>> you can always tweet us.

the house of representative coming back into session at 9:00 am this morning. >> voters are sd sderting obama nashvillely. a resent poll togethers a low a source of the shift appears to be independent voters, who seem to be responding to republican complaints. this is from yesterday, the dily tracking poll for thursday

showing that 30% of the nation's voters approve the way he is performing his roll. 58 pes strongly disapprove. here c nfrp n poll. obama inspires but some questions toughness the number of americans who say he is a strong leader tough enough to handle a crisis has fallen. most believe obama inspires cd2 confidence. 7-10 said the president is a strong leader, however that figure is down 10 percentage points from the opening days.

that's a little taste. we want to hear from you and what you think and on our president obama voter line is david from arlington virginia. >> let me tell you why. to your point. a great leader has to be a vision ary. whether it is healthcare or education jochlt in terms of education, it's the future. he has said those that educate us will out compete us in the

future. >> number two, in terms of green jobs. vision farry leaders. it takes some time. we'll see down the road who the visionary leader is. >> what do you think about another stimulus package? >> i'm open to it. but i don't think we'll felt the results of the first stimulus package. i say let the summer ride out. i'm not the economist or anything. i'm self employed. i own a business. it's ok out there. it's starting to improve.

polls are just a snp shot in time. it's only been, what, 200 days in office. >> a mccain voter, you have changed your mind about obama? >> yes. i think it is worse than when we expected. he spent more money than all the presidents in the history of the country. we don't know where any of the country is going. it's not working. he's by passing the 

constitution. >> from orlando is john on the independent line. who did you vote for in 2008? >> i voted for obama. i am a strong supporter, however i am disappointed. i am back on the fence. he promised transparency. we are blessed to have him. he's ar tick u let, charming, popular. i wish him all the best. i do understand he's got a strong resist yens there in

washington, d.c.

host: charles on the inpenned enter line. have you changed your mind? caller: no, i haven't. he hasn't been in office long enough to straighten everything out. i feel like if everybody would have patience, we could let him get more done. host: we have a treat that says. he's yet to change my mind.

glad i voted mckinney. i don't knowñ if she meant mccain. host: at the phone again. caller: i'll be honest with you, america stood for freedom. he's going overseas apologizing. he's turning this country into a third world nation. i was in the marine corps in the 1980s. ronald reagan and neshg stood for something. obama is a apologize. this man being from chicago, he

can talk, everything he's doing. he's destroying us little by lit. host: house democrats buck leaders on health-care bill unveiling.

host: pam, on our independent line. have you changed your mind? caller: no, i haven't. it amaze me when i look up every morning, they are just bashing the money to death. he's only been in office five months. it took years to get in this

mess. i live in michigan. this is the worst economy ever in the state. i don't know how you don't just let the stuff work instead of bashing the man to document. just stop bashing him. you get all these right wingers calling. when you have people on, have two people on next to each other. somebody wluz gonna telt truth.

host: in houston, on the republican line. you have changed your mind? caller: no. i haven't. if you are going to bash anybody and blame anyone, blame the bush administration for all the dirty moves he had. the man wants to go over there and try to make peace, let it be. thank you very much. host: in the wall street journal, few economist favor more stimulus. despite expectations of continued severe job losses. 8-51 economists said more

stimulus is necessary suggesting an average of about 600 billion in addition follow spending. the unemployment rate of 10% through next june. "the mother of all jobless pike. host: from tennessee, independent, what's your opinion and has it changed? >> no it has not. you have to lock at how long it took for bush to destroy the country. owe booma just came in.

american people have chash ye. i think it is totally disrespectful. >> congress targets healthiest earners. looking for the plan to reform healthcare. they are struggling to obtain the most vie able option. making significant strides as they seek to drive down healthcare costs. the democrats have pledged to meet the president's promise of making the package. something almost neutral. most increases under

consideration would go into effect next year. houston, texas. a mccain voter. have you changed your mind? caller: absolutely not. this man will destroy america. you turn around. a lot of people don't know on this healthcare coming up they are going to rob and ruin the medicaid system. he is out of his mind. people will wake up and it will be too late. the estimate around $#,000 a year extra. they have to pay extra for food, gas and lights. it is a croixing shame that

america has sunk this low. they can blame bourbon a lot of things. bush did hurt things. i agree but this man is going to ruin the country. host: next caller. caller: i support president obama. i support him as the president of the united states, we have to give him time in order to get this country on track. the real question is do we really support congress? our congress is not doing what they should we have to be

patient enough to allow if to work. all this talk of going to a third world country. guess what, we are not there he wasn't selected by a small majority of people, he was elected by a majority of people. host: what is the economy like in connecticut? caller: myself, it's horrible. i'm not working. it's going to take time from the wall street journal, gm left

overs

host: randy. how do you feel by president obama? caller: i feel the same way. i voted for ron paul. i know it was a long shot. these presidents, he's top of ê like marxist. somebody sent me a magazine about a year ago called news watch magazine. can you go to news watch

magazine.org and pull up about all these presidents. hitler's new world order is coming to pass. the american people discern what we are going to get. they have their head in the ground. it's a me, me, me world. he's doing a great job of getting this stuff passed right and left. congress doesn't even read the cap and trade. nobody has read it. they just signed it. >> the mccain voter, you have changed your mind about president obama? >> not in the least. he's everything i thought he would be. if you notice, he speaks, when he they talk about the bad

economy. president obama was in office for eight years, six years it was run by a republican house and snat. the last two years of his administration, all of a sudden accept. the democrats had congress. that's when the economy started to tank. he blames president bush. everyone, you remember what happened the last two years of bush's administration. yes, bush did a lot of things wrong but not to the extend of this terrible economy.

host: on the line. mary, have you changed your mind? caller: i hear so many people say he's such a liberal and so to the left. i think he's way too far to the right. host: he's too far to the right for you? caller: yes. now it seems like he's going farther to the right for me and other liberals i have talked to. host: any specfic yik issue? caller: well, i really wish he wasn't getting involved in the pakistan, afghanistan war. i know he's trying to bring the

troops home like he said. a lot of the promises like helping the gay people more and different things, it seems like he's now distancing himself from that kind of stuff. i really like him. i think he's so much better than cheney and bush or other people who have been in there. i just hope that he starts going more to the left. i think he's way too far to the right. host: buffalo on the independent line. what do you think?

host: next call, dallas, roger. a mccain voter. what do you think? caller: i have changed my mind. when obama was elected, i hoped obama would turn out a centerist. i was really hoping that this time, i would be wrong about the guy on the other side. he's so far to the left and got some radical policies. he's worse than i expected him to be. much worse than i thought he would be. this is the denver post this morning.

it's a local story involving the governor but has a nashville 3çq background.

host: north carolina on the obama line. good morning. caller: first, i'm surprised at c-span recently. i've been following c-span closely. i noticed more recently, there's been a lot of the persons you

have on who really have a lot of the right wing rhetoric. you don't have a person that rebuts some of the information regarding. i'm surprised you are doing this question this morning. i don't understand the premise of of the question when you have person who's, say, voted for another parties. and ask them whether or not they changed their mind. certainly, they didn't vote for president obama is the ghin beginning. i just noticed recently the kind of persons you have on to discuss issues. host: so have you changed your mind about president obama? caller: no. i have not.

he inher rited glthis. he didn't come in until january. it hasn't even been five months for that. host: dan in michigan. independent. thank you for c-span. i hear a lost people calling in

blaming it on the republicans or democrats. i wish that the curtain would come down and we could see who is actually controlling our president in the background. nobody is looking at the real issues in our country. everyone of our jobs is being out sourced. we are seeing korea and china on everything. thank you. you have changed your mind about president obama caller: not really. monday in california, mr. allen keys will be having a court case demonstrating whether he does or doesn't -- are you there? host: we are listening

caller: whether he doesn't actually have a birth certificate which will make him an american citizen. host: so you are focussed on that issue? caller: and focussed on the dream team and everybody is going to forget he's not an american citizen. james gordon's son

host: an obama voter from arlington, virginia. have you changed your mind? caller: no. you have to give the man a chance. he's only been there a couple of months. heié cannot work through everything. they have to look at every contract. give the man some time. from the earlier caller. you don't want the president -- he made a smart move not to produce those pictures. do you know what the muslims would do to the americans overseas working? host: republican line.

have you changed your mind? caller: no. i voted for mccain and i'm glad i did. >> we were talking about polls. there's another new poll out commissioned by c-span about the supreme court. rob green of 10 polsteres. one of the questions we asked is can you name the individual chosen by president obama to serve on the supreme court? 43% said sonia sotomayor.

another question asked is if confirmed, what would be historic about her? caller: impressive again. 66% would say that she would be the first hispanic nominee. why do you think the high awareness is there. there's been a good deal of news about it. it's always a 2-way street with information like this.

everything from property rights to civil rights. because this is so important, they follow with interest. host: before we get to the larger question of the supreme court, another question we asked about was the first woman nominee. this was sandra day o'connor. 59% did not know it was her. did that surprise you? caller: she remains a very important figure and served for, i guess, a little over 20 years. was struck by that. i thought it was interesting that there's even greater

awareness of sotomayor. host: what does that tell you? caller: just that there's an enormous interest in her nomination. host: what did you find when it came general knowledge about the preem court? iks in some respected, the public. the voting public and the broad aspect. there where some other choices as well. >> can you name any justices on

the supreme court? only 46% say yes. caller: that's interesting. where we started to see a slide they were certainlily aware that

it is a life-time term. >> you talked a little earlier about the supreme court and how americans understand how the supreme court does make a difference. how many could name a case? caller: there's really only one case that could be decided. that's roe v. wade. and a distance second is brown v. board of education. yes. people were free to cite any case, really basically all the understanding was around roe v. wade. host: and what do people think about cameras in the courtroom?

