicans because they are in the majority of congress. i do not understand why the polling company does not tell you the facts of the poll, who they are pulling, how many democrats, how many republicans. host: the definition of a line item veto. spring lake heights, new jersey. michael, we are talking about the line item veto. caller: thanks for taking my call. of course, the line-item veto is necessary. if you do not recognize

the bill does the exact opposite of what it claims to do. it's a job killer bill. it creates economic winners and losers based on south of delta interests. the livelihoods and concerns of individuals outside of this limited area are ignored in order to support well-healed agricultural interests south of the delta. in my home district, over two million acres of farm land support a greater than $1 billion market value of products. over 10% of these farms depend on irrigation. i do not believe that these farmers are less important than the south of delta farmers. their jobs, their income, their families should not be sacrificed. however, this is not simply a northern farmer versus southern farmer issue. fishermen on the north coast of california saw the result of politically driven water resources decisions in 2008 and 2009. and they paid the price in almost 5,000 jobs. and the economic loss of over $534 million. the thompson-eshoo amendment would prevent any provisions of this bill from going into effect , it will -- that will result in the loss of jobs in northern ca

first the bill was introduced two days ago. secondly, where the senate rules state that it goes progress in in a previous congress can supplant the necessary work on that bill in the present with the addition in 2009, we're in the 111th congress with a different set of senators. for example, the minority of this committee has four senators, we're not even in the senate. much less this committee in 2009. how can we seriously call it a product of this committee without their participation and committee executive business respectively. to treat the last congress as a legislative mulligan by bypassing the committee process, and bring the legislation directed to the floor is not the appropriate way to begin consideration of an issue as complicated as cybersecurity. in addition to these concerns i have policy issues for the bill. a few months ago, as senator lieberman mentioned how he and the introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill codifying an existing cybersecurity memorandum agreement between the department of def

senator carper was a co-author of the bill. both have had a major input on this bill. senator hutchison and her staff worked with us a good part of the past two years. she's my ranking member and superb. i call her the co-chair, too and we have tried hard to address all of her specific concerns, and i think that we have in fact met most of her concerns. we have sought to engage senator chambliss and before him senator bond in the same fashion. there was reluctance at some point to discuss but it didn't make a difference. we were interested in what they had and it was something good we put it in the bill. we wanted it in the bill and then it had to pass the future test has become by all the efforts. senator kyl and senator whitehouse contributed and untie your title regarding cybersecurity awareness and senator kerry, linker, children and hatch did the same thing regarding diplomacy. because of senator mccain's concerns, we owe significant language pertaining to the white house cyber office. when colleagues have ongoing questions about the provision that i first believed

the bill before us, h.r. 3408 contains the text of a very bad bill that came out of the energy and commerce committee. we considered that bill earlier this month. the bill provides a legislative earmark that would direct the federal energy regulatory commission or ferc to issue a permit for the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline within 30 days of receipt of an application. now, existing law requires the president to make a determination whether this pipeline is in the national interest. serious questions have been raised about whether this pipeline is in our national interest. it is being built with steel imported from south korea and pipes from india. the oil it transports, i believe, will be exported to china. meanwhile, the risks of spills from that pipeline could contaminate drinking water which will be borne by american families. these are factors the president should take into account, but this law ties his hands. it requires, it mandates that the federal energy regulatory commission approve the pipeline without addressing any of these issues. in fact, it requires approval bef

the bill of labour minister. who was he? the surgeon you hired. but here we are four weeks in a row of nhs questions, but not a single question of substance. not one. all of our process, all of our politics, never about the substance. now mr. speaker, we all know it's leap year so maybe just this once i get to ask the question. we all know what he is against, but is it time on earth what he is told as he is for? >> thank you, mr. speaker in my area, transfer between the villages which are less than one mile apart. does the prime minister agreed that such giant turbine should not be built so close to residential areas without local people having a say? >> look, we do want is a balanced energy policy and there is a place for renewable technologies in a balanced energy policy. there are two changes we're making i think will be welcome. one is where cutting the subsidy to onshore wind because i think it's been over subsidized and wasteful of public money, and the second thing we're doing is when the act of folly comes

