cannot put much credibility in anything i see on myspace, the same for twitter. there is no credibility in twitter. 97% of the input from twitter is coming in the former re-tweets. guest: on israel -- we were hoping to ask that question yesterday and did not get a chance to in a news conference. again, back to this theme of hypocrisy. the administration, the current administration is trying to avoid hypocrisy. we have heard the president talk about the a de-nuclearized iran. the iranian government denies it, but the larger world and

believes it is a nuclear program. we were going to ask, wouldn't that give the president more leverage in pursuing some of these other programs that we have to get an answer to that at some time. it is a good question. it is one i am interested in also. as far as twitter as a reliable source of information i think you raise a goodpoint. i would take issue with one nico said about the foreign media been under blackout. we have a great course, they're writing to us every day on the front page under pressure. foreign journalists are working iran. we prefer obviously that information that we trust people we know to the others. that said, asnico alluded to, there's a much information to me fromiran in some ways and twitter is just one of them.

the idea that you can corroborate information reported by twitter seems hard to believe, but if you do label it as, for what it is -- clearly, on a website, that may add some value to the overall picture emerging. host: how does this change things for the white house, having the social media be a presence? do they see that as opportunity or challenge? guest: i think they embrace it. i think they see -- this is a white house that has reached out over mainstream media quite a bit. i believe "the huffington post" was called in the very first prime-time news conference. it is a white house that embraces new media, has its own blog on the white house website. that is a first. at the same time, you are right. it adds to the flow of

information coming in and questions asked, and feeds the calls for more, for harsher language about what is happening iniran. host: from philadelphia on the the republican line. caller: good morning, mr. scott wilson, your newspaper and all the other liberal media seems to forget the were over 4000 american soldiers who died in iraq. it is right next toiran if i'm not mistaken. do you think that head anything -- that had anything to do with the change for people can see next door what is going on, other than just words from that speech that obama gave? guest: i have not forgotten that. i spent a lot of time in iraq. but the caller raises a goodpoint.

yes, i think that iran -- not only is iraq on one side, but afghanistan is on the other. u.s. troops are on both side ofiran. i am sure iran feels a great deal of pressure because of that, however, -- and please, do not mistake me that i think the speech has changed the world in iran. it is one of many factors. iraq, afghanistan is another factor. the new world of electronic media is another factor. there are many factors going into this. i do believe the iran has worked very hard to influence events in iraq over the last few years precisely for the reason you're talking about. they feel they need to control a lot of what is happening on the ground. it isa shiite majority country

and the government is led by those clerics. and they believe, they have a huge interest in shaping the outcome in iraq so does not become a threat. host: this caller is from the democrats line caller:. yes, first of all, it is amazing to me how this whole thing is media-driven. where was the concern an outcry over what happens which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes will be postponed and votes will be taken later today. the house will come toured. -- to order.

before we proceed, members will take their seats. members will remove their conversations from the floor. the house will be in order. members and staff will take their seats. members will remove their conversations from the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. skelton: madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2990 as introduced.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2990, a bill to provide special pays and allowances to certain members of the armed forces, expand concurrent receipt of military retirement and va disability benefits to disabled military retirees, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton, and the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. skelton: and also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. skelton: madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2990, the disabled military retiree relief act of 2009. the disand veterans tax has for

decades prevented retirees from receiving the full benefits they earned in military pay and compensation. the one group of retirees that have endured great hardship but have been among the last to be embraced by reform is the disabled retiree with less than 20 years of service. this group of retirees has been ignored by even the most reformed-minded advocate until the democratic congress acted to include them -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. members and staff will take their seats or remove their conversations from the floor. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: until the democratic congress acted to include them in the combat related special compensation program for the national defense authorization act of 2008 was adopted. and yet this group of retirees is perhaps the most compelling story to tell.

many of these service members were on track to serve a full military career but were blocked from serving 20 years because of their disabilities. it's this group of retirees that were disabled at younger ages and often with young families. as a result, they are often the most financially stressed. however, the president took a definitive step forward in support of disabled retirees with less than 20 years of service when he proposed legislation in his budget request for the fiscal year 2010. the president's proposal would phase in full concurrent receipt of military retired pay and v.a. disability compensation for these deserving veterans over five years. we share the president's view. there are veterans and their families and particularly disabled retirees with less than 20 years and made tremendous sacrifices for our country, but this bill moves us

closer to fulfilling the president's pledge and the commitment of congress to give disabled veterans full access to the benefits they deserve. while h.r. 2990 is an important step, we must recognize that it is an incremental step that reaches only the most severely disabled over the first year of the president's phased implementation plan. congress has been working to find a way to permanently eliminate the disabled veterans tax for many years. funding this entitlement program is an immensely difficult task. i'm grateful to all of my house colleagues who've worked to find the budget offsets needed to provide this temporary fix for our veterans. as we pursue this legislation, we'll continue to do all we can to honor our country's debt to our veterans and their families. i would note that h.r. 2990 also includes a number of

valuable changes that enhance the federal civilian retirement benefits. in addition, the bill extends authorities concerning a wide variety of bonuses and special pays that are critical to military recruiting and retention. h.r. 2990 is a good bill, it's an important bill that supports the president's initiative regarding disabled retirees and fulfills the longstanding commitment of congress to provide for the welfare of disabled veterans. there still remains much to be done to find a permanent solution, and this bill provides the framework for our future action. our veterans have never quit on america, and you can be certain that we will never quit on our veterans. i urge my colleagues to support the disabled military retiree relief act of 2009. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri

reserves his time. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: madam speaker, i rise to support h.r. 2990, the disabled military retiree relief act of 2009. this bill has a number of good provisions dealing with military and civilian personnel, which i appreciate as a 31-year army national guard veteran representing paris island, the marine corps air station at beaufort, the beaufort naval office in jackson. i want to talk about the department of defense disability veteran and veterans' administration disability pay to a small number of people discharged from the services with less than 20 years service because of injuries sustained while in the service. this section, which is but a ghost of the proposal submitted by president obama, is a small but important step in expanding the population eligible for full concurrent receipt.