caller: i should say, strong support for cameras in the courtroom. host: did you find out why? >> we learn that there's some high school civics aspect of the court that these justices sit essentially for life. we knew that. we sense a real hunger about what's going on in the court. we have the interest in the sotomayor nomination. what's driving the support for more televised coverage is -- the best way i can describe that

is telling you the considerable interest in her nomination. host: tell us about the methodology. >> we conducted a survey on line on tuesday this week. this is a cross sample of american voters. host: tell us about your firm. >> we are a well-known research based consulting firm. in particular in the united states, we work with democratic

findings. robert green, thank you for joining us. host: we were talking about sonia sotomayor? tell us your thoughts. >> clearly, the obama administration is trying to slide her in. i don't know that her qualifications are as good as some of the others sitting there currently. republicans are trying to raise a stis saying

liberal. i think they have a slim chance of doing anything maeningful in terms of protesting her nomination. host: should they? >> i don't think so. it's important to protest things that they don't like. i don't like a lot of her decisions either but the reality is the numbers don't add up. cut your losses. host: healthcare is going on in the congress. >> so it is. host: do you like the direction it is headed? >> what do you think? i am not a big fan of the healthcare legislation being proposed. i'm even less a fan of the way it is being done. they are doing it in these private meetings. it's disappointing.

they got some heated responses out of the audience. this is the kind of thing i like to see out of president obama. the questions are predetermined, which was something he did last year. host: why do they need the republicans? >> good will. i know they have 60 votes now but that's not the end of the world in being able to form the

consensus. i think it would be crucial to bring all sides to the table. host: why are you a conservative? >> because i think limited government is important to me. it's important to maintain basic hum avenue services, roads, police sources, emergency care, sign me up but stop there. then let me live my life. host: talking to jillian bandiz. please call, the numbers are on the screen.

host: what sort of position are the republicans in now? >> we still have to be vigilant in terms of the new policies out there. we still have some fight in us. it's important to keep it up. host: in a poll, mit romney is leading and sarah is in second place. >> i think that's interesting to see who is in second place. i have a soft spot for her.

i know not a lot of people do. her latest move kind of -- we are saying what are you doing? there goes our hero. at the end of the day, we can trust her decision making. i don't think you can predict it. i'm going to try not to go there and say, i just in shara.

>> i think every congress person should go on record. not a staff member or a cliff note version should be put out for them to read. it should be done -- i don't care if it's 15,000 pages or more, we are talking about turning our healthcare into something that luke like canada or other countries. we need to hold president obama to his transparency with regard of five days of having that bill out there so every american can see what we are getting and not

sliping 300 or 500 pages in in the middle of the night. >> ma'am,>(ñ when you read thatd you understand what it means, let me know. republicans are getting 72 hours of reading the bill after it has been penned. you tell me if that's transparency? host: i have developed a couple of tweets. from john. does the guest believe that the republican party has become the party the white male, she being the exception? >> no. i think one of the fastest

growing group is the latin know americans. we have a large number of african-american -- religious african-american men coming over. host: if you want government out of your life, why would you be against a woman's right to choose? >> great question. i am more human rights. if that's men or women, black or

right. i don't think that is anti-woman in the slightest. host: next to the phones. caller: i was wondering if the guest thinks that the republicans would do bet for court the media. i know it sounds like something we shouldn't have to do but the reality is that the media is an element just like the element. certainly when george bush was rushing us into war, they were up on the gop and they lead us. the media is trying to pay pen nent for what they did. they admitted they played a roll. that was one question. the other question, is it a

resent phenomenon that the congress does not rebuild or has it always been the case? how did we get things done in the past if they never read bills? >> no. you don't haveíz to court me. i also don't feel like i'm paying pen nens. the media follows trends. you can certainly fault us for it. i encourage you to twitter me and tell me what you think i should be following. in response to your spekd suggestion, conditioning res does not always rebuild.

i'm not sure of the time limit when congress stopped reading bills. i think it is probably when bills hit 5,000-6,000 pages. host: going to the phone. caller: i have a question for the guest. she says sotomayor is not as smart to the other nominees. compare her background, ask she name one or two supreme court judges. number two, accord together record, democrats fight the republicans in passing the law

at 95%; what percentage do the republicans cooperating with the democrats currently. thank you. >> i wasn't entirely clear with the first part. the second in terms of the cooperation. i know for a fact that they regularly go to house and democratic leadership to make their own proposals. i think it is generally about the same. they fight for what they can and then throw in the cards. host: where in your view can the republicans take off support for the democratic yik party and obama? >> republicans are making strong

in roads in cap and trade and the economy. they are making a strong impact in the gitmo release. obama was going to release the prisoners into american prisons. the republicans rose up to stopz that. host: how is michael steel doing in your view? >> i can say there's certainly room for improvement. >> the last election when he was

promoted, i'm not certain as to the mechanics of that. i'm looking forward to seeing what he does in the future. host: on the republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, today, they plan on pushing through on healthcare. i have seen it on c-span. they are telling people to call through to their senators today. they are not going to have time to read it. they will pass the stimulus and

everything else. the republicans are not even going to be able to read it. what i don't understand is with us being in such a crisis and the economy being so bad, how come they have to fight so much, i don't comprehend it. to me, they ought to be trying to solve the problems and help the people. that's what they are there for. >> that's part of the problem with forging ahead. simply raming things through is not the answer. a little more time and review and legislation. asking why they are stalling and

launching regulation, it's important. voicing your concerns to your local representatives. host: where did you grow up and go to school? >> i am from tampa, florida. i am an alum of university of north carolina, chapel hill. go heals. host: how long have you been with town hall >> i have been lucky to be here several years. host: were you active in.qt politickses in school? >> i was active in discussions

host: we'll go to the phone. democrats. caller: yes, i have a question about -- you made sort of a comment aboutal fran kin. it looked like from your expression, you were happy. i wondered how do you feel about what's going on with senator and the governor from south carolina? and also, you want less government. i was jus curious if you voted for bush last election. i'll hang up and thank you very much. .

guest: if they trust in stamford, then by golly, i will, too. host: by using that private peter by public officials should be cause for resignation? guest: host: because, -- guest: because, especially on the republican side, we have faith and family and we have totter those things for so long. and that is not to say that democrats do not have those

things as well, but the level of emphasis we have placed on those issues, we could do a bit better job of making sure there are no sub-skeletons in our closet. -- there are no skeletons in our closet. host: next call from montana. caller: i went and looked at the dot and the contracts that have been awarded on a daily basis and there was scope shocked -- and i was so shocked. new drugs can of believe the money that is being awarded on a daily basis. -- i just cannot believe the money that is being awarded on a daily basis. it is a very interesting sight,

if you can weave your way through the technical. and that is hard cash, of course. host: plymouth, indiana, bobby, republican, good morning. caller: i have been a lifelong republican, one of those extremists believe in the bible and guns and of the -- of that stuff, so i have already been labeled. i believe that the republican party has got to go back to its roots. george bush was not micamy kindf republican. because our republican party is trying to appease everybody, almost like ça chameleon. just like you mentioned earlier, the hispanic vote, the african- american vote, those are racist statements. let's not put on and asked for this party or that party. let's just be true americans. let's say that the borders must be defended.

let's follow the late -- the law of the land. and let's tell people, no, we cannot afford it. sarah palin would be a perfect example. i also think that newt gingrich would also be a wonderful republican nominee for president. the question i have is, why did the republican party that i sat and voted for for eight years allowed the borders to be open and illegal immigrants pouring across the country, why did they not defend our borders? if you can answer the question, that is the million-dollar question for the day. guest: thanks, i will look for your check. first of all, thanks for chastising me with regard to the demographics. is important to recognize that it does not matter where your base is coming from. and now, he is giving me that grin. [laughter] i do agree with you that it is

important to recognize or your principles are and not worry as much about who your people are. yes, sure, republicans have had a history of anchor -- encompassing non-minority demographics. but at the same time, but that does not mean that our ideas are any less value. second, on the immigration question no, i do not have an end-all solution. i can tell you that increasing border defense has been a welcome the moment in my view and if we can continue on that track and create a meaningful program to register and track the immigrants that have already crossed into our country, then we will be a lot better off than where we are now, which is in a pretty bad place. host: time for another couple of calls and another tweak. -- tweet. guest: i would like to ask the

cosmic rat where he gets his paycheck from and who pays his rent because, if it is the federal government, but i think it says that all right there. governments do not make money. people make money and a way that people sustain themselves on a day-to-day basis, it is through cold, hard cash. if that is appalling to you, but i do not have much to say. yes, you need some regulation in some situations, but the degree to which creating new regulation and overburdening the economy with it is just obscene. i cannot understand you would say at this point that we are unregulated and we do not have enough private industry. host: a couple of other sort tweets -- what does she what does"c" street -- what does she

know about "c" in washington? that is the house where christian conservatives are living. guest: i have heard about this and i was familiar with this idea of a convent, if you will, of republican and men in congress -- republican men in congress who was published in hong kong might fuel for themselves. there have been jokes about it, but i do not think that -- to have established a home for themselves their been about, but i do not think you have to assume that it is anything bad. i think we have done more for the country of iraq and the media gives us credit for. sponsored elements are 20 in net