the right was never there. >>it was there. >> bill: granted it yourself under the constitution there is no right to marry. >> it doesn't matter. granted by the court. not saying he has to be written in the constitution. >> you have to go back to the constitution. >> no legitimate reason. >> even if prop 8 said you could go forward with it the court would still be wrong if they tried to strike it down. >> go to the supreme court. and the supreme court rule in favor of the state having the right to regulate. >> 5-4. >> more with the ladies in a moment god help us. did you know the movement to legalize polygamy. here you go. some parts of the country got a big legal win. demanding freedom for the whales at sea world. you've felt like this before, right? 2:30 in the afternoon, a lot to do, and you've hit the wall. but you got to get stuff done. so take 5-hour energy. just open it up, knock it back, and roll up your sleeves. 5-hour energy is faster and easier than coffee. man, does it work. you'll get that alert, energized feeling you need

on the bill. the committee on natural resources also completed a controversial markup on opening anwr to drilling. as i understand, you're going to put that in the infrastructure bill. with the clear knowledge that that is a very controversial item that will not pass the united states senate. you may have the votes here, that is similar to what happened on the payroll tax cut just last december. if you're going to work in a -- on a bipartisan basis, we ought to understand that we're going to have to try to not push on one party or the other things that are unacceptable -- unacceptable and won't pass and don't have the votes. the reason george bush sign sod many bills we passed in the congress in 2009 and 2010 is because we worked with the administration and worked with the senate. the senate and the house controlled by democrats, president bush in office, he signed more than twice as many bills that we passed. why? because we worked with him. we would urge you to do the same. is the gentleman plann

>> yes, apparently. >> bill: now, still a tie with one to go. i have theard to it. >> bill: judy garland shot to fame after her starring role in wiz wizard of oz ♪ somewhere over the rainbow ♪ way up high >> bill: what actress was originally offered that role but couldn't get out of her contract with a rival movie studio to play it? that is correct. shirley temple. >> shirley would be better in that role than elizabeth taylor. >> bill: no humiliation for maccallum. >> what was your question? >> bill: wilderville, oregon. what were you complaining about the question? >> tie breaker question. >> >> bill: tie breaker question. what record is the biggest selling record, single record, 45, remember those? of all time? >> led zeppelin. >> bill: wrong? >> beach boys. >> bill: wrong. white christmas. bing crosby. everybody bar that and steve there they are. pinheads and patriots on deck. victoria secrets model quits. you are not going to believe the reason why. p and p in just over two minutes. y volt lately. how about some facts? the chevy volt was one of the mos

the bill before the house today, s. 1134 is a controversial bill that represents wasteful government spending, bad transportation policy and bad environmental policy. a new bridge across the protected st. croix river between my state of minnesota and wisconsin needs to be built. the aging stillwater lift bridge needs to be replaced and everyone agrees on that. but i support a more affordable and more appropriately scaled replacement bridge. this bill is controversial because it does much more than authorize a replacement bridge. this bill mandates construction of an exotic and massive bridge some 219 feet above the st. croix river at a cost of $700 million for only 18,000 cars per day. this $700 -- the $700 million -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. ms. mccollum: this $700 million bridge will connect all-park heights, minnesota, population 4,700 and wholesome, wisconsin, population 386. i quote from the "st. paul pioneer press" about the town in wisconsin, quote, it is not big enough for a stop sign on its main street. it do

bill, mr. speaker, is when the -- is to analyze the cost of the bill or analyze the financial impact of the bill. it might be, how much tax is this going to generate? the c.b.o. would give us an estimate or how much is this program going to cost? the c.b.o. tells us what are the budgetary implications of what we're doing. historically, republicans and depps have just had to live with the c.b.o. score because it's a nonpartisan office. neither party controls it. but now with the republicans -- what the republicans want to do is come up with a dynamic scoring thing to make their estimates look better. this is wrong. they shouldn't do it. they shouldn't do it. the underlying assumption behind the bill is that tax cuts pay for themselves. this is obviously wrong. the reason we are in this monumental debt and deficit situation that republicans like to talk about, they're always going on about, we're leaving debt on our children and grandchildren they always say it like in a real dramatic way, mr. speaker. the reason we're in this mess is we got two unpaid-for wars under a republican administration an