i am glad some progress is being made. what troubles and disappoints me most, however, is that this bill, which will be attached to the national defense authorization act for 2010, could have done so much more had the democratic leadership of the house made elimination of concurrent receipt and elimination of the widow's tax, a priority from the beginning of congress. instead, we are unable to even debate my amendment at the full committee markup of the defense authorization dealing with concurrent receipt, the elimination of the survivor benefit plan, and disability indemnity compensation offset is a widow's tax. the extension of health care to early retiring reserve component members and the use of the misname reserve fund in the budget resolution. i would note that since the introduction of the amendment, the democratic leadership has found a way to fund h.r. 2990 using resources and dollars

outside the house around services committee jurisdiction to provide for just nine months, a very limited concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees. while that is a step forward to eliminating some of the injustice inflicted on disabled retirees, it does nothing to cure the injustice still being suffered by most persons losing their rightly earned benefits because of the remaining concurrent receipt prohibitions. had the house leadership seen eliminating these injustices as a priority, they could have allocated the small percentage, less than 1% necessary in the $15 trillion they provided for government spending in 2010 to 2014. or they could have used the reserve fund authority as proposed in my amendment. instead, we must settle for a small pittance for the small group of retirees. i hope that since the authority for this limited concurrent receipt is for only nine months

that the democratic leadership makes resolving all of the concurrent receipt in s.b.p. is a real, not a symbolic priority next year. as a nation we owe more than our gratitude to the brave men and women in uniform and their families past and present for sacrifices they make to protect our freedoms. i know firsthand of the courage of our troops. my late father-in-law, julian, a dedicated marine, was awarded the navy cross for leading the capture of the japanese headquarters of shiri castle on okinawa. he was shot by a sniper as a result of his being in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. he was grateful to have served america. with that, mr. speaker, i yield to dr. broun of georgia. the speaker pro tempore: how much time do you yield to dr. broun? how much time? mr. wilson: as so much time as

he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: madam speaker, i move that the house now do adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: madam speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are

so the missile is not going by it, but you are holding it on the same place as the missile is

moving very rapidly. missile defense would be the biggest partisan difference in the bill. host: you have a regional concern that is economic as well. guest: these tend to be a little bit more of a disagreement between the administration and the legislative branch. in my particular situation, i am from the st. louis area. we build a lot of the f-18's that go on aircraft carriers. there is a very big shortage that the navy has of the aircraft, and the f-18 is the only fighter coming off aircraft carriers. we make the argument that aircraft carriers are very -- are not very useful if they do not have airplanes on them. four or five carriers may not have any airplanes on them all. so there's quite a shortage of the f-18's, and we continue to ask the administration about this problem and they continue to say, well, we are going to

take a look at in this quadrennial review. then the question comes, it is not that complicated. we have 44 plainsboro carrier, and you are going to be short four or five -- with the 44 planes -- we have 44 planes per carrier, and you are going to be short for four or five carriers. we want to know what they're thinking in terms of giving us the data so that we can analyze what the needs are. making the general signs that they will not say anything other than the party line, or not so, -- we are not so comfortable with that approach. we think we can make better decisions working as a team rather than us/them. host: you can call york -- you can call for questions or

comments for senatorepresentatie akin. there is a shift from the long- range focus to more of a short- range, mid range. he has defended the planned cuts for the long-range missile defense plan. guest: is his job to defend what the pentagon tells him to defend. the longest range are called intercontinental ballistic missiles, or icbm. we have no other defense other than those ground-based systems. a somewhat shorter missile would be called a ballistic missile. that is particularly a threat if, for instance, in the pacific, to an aircraft carrier or a fleet of ships, and they would be used perhaps by china to force us not to have ships

close to taiwan, for instance. so the ballistic missile is also a type of threat, and we addressed those with a ship- based defensive missile, which comes off of our cruisers, but particularly a new breed of destroyer. the japanese also have destroyers, a defense against these ballistic missiles. it is important to stop ballistic missiles. that is being funded, so there originally was not any controversy there. we are saying it is not an either/or, but a both/and. host: next call, republican line. guescaller: we call ourselves te moose herder's. teddy roosevelt is our hero.

the bull moose party of 1912. i have a request into question, congressman. my question is that would you join our moose herder's and designate bill cohen as the spokesperson and keep him in mind for president for 2012. my question about palestinians -- why can't they join the surrounding countries? you know, jordan, syria, egypt, instead of being their own country? guest: well, i am not sure any of the countries want the palestinians. they like them as an arguing point, but i am not really sure that jordanians really want the palestinians. i am not sure exactly what would be the position that they take when you ask that very simple question because the palestinians