benefit to the iraqi ben of -- are going to be a net benefit to the iraqi people. host: last call from connecticut. caller: it is interesting to listen to your logic. i have been watching the republican party self-implode on their great plan. they came up with the most brilliant plan in the '80s, if you just go around telling everybody you are with god, jesus, the democrats are going to take your guns away and you are against abortion, youç get all of these votes. but they have failed on the fronts, especially with their own moral character. it seems like it has become more of an achilles' heel. now, i think the party is ruined. i do not see how anybody could trust them. i do not trust the democrats

either, that is why i am independent. i just think they should all go. guest: well, if they could all go, i think i would be on board with that for a while. if august recess the could just go permanently. you seem to be pretty cynical to awards of the washington establishment and i think it is -- towards the washington establishment and i think is justified. i think gramm's are committed by both parties. i cannot agree that we are going -- i think crimes are committed by both parties. i cannot agree that we're going down about bass. -- that fast. i think you have to work from within the establishment and within your organization to sponsor a change. if your an independent, of which were local independent party or whatever you want and make the change yourself, instead of just complaining. host: last tweet for our first

time guest, jillian bandes. thank you for being on the washington journal for the first time. we will be talking with gina mccarthy of the epa about the obama administration's plans about clean air. we'll also talk to eric williams about a group called campus progress. but first, a news update from c- span radio. >> it is a 10:00 a.m. eastern time gift the senate voted last night to allow americans to the lower-cost drugs from canada over the internet. the plan is sponsored by louisiana republican david vitter was approved 55-36. it is attached to a homeland security funding bill that now moves to the house. it is unclear whether that will be in the final version of the bill. more on the closed congressional briefings by the cia. the hill reports that republican carol icet, an intelligence committee member, says they

should be forced to take lie- detector tests before taking the briefings. he says it was safe for the information and clear up who is being told what. an update on the computer attacks in the last week. zacarias by agencies say the attacks are on the world's -- around the world used 86 ip addresses, including the united states, japan, and guatemala. the agency believes north korea is behind the effort. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> kendeigh sunday, ronald and rock -- and alice radosh on president harry truman and his decision to recognize the state of israel. >> no one knew what he would do. it was said, i do not know, i will have to see. but he had already decided en.

>> you can also listen to the program on c-span radio on xm satellite radio and on line as a cpac -- c-span podcast ireto. [captiing performed national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] host: gina mccarthy is on your screen and she is an assistant administrator of the environmental protection agency and recently testified to congress about the obama administration's plans for clean airre- regular clean errant re- regulations. guest: we talked yesterday about cleaning up the air as it relates to our plants as an

industry sector. they're looking at doing some the fairly creative, which is to look at how you combine regulations to look at this sector as a whole instead of doing individual pollutants by pollutants regulation. we were also there to talk about what the obama administration in particular -- the environmental protection agency is doing to advance the same goal toward current regulations. çhost: how stringent our curret regulations in your view and with the obama administration's position make these regulations more stringent? the clear guest: act, when it passed in the 1970's and it was updated in 1990, really established a good framework towards cleaner air. just because there are blue skies out does not mean that the air is clean. it is one of those issues we have made tremendous project -- progress since the 1970's and particularly in the past decade

in terms of reducing the pollutants for everything from asthma to hurt attacks. there is still -- there are still a lot of deaths every year the result from the kind of air pollution that we read every day. and this is across the country. we have made a tremendous amount of progress, but we need to make a substantial amount more. our challenges are that we need to do that wisely anna a to do it in a cost-effective way. -- and to do it in a cost- effective way. the obama administration is interested in moving aggressively to try to continue to reduce and make progress on air pollution, but in the smartest way we can. which means we do it quickly, but cost effectively. and we recognize the tremendous economic -- benefits from that. host: what do you mean by cost- effective? guest: what i mean is to try to literally find the cheapest way that we can get the reductions we are looking for. epa begins with -- when we do

our regulatory process, we begin to look at what kind of air pollution is actually acceptable. what kind of pollution would be okay and still allow us to breathe clean air and to go about our lives and to not have the deaths and illnesses that currently come about from breathing dirty air. but the scientific basis comes into play and you do regulations and actually look at cost. you look at how quickly we can make those reductions without losing jobs and, hopefully, in a way that allows economic growth and job growth in particular. i think over the past 20, 30 years, we have continued to find ways to make incremental improvements and allow the economy to grow. but we know we are at a pivot point. we know that for the past eight years we have not made tremendous progress in the last administration on air quality.

in fact, in many ways, a lot of the regulations that have been passed have been remanded back to us or vacated by the courts. they just simply were not meeting the test of law. our challenge is a bit of catch up. we need to run quickly to stop the backsliding and to move forward, but again, in the smartest way that weipjmnnñ, recognizing that we are in a difficult economy now,ám'# butt does not mean the cost associated with death and in our mind because they are. >> how do these regulations fit in with president obama being with the g8 talking about climate change -- with the g- eight, talking about climate change and congress passing the bill. guest: at the epa, we have to keep in mind but the past and current challenges that we have as well as the challenges of the future. what we are trying to do is understand what we're looking for and to accomplish too caught

-- to clean up our air for what we call "criteria pollutants," which are the pollutants that cause heart attack and asthma. and also find ways to deal with things that allow us to reduce greenhouse gases. that is the current challenge and the challenge of the future, how do we address climate change? but we believe that if we look at it as a multi pollutants strategy, which is what congress is beginning to demand and what we have been trying to work hard on is to work at doing things not just from one pollution, but from all of them. we can give the right signal to industry as well as individuals on how we can all the aid to clean up the air, reduce greenhouse gases and meet the challenges of today and the future. host: is the air cleaner in the u.s. overall than it was in 1970 and 1980? >> guest: without question, yes.

is it clean enough? no. host: how did you get from mitt romney to president obama's administration? guest: leave it or not, the first governor to appoint me is gov. dukakis in massachusetts. in case my accent fools you, and it was quite a while ago. i will not admit how long. i got interested service then and was working on environmental issues. i happened to be one of those that kept my head down and plow forward. in new england, we look at the end are met as a bipartisan issue. it is close to home. it means a lot to us. i lasted through, i think, six changes in administration, the last of which was governor romney. i worked in his governor's office working on environmental issues as well as housing and energy and transportation as a smart growth initiative.

and then, i ended up working for governor allen in connecticut as the commissioner of the epa there. and she is a republican, but i think the kind that works well in new england, the kind that really sees the environment as a necessity to economic growth and the health of the region. host: jim mccarthy is our guest. she is front -- gina mccarthy is our guest. she is from the epa. we're talking about clean air. good morning, go ahead. caller: this cat and trade bill is -- cap and trade bill is going to destroy our chronic irritant -- destroyed our economy. i used to own my own construction company and it cost me a lot of money on just some

of these foolish regulations. and especially the democrats, they are complaining about, well, all of these jobs are going overseas and all of this. i will tell you right now, if it was not for all of these regulations, we would probably have a pretty thriving country right now. host: steve, you mentioned you were a heavy-duty equipment operator. what kind of regulations do you face personally from the epa? caller: well, ok, you have got a machine and you are working on a big job, and if it is dripping will just a little bit, maybe you lose a court, they will take that machine off. they will come in and say, wait a minute, you are dropping oil on the ground. it will cost thousands of dollars on the machine. if it was just blowing all over, i could understand that. one time we were working in the

grand canyon, the south rim, and one of the pottow plug in my excavators came out and we were on a dirt -- and one of the auto plug in my excavators can out of iran a dirt road. and i didn't know this. the epa -- came out of the excavators on a dirt road. and i did not know this. the epa made us come out and dig. the two weeks later, they came in with a tart truck and charged that whole -- tarred that whole road and put it down with a chip seal. host: thank you for the example, steve. guest: i do not know where to begin, but i will give it a shot. i think the epa as well as the

regulatory agencies at the state and local level, we try to do a pretty good job of working with industry, whether it is large or small, to try to not just regulate, but to have teaching moments, to make everybody understand that in our image is not something to take for granted and we all have to work together. when you do a job like your doing, which can generate hazardous waste and i should provide offer to do for that ways to go into the ground or the drinking water, i will readily admit that we take our jobs seriously. but that is the mission of our agency. we try to do it in a way or the regulations are not as onerous. you have the ability and the understanding of how to prevent those leaks from happening. what we try to do is work with you in advance of being in a confrontational situation, of having to respond to a leak or a spill to tell you that you should be ceilings that equipment before hand. the loss of any waste means you are losing product as well. we think if we do a good job at

this and we do some compliance assistance and we teach you how to operate your business of your saving money, you're not leaking material, then you are not having to do with the cost çof cleanup afterwards and the economy will be better off and business will be better off. the survey, individuals will be better off living in and around -- certainly, individuals will be better off who are living in and around where you are working. host: when you have here and say that he had to dig down to feed at 2 feet wide for what he described as giving well, does that surprise you? guest: i do not know the situation, but i will tell you that when we respond to his bill like that, what you want to do is identify the extent of the contamination. it is not unlike what the health-care industry does. if you have a growth, you do not just go right around the edges, but you clean it up sufficiently so that you know that is not

going to reoccur again or cause a problem. when we are in a situation like that, the major cost is responding to it, having the beryl's there. it is not how much you take out, but making sure that what you do once cleans it and you walk away and everyone can leave the situation knowing how not to do it again. that is the big thing, when you respond, we want to make sure that we do it well, without overkill, but it does not surprise me at all that you're going to have to remove be on board you can visibly see because the contaminants in oil can spread. you cannot always see it and usually do not want it to get into the drinking water. host: speaking of drinking water, a tweet has come in for you. guest: that is a good question. yes, it does. yesterday, when i testified in front of a congressional hearing, it was senator copper and senator bidders -- vitter''