applied the cream to his face? >> bill shaving cream and we will roll the tape on the air. >> i'm so excited. i'm here to get creamed. ♪ ♪ >> bill: and he got paid for that. >> you guys got it wrong. farrah fawcett. >> bill: i apologize. you got it wrong. >> i used to have poster on my wall. >> bill: i bet you did. arrested development. actor matthew broderick famous role for a superbowl advertisement this year. >> i can i handle worst performance on day like today? >> all right. can i get my crv up. >> broderick? [ laughter ] >> bill: in the original movie what kind of car did he drive in the film? >> answer is "a", ferrari. how did you not know that? it's so famous. who was the teacher? ben stein. that is what they were lampooning. are you okay? so you are 0-2. >> and commercial featuring animals is usually popular in the superbowl. ♪ ♪ ♪ [ laughter ] >> bill: that was in 2000. and average price this year? >> bill: cards up please and the answer is "c", 3.5. doocy is tied with two to go. you are lucky. >> it was a comple

going to take up the senate bill. we are currently reviewing the actions the senate to go on the bill and we intend to strengthen the bill in a way that can get a bill to the president's desk as quickly as possible so there is no misunderstanding on the part of the people that send us here that they can have trust in this institution and members and there is no perception whatsoever that anyone here misuses information that they gain in the performance of their duties for their own personal benefit. >> he says the earliest date possible, i tell my friend tim walls of minnesota has had a bill of the stock act, also louise slaughter has worked on for literally a decade or more. so we've legislation which is available to take frankly from the desk, pass that and go immediately to conference with the senate. the gentleman indicates he wants to change the senate bill. i think that may be appropriate. but if he does, we are going to have to go to conference in any want so my suggestion is you take tim walz' bill and we go to

in the house. that bill would create a politically appointed five-person commission that would be approving millions of dollars worth of closures. basically what that does is it takes the power from the postal service management and that commission would be the one to approve the closures. >> congress is facing a may 15th deadline when the current moratorium on post office closings will be lifted. any indication they are on a path to get the bill passed? >> they have been chatting on it quite a bit. they have put it off since this fall. lawmakers hope to take this up in august and then september and then christmas. now it is around, you know, the presidents day weekend. i think that the senate bill will be moving in the next few weeks. reid has said he is making it a top priority for the first part of the session of the 112th congress. probably coming up in a few weeks. i think they will meet that may deadline. >> an update from rachael bade. you can read more at cq.com. thank you for joining us. >> thank yo

now, we are troubled by several provisions in the bill. so let me see if i can just outline them with the same that i did those things that we like. we are concerned that the states would be required to take action to improve only a small number of low-performing schools that is the bottom 5% of the schools in most states. and that while the bill does identify an additional 5% of schools with achievement gaps, and those considered drop-out factories, the bill does not require these schools to make any significant academic progress and proscribes no interventions. and moreover, it allows each state to decide which achievement gaps merit attention and which do not. in the remaining 95% of the schools that are not among the state's very worst performing public schools, large numbers of low-achieving students will simply slip through the cracks. obviously, that happens today. but that is not the measure that we use to determine whether a newly reauthorized elementary and secondary education act is responsive to those problems. in many states, t

that means the market will go higher. >> bill: giants wins the stock market goes higher. what pinhead is putting this out. >> i would be one them. >> bill: you would. >> it's got 78% accuracy rate. better than any other predictor billion. >> bill: if the nfc team wins in the past the market has gone up. >> correct. >> bill: i'm not buying that i think madonna is probably getting a half mill to do the 12 minutes. people talk about the 1 percenters and 99%ers and romney saying this or that when you think about america and what is possible, remember, madonna is from detroit. she speaks now like she is from saturn, okay? but she is from detroit. and she just came up. you have got to give her credit. >> i actually am a little surprised that that would be the number that you came up with seriously i would think it would be more. >> bill: more than than that you think. >> we will stop on one day and celebrate what professional thieves each of whom will make a minimum of $50,000. >> bill: they are not making jack, these guys unless they do well and then they get all the bonuses. >