subcommittee. they're looking at legislation that would set the power plant industry with a certain pollutants, noxon s02 and mercury. with the noxon s02 it is the thing that causes acid rain and other toxins. but the mercury affects our waterways. over half of the mercury that is emitted in this country is emitted from power plants, primarily coal fired power plants. i will be the first to recognize beckel is an energy source that we need and it is going to be around -- recognize that coal is an energy source that we need and it is good to be around for a while purit. mercury into kidder, it goes into the ground very quickly and

also troubles broadly. it gets up into the atmosphere and it actually deposits into rivers and streams. the mercury from those power plants and other sources of mercury get into the food chain by getting into the fish. it actually deposits into the soil. it gets taken up by the fish and then it ends up being consumed by individuals. that mercury is a toxin. it is an extremely potent toxin. we have fish advisory's all through the northeast and many other areas of the country telling pregnant women, do not eat fish caught from certain rivers and streams. that is a situation we want to stop. without question, it comes out of power plants and eventually get into the ground. it will have an impact in our waterways and our streams and in the food we eat and the water we drink. host: another tweet --

guest: that is a very good question. right now, we know that there are opportunities available through common technology to make the burning of coal a lot cleaner. that was one of the issues that came out yesterday. i was joined by john stevenson from the gao, who had just recently got a report on mercury-reduction strategies and technologies at coal-fired power plants. what he found was that a dozen or more states, including massachusetts and connecticut i might add, that have individual state regulations that control mercury from power plants, you can actually achieve over 90% reduction with a fairly insignificant, all things considered, investment in those power plants. there are ways individually that

you can reduce emissions significantly from coal-fired power plants and bring themç dn to the levels that are comparable to natural gas. you can do it with several. the larger challenge we face right now is greenhouse gases. host: jodi, republican, thanks for holding. your on with gina mccarthy of the epa. caller: i have two comments and a question as i was listening to the other callers. the gentleman who said he dropped the well on the road. -- a trip to the oil on the road, i have seen big trucks. i have family that are truckers. in the summertime, i have seen oil trucks coming down the road and spurring the dirt to keep the dust down. and understand the difference. -- i do not understand the difference.

the other thing, i understand what we went through to clean up the great lakes with the mercury. but they have a new level out and it is completely mercury filled. it is supposed to be energy- efficient alegria energy, green lighting, green technology, and where i work we have to go through how to get rid of hazardous waste. they showed us how to clean up one of these light bulbs in case it was to break because it is so full of mercury. it almost takes a hazmat unit to come out to the store and clean up one of these broken light bulbs. now you have got over 40 million of these levels in houses all over america. if a kid gets hold of one of these light bulbs and he drops it and does not know how to clean it up, this child is going to receive mercury poisoning. but yet, it is green energy and better for america. now, the main reason i called is this, as the v.a. resets are

regulations and we keep pollutants from going in the air -- as the epa reset our regulations and we keep pollutants from going into the air, businesses are going overseas because the epa puts a much regulation on us. and yet, all of these jobs are going to china and india and the third world countries that are learning to have industrial lives are producing make -- way more pollutants than we are. i'm sure there is a circular cycle in which it gets in the air flow and runs through the jet stream and ends up being in this country anyway. if we're point to point a finger a somebody else, shouldn't we point the fingers ourselves and clean up what we can, but not regulate ourselves into the prospects -- into the poorhouse? guest: i appreciate you -- your call and i really open that we

can get away from finger- pointing. the challenge of the epa is not to point the fingers at polluters, but to try to figure out how to meet our economic needs and at the same time have a cleaner environment that people will enjoy of wanting to live in. one of the reasons people enjoy this country is because the epa is on board, making sure that the water they drink is safe and the air they breathe is as clean as we can get it. we are trying to drive that message home in a way that does not make it seem like there is an absolute dichotomy between the economy and clean environment. it is simply not true. we can clean the environment, do it smartly, and in ways that promote new businesses and jobs. that is the challenge that the obama administration is embracing. i think we can prove to you that we can meet the challenge of a growing economy and a clean environment. let me get a couple of the

issues. in terms of the oil issue, there is very much a difference between a printed application of hazardous material and illegal discharge of hazardous waste. i will tell you that the oil that is sprayed on dusty roads, many times in the past that has been done in a way that is not legal and has had things like pcb's in the oil, which has led to extensive cleanup and contamination problems. we need to work together to make sure that you can do business and do it in a way that does not pose risks to the workers or the people in the areas around you. the compact fluorescent lights, that is what we were talking about, those funny looking like bolts we have all been touting. i do recognize there is mercury in those light bulbs and it does pose a challenge, and hopefully, people like you that have understood that there is mercury in it and how toç clean it up d

had about, that is the main message. but the challenge that we face is, if we do not reduce energy, then we are continuing to have demands on the use of fossil fuel at a time when we do not have sufficient amount of renewable up and running to be able to deal with the climate change and challenge effectively. the best thing that we can do right now to reduce greenhouse gases and to reduce air pollution is to lower the amount of energy used. compact fluorescent light bulbs, are the answer? no, are they a wonderful transition strategy? absolutely. i encourage people to use them, use them wisely. we set up systems where you can bring them back and recycle them. home depot and others have the ability to take them back and deal with them safely. they do offer people significant cost savings, and that is really the message for us. you can be environmentally

sound, you can't be a -- you can be a in an environmentally conscious way, but you do not have to spend a lot of money. i think it is a good thing. i think it will allow us time to get to the next generation of clean energy and to have the kind of transition to a clean and sustainable world that president obama is looking for and administrator jackson at the epa is looking to deliver. host: here is another twist -- guest: i know that has been a major concern and a major discussion item -- was a major discussion item as the house was looking at comprehensive energy legislation to address not only our energy needs, but also the climate change challenge. it will be a major discussion on the senate side. but i think that it was a major

debate. i think we know that the u.s. needs to begin to step up. we're not leading on the issues of climate change. it is an issue that we have not addressed as other countries have. we believe we can do it wisely and in a way that does not send jobs out, but actually creates jobs in the u.s. host: last call for gina mccarthy comes from sumter, south carolina. caller: i want to give two examples and then ask a question of your guest. the examples being florida, senator nelson and governor chris are blocking the new energy bill because of all the gas that is near pensacola, and also, nuclear, why are we not going nuclear? in florida, their concern with the tourist trade. i'm about ready to boycott

florida produce and go on vacation if they successfully take that amendment out. what i would like to ask the lady from the epa is, why does the epa not come up with an unbiased risk assessments except for the two examples i just gave yo? > guest: i think we do a pretty good job of doing risk assessment and try to do it in an unbiased as we are not disadvantaged -- disadvantaging any auditor type of energy source. we know we need to reduce our greenhouse gases, but we also know we need to do that in the most sensitive way and in a way that will continue to allow our economy to grow and once again thrive. i do not think we need to make the kind of stock decisions that you are looking at. i do think there are ways in

which the congress is going to look at issues like nuclear, issues like offshore drilling. we will support those with all of the unbiased, to become a credible information that -- scientifically credible information that we can provide to them. host: and finally, a tweed -- guest: that is a really, really good question because we do think that wind technology is one of the renewable sources that is most promising and most readily available. epa, i will tell you, does not have control of the u.s. public lands. that is the department of the interior. but we do work closely with them and we also worked closely with individual states and regions for their lands. there's quite aç bit of renewae energy that is being -- construction that is being conducted on state land where it

is appropriate and where it makes the most sense. the key with wind is to find where the resource is to find out how you can get into the grid it cheaply and do it in a way that fine -- provides educational opportunity. i think there is great promise in public lands and the stewards of those are looking at the issues and balancing them appropriately at this point. host: one more quick tweet -- guest: it is a very good idea for you to call your public health agency said the state level. arsenic is a contaminant. it is a very serious matter. to not take it on yourself. consult with the experts and the right thing. host: jeanne m. mccarthy, thank you for being here. next up, erika williams is from an organization called campus progress. we will ask only 25 and under to

call in during this next segment. >> q&a sunday, ronald and alice radosh and president harry truman and his decision to organize the state of israel. >> no one knew what he was going to do. what was he going to do if the jews declerck a state as they said they were going to do? he said, i do not know, but he had already decided. he said, i am going to support

them as a nation. >> ronald and how radosh sunday on gynnae. you can listen to it on xm satellite radio and on line has a seat spent -- c-span podcast. host: now on your screen is erica williams, deputy director of a group called campus progress. miss williams, what is canada's progress? guest: it is a campus project from the center of american progress. it deals with a policy change, though opinion leaders and supporting them and making changes are now in their campuses and communities. host: how you define a progressive? guest: this varies and there are many definitions and answers. most of the young people i work with, myself included, believe that in a progressive is all about understanding that there's a certain common good that we're working toward. we believe in putting people

over privilege. we believe that concept that all people are created equal, but not just under god, but also under the law. that is what we work toward as to the common good. host: and if you would translate that into an issue. guest: there are a couple of issues that are pretty hot and heavy and i would say health care is one. we believe it is a fundamental human right, especially for americans in such a wealthy country to have access to affordable health care that is equitable across all income status is, at the group's -- ethnic groups. host: do you believe that if it requires more taxation that is fair? guest: absolutely, and not only do i believe that and the other young people i work with, but they have been polling young people from the ages of 17 through 27 and something like

87% support higher taxation if necessary. host: how did you get involved in this organization? guest: i used to work at the conference for civil-rights, which is the nation's oldest civil rights coalition. i focused on civil rights legislation at the federal level and i wanted to direct my focus a bit more towards young people specifically. campus progress had reached up to me to speak at several events. when i came and saw the energy of the young people were working with, i said, this is where the next generation, my generation is. host: where did you go to school and when did you get involved in politics? guest: i went to school at the university of marylaot, college park. i got into politics of it after graduation. there were issues that impacted me as a graduate student, i did not necessarily recognize the connection between those and policy, specifically on the

national level college affordability. i realized it was an affordable -- unaffordable, but i did not realize the connection until after i graduated. there's a connection between the things that people in daily life needed and the role of government. host: where did you grow up? guest: i grow here in washington d.c. area and my parents were full-time ministers and pastors. i was civic minded, absolutely, but not necessarily political. i realized there was a role i was supposed to play in better in my community as a citizen growing up with faith. i was an african-american studies major in college. at that time, i realized there were other ways to benefit my community. host: you have quite an agenda of events going on here in washington.

you have nancy pelosi and bill clinton both -- you got nancy pelosi and bill clinton both to speak. how did you do that? guest: they have both always been committed to -- have had a passion for young people. ben jones, a special advisor to the president on the green jobs , a long cast of amazing speakers who were there. they demonstrated a commitment to supporting young people and not just talking down and saying, you all are great, you vote in record numbers. but more important, what can you be doing now? that was the focus of our conference this year. host: to the center of american progress on to this? guest: it was a private developed in 2005. there was a great need that we saw and if we're going to lay out this progressive path for

america and develop this aggressive agenda, young people were a critical part of that. host: is that in response to, or counter to, like young americans for freedom, which has been around quite a while? guest: it has been around quite a while, but i would not say it was necessarily in response to. we just think that young people have an incredible amount of energy and passion. i am a little biased, but i do think that we do it better in the sense that we are not just developing leaders for the next generation. we're actually encouraging young people to get out now and they are. host: erik williams is our guest, deputy director of campus progress. 25 and younger only this morning to talk to america. ted, a democrat, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i realize there are not that many people my age that listen to c-span. host: how old are you? caller: i am 24. guest: before you. caller: -- good for you. caller: i live in a rural area and have you seen this campus progress coming into rural areas? i have seen it become more active and alive in more urban areas and areas that tend to attract more progressive thinking people. i see a great divide between urban versus rural. what is the progressive trying to do to come into rural areas and educate and/or do outreach? guest: that is something that campus progress has made a

conservative -- a concerted effort to do since 2005. we're targeted in work -- in rural area and predominantly conservative campuses because we found that not only is there a great need for the type of resources and support and exposure that we provide, but also, the students and young people in those areas soak up the information and are some of our strongest advocates. is he still on there? host: he is gone. guest: i am not sure exactly what rural areas we are in, but that is a concerted effort of hours. is progress.org? -- cap mpusprogress.org? guest: absolutely, we can direct

him to something in his area. we focus primarily on the millennium generation, 17 through 26, but we are expanding beyond college campuses because young people are not just on college get this is. host: kurt of akin tweets in -- guest: i can talk a little bit about economic policy. right now we are launching a campaign for economic opportunity, this idea that young people not just in this economic crisis, but as a generation, are facing some unique economic challenges. we're looking at the rising cost of college, education, health care, even transitioning into a green economy, people as

progressives believe that there needs to be a conscious, bold, strong, dramatic investment in these core areas -- education, health care and clean energy -- in order to ensure our economic future. we do see these things as linked. we're talking about the economy, we're talking about these issues. host: gilbert, ariz., david, republican, you are on with erica williams. caller: how are you doing today? guest: good, how are you? caller: i'm doing great. a couple of questions. first, a about the stimulus, the education movement, everything that is going on, i just got into college not too long ago. i'm going into criminal justice. i almost have my law degree and i in a few years into the deal. but as easy as the government's is handing out money, you know,

for the online education, everywhere you look hugo -- you go to yahoo!, aol, everywhere you go it is an online degree and they're willing to hand out the money. but for the last four years, there has been this impacted wisdom tooth in the back of my mouth -- host: david, where are you going? we're going to leave david encoder right now and move on to nicklaus in jackson, new jersey, a democrat. caller: good morning, i want to know what your doing to organize students, if your organization has an ultimate goal to be achieved at this current moment, and what kind of a working student like myself --

what can a working is to let myself due to benefit your program? host: where you go to school? caller: i go to a community college one town away. guest: generally speaking, what are we doing to organize students? what are we doing it -- what we're doing is working to organize students on their campuses. we offer organizing grants and progress of partnerships, and actual money and resources and training for young people who have created issue ideas for their campus and community. we're working on the national level for health care and climate change and college affordability, but we work to support young people on almost every issue locally. that works if you're working on it genocide in darfur, aids awareness, local health care, impactissues that impact your ll campus.

we believe in getting people out there to work on issues in whatever way they see fit. in terms of working on local issues, you all can do the same thing as other committees. the difference is how you do it. are you when to start a student organization or join another organization? or you simply making calls into your local representatives? are you making lobby visits locally? if you check out campusprogress.org it wilç show you all the different ways you can make changes. host: when you say you are organizing students, what kinds of activities will you do? guest: we start off on a visit with coordinating events. we found that coordinating events that talk about progress of policy issues and get dialogue going as a first of -- is a first up. we bring in local speakers to talk about policy areas.

there also rallies, protest, marches, campaigns directed at putting pressure on local representatives of four specific issue areas. also, we support young journalists. a young journalist who says, my mainstream campus newspaper does not represent my issues -- we give grants to young journalist as well. we can help pull the situation is to gather and connect people to make their movements stronger. host: chris tweets -- guest: i would say that we are nonpartisan and that is very important. i know people say, you are progressive and that means democrat. it is not the same thing. our role is not to support or

strengthen a particular party. it is to put out a vision for america. whatever party lines or politicians lined up without, that is what we support. we challenge the status quo. we challenge democrats all the time and say, you are not going far enough, you're not pushing this far enough. that is the difference, we have a very strong vision that does not line up with a party. host: is president obama a progressive tax guest: we think -- is president obama a progressive? guest: we think he is, however, we think he could do more. it does not mean that everything he does we love or are satisfied with. that was the theme of our conference. we had 13 and again people coming to washington to say, look, a good job, but we need more, we need you to be stronger and more progressive. host: david, lexington, ky. caller: thanks for taking my

call. i just wanted to go back over what she thinks president is and means -- progressive is and means. you talk about common good and everything like that, but who decides what the common good is and how far should they be able to go to implement that? where is the limit? host: david, we will get an answer. would you do in lexington? caller: [unintelligible] host: how barack -- how old are you? caller: 926 next week. guest: -- i am 26 next week. guest: when you look at statistics, you look at where our nation is in terms of

disparities. are there disparities in affordable education? the issues we decide as common good or when we have, as a nation, set up seven goals and priorities and the use, we say that the american dream is attainable. we believe that the american government has a role in helping americans achieve those goals. when we do that, we do it a little stronger than conservatives do. i do not believe the values are the goals are any different, but i think there is a dramatic difference in a way that young people believe the government should be involved in achieving those goals. host: las vegas, a democrat, hello. caller: i do remember you from a black state of the union. guest: yes, the state of the black union. caller: i did not understand what you were representing a

bedtime. i'm getting a little more information right now. i live in las vegas and i am in a diverse city. i want to know, how can i be introduced into this, and what can i start to do to put my ideas out? i do have a lot of ideas and i do see a lot of things going on. i watched c-span a lot. i watch fox news and msnbc and i keep aç with politics allot. i see things going on, especially -- of course, our senator, john ensign, is going to his being here. -- during through his thing here. i am only 24 years old and i'm trying to open the door way. seeing you, of course, a woman of color, that has inspired me. i want to know what to do. host: two questions for you --

what you do in vegas and why are you a democrat or a progressive or however you identify yourself? caller: number one, i am a full- time cashier at a store. and i'm going back to school for my associate's degree in h.i.t. second, i am considered a democrat, but lately, have been pretty independent because it does not seem -- i do not like to be in the fight of the red and blue. i like to feel the person, not the color they represent or the name they represent. i do believe in the democratic values, but i also believe in some conservative values also. host: all right, thanks for calling in this morning. thanks for watching. erica? guest: that guest was representative of a we talk to young people. progressive, yes, i am progressive because i believe in

these particular policies and this is what i support, but you know, conservative on some issues. this candidates i like and this candidate i do not like. i think that is a generational shift in how we view politics. it is not so much red or blue, but the values of specific policy. as to how you can make your voice heard, there are so many different ways. i do not know if you write or blogging, especially with the use of the internet, there are so many different ways to get your views out there but more importantly than just getting your voice and ideas out there is actually taking action. contact your local representative and saying, this is what i am looking for, how can i make this happen? host: leon, a of bill california -- leon, california. caller: did you see a big change with gore or after the election

-- before or after the election? guest: we saw both. it was said that young people only got in -- involved after the election. that is not true. this has been starting as far back as 2000. however, there has been an explosion of young involvement since the election. and that is great because it is not just about the election or obama. host: campusprogress.org is the website. washington, d.c., july 10, 2009. i hereby appoint the honorable anthony d. weiner to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain. the chaplain: would you please

bow your head in prayer? as the challenges of winds change across our beloved nation, we ask you to empower and encourage our leaders. release in them vibrant faith in your word and grant them supernatural wisdom to solve the daunting problems facing our country and our world. lord god almighty, only you can lead us out of darkness and only in the light of your redeeming love. open your eyes that we may see and your ears we may hear what your holey spirit is saying in these -- holy spirit is saying in these trying times. anoint us with power, love and sound minds. establish within us the tenacious resolve needed to overcome any obstacles inspired by the enemy of our souls. father, please bless and encourage the members of this house, their families and staff members as they seek your counsel, speak tenders words of encouragement and direction in their hearts.