and in the senate, i'm working on improving the bill. first of all, there's teacher and principal evaluation and effectiveness systems. i realize there are those who say that should be mandated. i would recommend improving on the current bill by putting in place a very substantial incentive, not a requirement, perhaps taking as much as 50% of the title ii program which has not been effective to support competitive grants to help states and districts design and use the systems and someone is building on senator alexander's bill, it could be larger. i think over the course of ten years, every state could get funds. it turns out 42% of title ii right now is used for professional development. i think you can get more funds through this approach than the current program. i think the last thing i'd say, right now title ii isn't working very well. i think if you put in place on a competitive and voluntary basis you can get more bang from your buck. the thing i would say, there needs to be much more press on the performance targets and i think th

we need to pass the bill, the underlying bill and reject the motion to recommit, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. without objection the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mrs. capps: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vot

the bill was changed from a bill to a suspension which means that it is through the minority, and they will have neither the right or the motion to recommit or an opportunity to amendment this bill in any way. that contrasts completely with what happened over the in the senate where members of the senate were allowed to present amendments to the bill and many of them did it successfully, but as what we got here is a flawed bill last night, and a need to introduce and revise legislation earlier today and as a matter of fact the bill they put out last night has been superseded by one that was met 45 minutes ago which says that if you write it in the dark of the night, you may not know what you wrote. despite the many changes, the bill is weaker and not stronger than before. the simple truth is that the bill introduced by house republicans waters down government reform. particularly when it comes to regulating the political intelligence industry. political intelligence is the latest scheme to profit from the halls of congress. the industry profits to the tune of $400 million annually, and

this is bothering me. >> bill o'reilly is stepping up with the government. >> bill: , no, i think theng hosed and somebody has to watch out for them. >> i think you are exactly right. >> bill: we are going to do a solyndra thing but the government did not subpoena the white house people because they said they would go voluntarily to talk about solyndra. when that happens dobbs and i will talk about it. >> i talked with the folks close to investigation on congress. they are pleased with where this is right now so that means a good thing. >> bill: whatever happens we will update you. lou dobbs. tony bennett might have said the dumbest thing of the year about whitney houston. right back with you. [ ma announcer ] the cold aisle can overwhelming. [ coughs, sniffs ] especially when you're sick. now, with new simpler packaging, robitussin® makes it simple to get the right relief for your symptoms. new simpler packaging, same effective relief. robitussin®. relief made simple. the new spark card from capital one. spark miles gives me the most rewards of any small business credit card. the spa

the bill to permit the televise supreme court proceedings, i would note my own support of this bill and i will vote for it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i understand that putting over the judicial nominees is poor format -- is per forma. i might note that the nominee john far is the first federal judicial nominee. he and i worked closely together to improve -- to approve both of these nominees on a bipartisan basis. i hope the next time we meet, as soon as next week, we may have our nominees moving forward. but the matter at hand is the legislation to permit the televising of supreme court proceedings. i am happy to say in that i got the message and conveyed it to senator leighton and now we are here. mr. chairman, supreme court justices are appointed for a lifetime appeared they make decisions that change the lives of all americans. but the so-called public hearings of the supreme court are open only to 250 americans on a real-time basis. just how important is it in a democracy to bring the proceedings of an important american institution like the supreme court into full view of the ame

they are up to the edge. >> bill: let me read the law.rs code 501 c, churches and religious organizations are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for elected public office. president obama is asking them to do that, all right. but if they could do it, they are in violation. >> that's right. that irs code points to tax exempt organizations like churches and other religious institutions. so i don't think they have quite passed the line yet but they are getting there and here is where the line is crossed. if the obama campaign decides to go into these churches with money, with volunteers, these congregation captains if they start giving them campaign literature and involving themselves directly into these parishes, into these churches that's a clear violation. >> you say they are straddling the line. >> they are getting very close to. >> colmes? >> i wish you wouldn't do that. organize where you want. i want chunks out of politics and politics off of reli

tonight: >> mitt romney has the same positions as barack obama. >> bill: rick santorum unsettling the republic party by winning all three votes last night. how badly did that hurt mitt romney? dick morris will analyze. >> what would you look for in a girlfriend? >> that's a good question. >> bill: tim tebow now a major american star being grilled about his personal life. body language on the case. >> what are they doing? what's the task? >> and dennis miller will analyze santorum. gingrich and losing another bet to me. >> we're like ray and rose grier in the incredible two headed transplant. >> i should have known your kind stick together. >> caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone the factor begins right now. captions by closed captioning services >> bill: hi, i'm bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. more turbulence in the republic party talking points memo. congratulations minnesota, missouri and colorado last night. certainly a good showing for him and a poor showing for mitt romney. pretty much the same old story conservative voters do not seem to trust the gove

is the clean energy bill. what is the point of introducing this bill given all the obstacles you just laid out? >> we have been developing a clean energy standard. we have a good proposal to put out there. i am not naive enough to think everyone is going to immediately indicate support. it is a well thought out and streamlined simplified structure that could be used to provide incentives for utilities to move toward cleaner ways toward generating power. the president wanted us to use clean energy by 2035. we tried to structure it that way. the bottom line would be we would set a benchmark and say we do not want to have more than x number of metric tons of co2 produced for each kilowatt of electricity that is generated. it is a good proposal for that reason. i want to have been introduced and have a hearing on it. i do not think is likely to be enacted into law this year. at some point, it would be an intelligent way for the country to deal with the greenhouse gas problem. i am not a great one for forcing votes

on the bill. the committee on natural resources also completed a controversial markup on opening anwr to drilling. as i understand, you're going to put that in the infrastructure bill. with the clear knowledge that that is a very controversial item that will not pass the united states senate. you may have the votes here, that is similar to what happened on the payroll tax cut just last december. if you're going to work in a -- on a bipartisan basis, we ought to understand that we're going to have to try to not push on one party or the other things that are unacceptable -- unacceptable and won't pass and don't have the votes. the reason george bush sign sod many bills we passed in the congress in 2009 and 2010 is because we worked with the administration and worked with the senate. the senate and the house controlled by democrats, president bush in office, he signed more than twice as many bills that we passed. why? because we worked with him. we would urge you to do the same. is the gentleman plann

: "the o'reilly factor" is on. tonight: >> bill, are journalists supposed to be in the position of conducting interventions? >> they are supposed to be in the business of telling the truth and the truth is if you get into hard drugs you can go any time. >> bill: nbc matt lauer and i shoot it out over the whitney houston and the media then the conversation continued on "fox & friends." >> the media is supposed to be in the business of telling the truth in america. it doesn't. >> bill: we have a special report on how the media has covered the death of whitney houston. >> i saw pictures of boehner and cantor on our screen. these are demons. >> once again congresswoman maxine warts attacks everyone in the republic party. what is wrong with this woman? crowley and colmes will analyze. >> santorum looks stronger now. does he provide a different and more damaging and more dangerous opponenly governor roy has problems. >> i want to come back to where we are not how you see romney. the question today about santorum. >> and why is the obama

the factor begins right now. >> bill: "the o'reilly factor" is on. tonight: >> newt didn't call after iowa or new hampshire. i called him after south carolina, his win there. withbut he didn't call again lat night. >> bill: how angry is speaker gingrich after losing in florida? will the republic race get even nastier? dick morris, charles krauthammer, and sarah palin will all analyze. >> newt gingrich power preach ago higher standard in american politics by an overwhelming vote. they found him guilty of ethics violations. >> bill: one of the most effective anti-gingrich ads was a news report anchored by tom pro-call is -- bureau -- brokaw demanding they not use his likeness again. >> something a little less contentious. >> dennis miller hafers something on florida vote, occupy madness and the super bowl. >> are you ready to go for that on a dinner. >> sure i will bet a dinner. if you ever get a free night from taking all your dick morris dinners. [bell] >> bill: caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone, the factor begins right now. captions by