may they feel renewed and enlightened. and as they worship, let them experience your transforming appearance and love. all this i pray in the name of him, who is the light of the world. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the pledge of allegiance will be -- 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 gentleman from alabama, congressman bright. mr. bright: 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 further one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: good morning, mr. speaker. i request permission to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: one of the tragic and laughable conseats of the entire health care debate is that people love their for-profit health insurance companies. so hands off the private insurers. these are the same insurance companies whose premiums, co-pays and deductibles are forcing millions of americans into poverty. 60% of all u.s. bankruptcies are tied to people not being able to pay their hospital bills. and most of these people were insured. but people love their insurance companies. now, everyone knows that insurance companies make money not providing health care. but people love their insurance companies. so we have to leave them in a game, right? people love for-profit insurers, so government ought to give the insurance companies

a bailout and subsidize private insurers because people love their insurance companies, right? well, i don't think that people love for-profit insurance. i think people want a not-for-profit system that guarantees all americans health care. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from south carolina, for what purpose do you rise? mr. wilson: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, democrats are beholden to the failed policies of big government. that is why they refuse to acknowledge the commonsense proposals house republicans have provided to make this nation stronger, energy more affordable and americans healthier. rather than have a reasonable debate that the american people deserve, democrats want to spend their time presenting false choices. but despite the tired rhetoric we hear from the other side of the aisle, house republicans continue to offer commonsense solutions to improvehe

economy and create jobs, through relief for families and small businesses. we are fighting for patient-first health care solutions that will help americans afford insurance, protect the doctor-patient relationship and keep washington out of the private health care decisions. we are standing up for the middle-class families who can't afford a massive national energy tax. the american people deserve a debate on the ideas, not more rhetoric and false choices from this administration and their allies. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. bright: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bright: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor two very talented law enforcement officials in my district. last week greg campbell and darrell bailey received the highest honors in their respective fields from the alabama district attorney's association.

greg received the brad morris memorial d.a. of the year award. and he served in the covenant county d.a.'s office since 1992 and was elected to the district attorney's office in 2004. and darrell began in 1997 and served as chief deputy district attorney since 2002. he was named assistant district attorney of the ar and he has prosecuted capital murders as well as domestic violence cases in his district. again, congratulationses to greg, along with his wife, julie, and sons joseph and charlie, and to darrell bailey and his wife, tracey and sons and their dedication -- dedicated service to our communities. i yield back my time, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, for what purpose do you rise? mr. burgess: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. are we running out of doctors

is a question posed by the texas medical association last year. the united states population continues to grow and there is concern that there may not be enough physicians to care for americans. if we do nothing to assist the training of new physicians, waiting lines will grow longer, lapses in treatment will occur and many of our smaller and rural communities will be at risk of not having physicians. as they enter training in medical school and continuing assistance throughout their residency in high-needs speshts and medically underserved areas to make certain when you need help your doctor is in. two bills, h.r. 914 and h.r. 916, bipartisan bills to help offer incentives for physicians to practice in rural and underserved areas of the country, helping to ensure that health care coverage actually equals access to a doctor for all americans. all of the recent discussion on health care reform has been on cost and coverage, but it matters not if there are not enough doctors for america's patients. ensuring that our nation has a strong physician work force is

critical and must be part of this national health care debate. for more information, please visit my website, healthcaucus.org. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cohen: mr. speaker, today i rise to applaud the efforts of ghana in promoting good governance and civic participation. president obama will wrap up the third leg of his international trip in ghana. he'll be there today and i'm reminded the important role this democratic nation plays to the international world. ghana is an active participant in the united nations and the african union. in its region has been extremely active in international peacekeeping. ghana, the first state to gain its independence, has shown it's a stable nation whose government and people are accountable to one another. these acts are a good first step in developing future relationships between us and ghana. one of my constituents, five-time karate champion, fulfilled his lifelong dream by

visiting ghana in 1998. the champ visited acra and its changed life. after returning to memphis, he developed his education and enlighting people about the cultural and importance of africa as a continent and ghana. showcased african artifacts, fabric and art. this weekend on friday and saturday both, he'll be honoring africa at his home and inviting the public and having a fashion show and an african dinner. i'll be there. next week -- next year i'll visit ghana and hope to develop trade between our city, ghana, and our nation. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. paulsen: we must not forget we are here for one reason, to serve. thankfully i've constant reminders of that spirit of service throughout my district. during the past week i visited two magse service organizations where i had the great honor of joining their efforts. interfaith outreach and community partners helps people

who are facing a crisis, whether it be sudden job loss or dealing with serious health care issues. along with operating a local food shelf, they offer emergency financial assistance to those in need. feed my starving children provides hand-packed meals formulated specifically for children suffering from malnourishment and starvation. they ship those meals to over 60 countries, partnering with like-minded organizations worldwide. they've developed and helped children regain their health. the spirit of service embodied by these employees and volunteers at these organizations is something we should all be proud of and something we should strive for each day. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlewoman from pennsylvania, for what purpose do you rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. schwartz: finding uniquely american solution to our nation's health care challenges means expanding access to high-quality health coverage, containing health costs,

improving the quality of care and achieving better health outcomes. to achieve these goals we must think in new ways about how to bridge the current system's fragmentation, encourage coordination, and promote collaboration by health care providers. meaningful health care reform requires that we expand delivery of care models that encourage teamwork among providers, improve efficiencies and ensure that americans get better value for their health dollars spent. this includes patient centered medical homes and greater access to primary care. we should also expand opportunities for doctors and hospitals, including those based in community and academic medical centers to design, implement and evaluate such models of care delivery. i've introduced the health care zone act to create and expand these innovative models of care. when we provide incentives to payers and providers to work together to improve care to communities and patients, we will undoubtedly see better health care, better health care outcomes and lower costs for all of us. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask permission to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, at some point every american will see a doctor or require some form of emergency care, whether it is the birth of a child or an aging parent sick with cancer. families are praying for the best health care possible for their loved ones. but right now democrats are pushing for a government takeover of health care that would severely limit many patient's access to lifesaving treatment. house republicans know that health care run by government bureaucrats doesn't work because it's been tried and failed in other countries. tragedies result when government controls health care and makes decisions best left to doctors and their patients. republicans will offer a better plan for health care reform, one that provides patients and their families with the peace of mind that comes with having the care they need when they need it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. the gentlewoman from maine, for what purpose do you rise? ms. pingree: to address the

house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. pingree: mr. speaker, in maine we are witnessing a birth of an industry, a clean energy industry that will supply the reunusual energy we will need to grow our economy. in maine we have the people, the technology and the resources to develop and grow this industry. last week maine hosted the international energy ocean conference where hundreds of clean energy experts from around the world gathered and saw firsthand how serious our state is about developing renewable energy. and also last week the maine wind industry initiative went public, and we organized the supply chain from large organizations like bath iron works to smaller companies that specialize in precision composite manufacturing. mr. speaker, maine has an important role to play in maine's clean energy future, and maine people are ready to be part of it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the government control crowd is pushing for universal government takeover of health care. they say only doctor uncle sam can cure the high cost of medicine. well, one way to keep down the cost of health care that no one dares mention is to secure the borders. the flood of illegals coming here for free health care services cost taxpayers billions every year. california spends $1.5 billion a year in medical costs just for illegals. no wonder they're going broke. texas spends $700 million a year and virginia spends $100 million a year and they're not even a border state. that doesn't count the cost to hospitals that treat illegals. hospitals aren't allowed to check citizenship, so illegals use expensive emergency rooms to treat minor ailments. the hospitals then must charge more to citizens and legal immigrants just to stay in business. illegals also drive up the cost of medical insurance for everybody else. mr. speaker, if we are -- if we stop paying for medical coverage for illegals, then citizens and legal immigrants could obtain affordable health

care. americans should not be forced and coerced to pay for the health care of people illegally in the united states. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine rise? ms. pingree: by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 622 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the chair may declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3082, for consideration of department of veterans affairs and related agencies for fiscal year ending 2010 and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

all points of order are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. general debate shall be divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of appropriations. after debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read through page 58, line 6. notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, except as provided in section 2, no amendment shall shal be in order except the amendments printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debated for 10 minutes equallied divided and controlled by the proponent and

an opponent and shall not be subject to division of the question in the committee of the whole or the house. all points of order are are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. the committee will rise and report the bill to the house along with such amendments as adopted. the question of their adoption shall be put to the house en grosse, and not divided. without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section two, after disposition of the amendments specified in the first section of the resolution, the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations, or their designees, each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate which shall be controlled by the proponent. section 3, the chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered

by the chair of the committee on premises or his designee. the chair may not entertain a motion to strike out enacting words of the bill. during consideration of h.r. 3082, the chair may reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule 18 and clauses 8 and 9 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: mr. speaker, i raise a point of order against h.r. 609 because the resolution violates section 426a of the budget act. it includes a waiver of section 429 which causes a violation of 462a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman makes a point of order this gentleman met the threshold burden to identify the specific language on which

social security based, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed will each control 10 minutes of debaten -- on the question of consideration. after the debate, the chair will put the question of consideration, to wit, will the house consider the resolution. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: there may well be unfunded mandates in this bill, but that's not why i rise today. i rise because it's the only mechanism we have to talk about the fact that we're bringing appropriation bills to the floor under closed or structured rules, which violates basically every -- every precept we've had in this house about openness and transparency on appropriations bills. for years and decades, appropriation bills have been brought to the floor under an open rule, allowing members to offer amendments to various sections of the bill and not be

precluded from that. but these bills are being brought to the floor all year under closed or structured rules allowing very, very few amendments. let me tell you why that's important. in the past, when republicans were in the majority, we were lacking in a lot of transparency on earmarks. i would come to the floor and offer sometimes a dozen earmark amendments on the floor to strike earmarks and i had no idea, most times, when i would come to the floor, whose earmark i was challenging. i would simply come and challenge and sometimes the sponsor would come down and defend it, sometimes they wnt. but at least -- they wouldn't. but at least i had the opportunity to challenge the earmark a there was some type of back and forth and discussion of it. now we have trands parentcy rules which is good. some of us have pushed for transparency rules for a why now we know whose earmark we're challenging on the floor. now we know because there's a name next to it.