this is bothering me. >> bill o'reilly is stepping up with the government. >> bill: , no, i think the hosed and somebody has to watch out for them. >> i think you are exactly right. >> bill: we are going to do a solyndra thing but the government did not subpoena the white house people because they said they would go voluntarily to talk about solyndra. when that happens dobbs and i will talk about it. >> i talked with the folks close to investigation on congress. they are pleased with where this is right now so that means a good thing. >> bill: whatever happens we will update you. lou dobbs. tony bennett might have said the dumbest thing of the year about whitney houston. about whitney houston. [ woman ] my boyfriend and i were going on vacation, so i us my citi thank you card to pick up some accessories. a new belt. some nylons. and what girl wouldn't need new shoes? we talked about getting a diamond. but with all the thank you points i've been earning... ♪ ...i flew us to the rock i really had in mind. ♪ [ male announcer ] the citi thank you card. earn points you can use for travel o

the right was never there. >>it was there. >> bill: granted it yourself under the constitution there is no right to marry. >> it doesn't matter. granted by the court. not saying he has to be written in the constitution. >> you have to go back to the constitution. >> no legitimate reason. >> even if prop 8 said you could go forward with it the court would still be wrong if they tried to strike it down. >> go to the supreme court. and the supreme court rule in favor of the state having the right to regulate. >> 5-4. >> more with the ladies in a moment god help us. did you know the movement to legalize polygamy. here you go. some parts of the country got a big legal win. demanding freedom for the whales at sea world. back in a moment. you ready? we wanna be our brother's keeper. what's number two we wanna do? bring it up to 90 decatherms. how bout ya, joe? let's go ahead and bring it online. attention on site, attention on site. now starting unit nine. some of the world's cleanest gas turbines are now powering some of america's biggest c

the bill has changed from a bill to a suspension which means the minority will have neither the right of a motion to recommit or an opportunity to amend this bill in any way. that contrasts completely with what happened over in the senate when members of the senate were allowed to present amendments to this bill and many of them did it successfully. but what we got here was a flawed bill last night and legislation earlier today, as a matter of fact, the bill they put out last night has already been superseded by one 45 minutes ago which shows you that if you write something in the dark of night you may not know what you wrote. despite the many changes the bill is weaker, not stronger, than before. the simple truth is that the bill introduced by house republicans waters down government reform. particularly when it comes to regulating the political intelligence industry. political intelligence is the latest theme to profit from the halls of congress. the industry profits to the tune of $400 million annually and that's all we know of that group considerably this week from the information

to look back on s-1945 the bill to permit the televising of the supreme court proceedings, sponsored by senators durbin, grassley and klobuchar, corn, and blumenthal and schumer, i would note my own support of this bill and i will vote for it. senator durbin? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me say at the outset i understand that putting over the judicial nominees is proforma and not a reflection on them personally and i would advise the committee i'm sure all the nominees are important. in illinois the two are going to fill vacancies that have resulted in a judicial emergency in some portions of our state. i might also note the nominee john tharp is senator kirk's first federal judicial nominee. he and i work closely together to approve both of these nominees in a bipartisan basis and i hope that the next time we meet maybe as soon as next week we can send our colleague who is recovering the good news that not moving this bill more quickly. with his trademark humility senator specter did that and i'm happy to say that i got the message and conveyed it to senator leahy and now we are h

help us get the best possible bill. but for anyone to stand in the way and cause us to fail to act at all to pass legislation this year, i think, would be a tragic -- travesty. it would be a disaster waiting to happen for our country. so, mr. chairman, i just to encourage you to press forward. i will be at your side your partner, along the way. >> and we will do it again. thank you. that meant a lot to me and is characteristic of your independence of spirit and commitment to do what you think is right for our national security. we're going to press forward. the majority leader, senator reid, i am confident will push forward, too. he got briefings on this problem of cybersecurity last year and it really troubled him. he feels there is a clear and present danger to our national security and economic prosperity from cyber attack. that is why he has devoted a lot of time trying to get as to this point where we can have at least a foundation of consensus bill and why i'm confident he will push, bring this to the floor with th