and members are required to file out a certification letter stating that they have no financial interest in the earmark that they are sponsoring. those are good reforms. i'm glad we have them. the speaker of the house said during the campaign a couple of years ago that we were going to drain the swamp, referring to some of the corruption that had gone on, much of it due to earmarking. and i'm pleased that some of these trands parentcy rules have come into being. it's a good thing. the problem is, we've not drained the swamp. we simply know how deep the mud is. we know that we have a problem, but we have not done much to correct that problem. let me give you an example. this is the case here with this rule and the rules on other appropriation bill this is year. now we know whose earmarks are in the bills, and so -- and we

know that some of them raise questions, particularly in the defense bill that is upcoming later this month. there are numerous investigations going on by the department of justice right now, examining the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. our own ethics committee issues guidance that says that if you receive a campaign contribution in close proximity to an earmark you've sponsored that doesn't necessarily constitute financial interest. in other words, go ahead and do it. we have many examples of earmarks going out and campaign contributions flowing in to the sponsor of the earmark. we may not see that as a problem here, but clearly the justice department seems to see there's a problem with that. so what do we do here in the house? instofede allowing members to come to the floor during debate and saying what about this earmark?

what about the campaign contribution this is a seem to have been received as soon as that earmark was sponsored? as soon as that report came to the floor saying that that earmark was in the bill, why did campaign contributions flow in response to that? instead of being able to examine those things, we decided to cut off debate. so we have transparency rules where we now know whose earmark is in the bill, but we've prohibited members from actually coming to the floor to examine that. so you have some more transparency, but you've cut out accountability. now we've done a number of appropriations bills and some amendments have been allowed. very few. i think in one bill, there were more than 100 amendments prefiled and only maybe 20 or so were allowed. i, myself have submitted in one of the latest bills a dozen amendments, was only allowed to

offer three on the floor my guess is, these are going to be narrowed further and further until we get to the defense bill later this month, which we have allowed only one day of debate for. keep in mind, this is going to be a bill that will have, likely if tradition holds, more than 1,000 earmarks, hou earmarks in it. several hundred of which will constitute no-bid contracts for private companies. nearly all of which there will be a pattern of campaign contributions flowing back to the member who sponsored that earmark. this isn't -- i am not a fan of public funding of campaigns. that's not the direction we should go. campaign contributions typically flow to members who share the philosophy of that person making the contribution but when you have a pattern, as the press has duly noted, accurately noted, that as soon as an earmark is sponsored,

often there's campaign check this is a come directly to that member who sponsored the earmarks, there's an appearance of impropriety we have to take account of here in the house. our role here in the house and the role of the ethics committee, is to make sure we uphold the dignity of the institution. we simply can't do that when you have the appearance of impropriety and when you give a no-bid contract to a private company whose executives turn around and make large campaign contributions back to that member who sponsored the no-bid contract to them, you have the appearance of impropriety. it's simply wrong for us now to shut down debate on that and say, now we used to allow members to challenge these things on the floor, but now that we know there's an appearance of impropriety, we're simply going to shut down debate. we're in the going to talk

about it. we're not going to allow that debate to occur on the house floor. i would hope that these things would be talked about and discussed and vetted, these earmarks would be vetted in the appropriations committee. but clearly that is not the case. if it were the case, if these were properly vetted in the appropriations committee, we wouldn't see the scandals we've seen. we wouldn't have members of congress behind bars right now. for sponsoring earmarks. and taking money for them. now i'm not saying that that's occurring now, but that has in the past. and when we clearly haven't vetted these properly, and we don't do this body any service by cutting off debate on the house floor and saying, we're just going to turn a blind eye because there might be a problem and if we stand on the floor and debate these things, people might see there is a problem.

so it's good to have transparency rules. that's wonderful. but once you do have transparency, you need accountability. and when you cut off debate and cut off amendments coming to the floor and bring appropriation bills under closed rules, in violation of every tradition we've had in this house, then we've got a problem. it's said that people outside of the beltway don't care about process and that may be true. it's tough to make political points about process because it's tough to understand the process of this institution. but bad process always yields bad results. and bad policy it happened when we were in the majority, when we held votes open for three hours to allow leadership and others to twist arms, that violated every tradition of the house, where you're supposed to only hold votes open for 15 minutes or slightly longer, there's a problem with that.

that leads to bad results. i would submit if you shut down appropriations bills if you shut down the process allow mecks to offer amendments on the floor and turn a blind eye to what might be occurring, then you're going to have a problem. and you're going to increase the cynicism, rightfully that people have about this institution. the house of representatives, i've served here for nine years that wonderful institution. it really. is we owe this body much more than we're giving it. i would hope the leadership would have more of a vested interest in upholding the dignity of the institution instead of sweeping these things under the rug and say, let's not have debate on the house floor because people might be seeing, people might see what's occurring. with that, mr. speaker, i hope that particularly when we get to the defense bill later,

where there are going to be hundreds and hundreds of earmarks that represent no-bid contracts to private companies that we allow amendments to come to the floor to examine some of these, instead of sweeping the process under the rug and hoping nobody pays attention. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine is recognized in opposition. ms. pingree: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the gentleman from arizona has made some eloquent points this morning. i hope if he wants to resolve this issue, he'll join me in supporting the bill that is in the house right now on public financing, since both he and i come from states, arizona and maine, that have had great success with this system in removing some of the corruption from the process. i think we could make a good team on that issue. mr. speaker, we know that this point of order is not about unfunded mandates as he mentioned or even about

earmarks. it's about delaying considering of this bill and ultimately stopping it altogether. since i do come from the state of maine where nearly 1/5 of our state are veterans or active duty members of our armed services, i know this bill we're about to talk about today is extremely important and passing this rule to allow for consideration of this bill and move forward on these issues around access to health care, making sure our veterans get the benefits they deserve is extremely important to the residents of my state and certainly people across this country. i hope my colleagues will see through this attempt and will vote yes so that we can consider this legislation on its merits and not stop it with a procedural motion. that is the last thing people want to see happening in the house of representatives, is endless conversation about things that have nothing to do with the issues before us, but not moving forward on the things we care about. those who vote -- who oppose this bill can vote against it

on the final passage. we must consider this rule, we must pass this legislation today, i have the right to close, in the end i will urge my colleagues to vote yes to consider this rule, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. mr. flake: will the gentlelady yield for 15 seconds? ms. pingree: i will. mr. flake: i'm not going to call a vote on this, we're just given to little time to speak that we have to take every opportunity that we can, i appreciate the time. thanks. ms. pingree: i will ask my colleagues to vote yes on this motion and pass this important legislation today. is the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona has yielded back his time. ms. pingree: then i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. the question is shall the house now consider the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the question for consideration is decided in the affirmative.

the gentlewoman from maine is recognized for one hour. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. for purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 622. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. pingree: mr. speaker, house resolution 622 provides for consideration of h.r. 3082, the military construction and veterans' affairs appropriations act, 2010, under a structured rule. for the past eight years, our country has been engaged in two conflicts halfway around the world. the number of wounded military personnel in iraq and afghanistan has put a financial strain on the department of veterans' affairs. the veterans health

administration estimates that they will treat more than six million patients in 2010, including over 400,000 veterans from iraq and afghanistan. in addition, the consistent training, deployment and redeployment of our troops have put a significant burden on our military. h.r. 3082 appropriates over $133 billion in fiscal year 2010 for military construction, veterans programs and four related agencies. the bill provides $24.6 billion for construction and improvements to military bases, facilities and housing units. the bill provides $450 million to accelerate the modernization of trainee housing, and $2 billion to construct and maintain houses for military families. the bill also provides $200 million in additional funding for the guard and reserves to address critical unfunded requirements as a result of

prolonged and repeated deployments. maine is home to houns of guard and reservists who have made an invaluable contribution to our national defense, and i am proud to see funding included in this bill for them. h.r. 3082 also renews our commitment to redevelop closed military bases and their surrounding communities. the bill provides $7.5 billion to implement the 2005 bracc and $537 million to address an enormous backlog of environmental cleanup projects from the previous brac rounds. this is essential across the country, including the town of brunswick in my district which is experiencing economic difficulties from the closing of naval air station brunswick. while construction is vital, they are only a small portion of this bill. more than 0% of the funding is -- 80% of the funding is devoted to veterans.

the bill provides over $108 billion for veterans medical care, claims processors and facility improvements. h.r. 3082 increases in appropriations by 14% or $12.9 billion over the current level. this bill includes $45 billion for the veterans health administration with increased funding for mental health services, assistance programs for homeless veterans and innovative services for veterans in rural areas. the bill also provides $85 million for states to build and renovate extended care facilities and $3 billion to fund new technological initiatives which will increase processing time and improve electronic record keeping. and perhaps most importantly, the bill provides for a significant and historic change in the way we fund health care of our veterans. h.r. 3082 provides $48.2

billion in advanced appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for the medical services, med can facilities and medicaled a -- medical facilities and medical administration accounts. while congress has always taken on the challenges of this country, these issues have not always been shielded from partisan battles and political delays. this congress in the past few weeks has been no exception. but there are some issues which should not be subject to politics and doubt. there is no doubt that the men and women of the armed services have bravely served our country. they have fought without question and without debate, and in doing so they have sacrificed time with their families, risked their own well-being and all too often they have sacrificed their lives. by providing advanced appropriations for the health care of our veterans, we can take the steps to ensure that these benefits are not subject to politics as usual. i strongly support this rule, which provides for consideration of this essential and important bill, and i

reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: good morning, mr. speaker. how are you doing today? mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: and i appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me the time. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to a structured rule , structured appropriations rule, and also i'm opposed to how my democratic colleagues continue to shut out the minority's voice with this structured rule. before taking control of the house of representatives in 2007, our democrat friends promised the american public that this would be the most open, honest and most ethical congress in history. yet, that is not the case in the past or for the past 2 1/2 years. you heard my colleague, the gentleman, mr. flake, talking about the process, the process that's happening not just today but has been happening for now

3 1/2 years on this floor -- 2 1/2 years on this floor. the last few weeks, this democrat majority has been forcing spending bills through the house of representatives. my friends on the other side of the aisle have been using extremely restrictive rules to accomplish this legislative business. during the republican majority, the most appropriations bills considered under a structured rule in any single season was four, and that was back in 1997. this majority has set a new record forcing every appropriations bill under a strict, structured rule. so far, the democrat majority has limited debate on the six spending bills that the house has already passed, and today's bill is the seventh. mr. speaker, that is not open, honest or ethical. chairman obey said an ash -- set an eashtrear timeline to set the fiscal year 2010

spending bills, which has forced this democrat run rules committee to limit every single republican and democrats' chances to offer amendments on this floor. hundreds of amendments have been offered by all of my colleagues, and they have been rejected also. rejected in an unprecedented fashion. what the heck is the majority afraid of? why don't they want to take the normal time, the normal process ? why won't they allow for an open and honest debate, the one that they called for? mr. speaker, with that said, i would like to thank the majority and the rules committee for allowing at least my amendment to be made in order on the floor today. the care of our nation's troops and veterans is extremely important to me and every single member i believe of this body. and it's my hope that my amendment will pass on the

house floor today. but, mr. speaker, every single member should have had that opportunity, the opportunity to be able to come to this floor under an open rule to talk about the things that are important to them. today we're here to discuss the rule for the military construction and veterans' affairs appropriations act of 2009. and i note that my dear friend, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. zach wamp, is the republican lead on this bill and i'm very pleased with the work that not only mr. wamp has done but how he has led in such a way to make sure that the men and women of the military understand his dedication and devotion to this process. it's my intent to discuss the importance of the underlying bill as well as some of the concerns in the legislation. and i would also like to highlight the democrat majority's large increase in spending across the board for appropriations bills. this is unacceptable,

especially in a time of huge deficits and exceptionally high unemployment. mr. speaker, i think we should aim for a balanced budget, not unlimited spending. i think this body should have to make tough decisions and set priorities, not set the bar so high or in this case so low for just spending so much money that we cannot and do not have to make tougher decisions. this bill provides crucial funding needed for the military construction and housing funding for our troops and their families and other quality of life projects. and the congress should have to go through those projects one by one and make a determination about what is in the best interest, not only of the country but also for our military. i know that the funding priorities for all essential programs at the department of veterans' affairs and related agencies have asked for in their budgets are important. and i also know that this bill honors our nation's heroes who

are serving in our volunteer military, those who have served and also honoring those who are fallen victims as well. this bill illustrates the deep commitment that congress has to our military and to our veterans, and i do recognize that the gentleman, mr. wamp, and the gentleman, mr. edwards from texas, as they spoke to the rules committee yesterday, not only told that story but also a source of pride of how this congress needs to be paying attention to those members of our military. i join ranking member lewis and his concern regarding the ability for the v.a., however effectively absorb large funding increases provided by this bill. the appropriations committee report was critical of the slow rate of the multibillion dollar major construction account for the v.a. and points out that the spending rates are woefully slow having only spent $1.9

billion of the $4.4 billion that was appropriated between the fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2008. when you add fiscal year 2009 and this bill, that account then grows to $6.5 billion. i believe that the current funding project should be exhausted before receiving additional moneys. mr. lewis agreed also, and so did all of the republicans on the committee. mr. speaker, the bill before us today includes over a 15% increase for fiscal year 2010 spending over last year, which assists with tricare, mortgage assistance, childcare and other necessary personnel-related accounts. yet, it is important to note that a couple weeks ago congress passed the defense authorization bill, increasing defense-related funding by only

4%. this nation is at war, and my democrat colleagues only modestly increased our defense and strategic compass its. while all other -- capacities. while all other bills are increasing 10%, 15%, 19% and even 33% more than last year's levels. mr. speaker, this disparity sends a dangerous message to our enemies and one to our troops that are in the field. to help curb some out-of-control democratic spending, ranking member jerry lewis offered an amendment in the full committee that would prioritize funding increases for defense, military construction and our veterans by providing a 6% increase for these programs, a 4% increase for homeland security, and holding all other subcommittees to a very reasonable 2% increase. unfortunately, the amendment was defeated. out of the 12 appropriations

bills, this amendment would have reduced the burden on the american public by $35 billion. the american people know that you shouldn't spend what you don't have, and that is exactly what this democrat majority is doing and continues to do. according to the congressional budget office, the obama administration is on its way to doubling the national debt in five years. in doing so, it would drive the debt to g.d.p. ratio from 41% today, to a staggering 7 is -- to a staggering 71% in 2014. the congressional budget office on wednesday of this week released a monthly budget review that states that the federal budget deficit was $1.9 trillion for the first nine months of this fiscal year. c.b. ofment state this is a this is more than $800 billion

greater than the deficit record in june of 2008. the united states is looking at a record $1.8 trillion deficit this year alone. congress should be promoting policy this is a reduce spending and grow job growth in this country. unemployment continues to rise while our friends on the other side of the aisle continue to tax, borrow, and spend their way into record deficits. the congressional budget office estimates that the unemployment benefit spending is now more than 2.5 times what it was at this point last year. the current unemployment rate is over 9.5% for the first time since 1983. where are the jobs?

it's a question that should continue to be asked on this floor. where are the jobs that were promised from this economic stimulus, from this president, and our speaker nancy pelosi? mr. speaker, now is the time when the economy should be bouncing back, but this is a time when the democrat congress is forcing america to -- americans to pay for a failed trillion-dollar stimulus package. a bailout for those who defaulted on their mortgages, a bailout for those who abused their credit cards. a bailout for credit and america's bad decision making from corporate offices. a new national energy tax and a possible $1.5 trillion health care reform package that will force 120 million americans off their current health care coverage. when does the spending stop?

not today in this house. in closing, mr. speaker, every member of this body understands the importance of adequate and appropriate funding for our nation's military and our veterans and we give thanks to them. this bill provides the necessary benefits to our service men and women, their families, and our veterans and i'm proud of that. but i would continue to point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle that we cannot tax, spend, and borrow our way out of this recession. this recession is a national crisis and puts all of us at risk. rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedies with massive increases in spending. americans back home are tightening their belts and the united states congress would be

well advised to do the same. mr. speaker, i encourage a no vote on the rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine do you seek recognition? the gentlewoman many from maine, for what purpose do you rise? ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes of my time to the gentleman from colorado, mr. perlmutter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. perlmutter: i thank ms. pingree for the opportunity to speak on this rule and i want to thank my friend chet edwards and my -- my friends chet edwards and zach wamp for their leadership and hard work in crafting this bill and their unfailing support of american service members and veterans. with wars in iraq and afghanistan ongoing and in increase -- and an increasingly

high volume of men and women service members returning home, funding their needs remains a top priority. as much now as ever, congress needs to be making critical investments in construction projects, which support service members' safety and quality of life at home and on the battlefield. we must also make good on our promise to service members returning home from the war to provide them with the best health care possible and we need to aid them by fully funding the department of veterans' affairs. the bill increases funding for the veterans health administration by $4.4 million over last year, improving access to medical services for veterans for key programs, including mental health issues, homeless veterans and improves

access to health care for veterans who live in rural areas, such as those in colorado. it also provides funding for information processing, and makes possible expanded use of electronic records. i want to thank the veterans committee, the appropriations committee in taking a -- taking a good look, a hard look, at processing claims which for a long time were lagging and people are not getting their voices heard. there have been moves to make the claims much faster and more accurate. ms. pingree: i yield another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perlmutter: i would also like to thank my friends for their assistance in creating what will be a state of the art health care facility in colorado. the veterans in colorado have been promised for years and years and years they would get a facility that was equal to

the service they gave to this country. and with the hard work of the committee, the hard work of the colorado delegation, assistance from both sides of the aisle, we are going to get that facility built in colorado and with that, ms. pingree, mr. speaker, i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas, for what purpose do you rise? mr. sessions: i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from miami, a member of the rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. diaz-balart: i want to thank my dear friend from texas a great lead for the this house, mr. sessions for the time and i rise because this legislation we're bringing to the floor today includes the last installment in a project that is very important to the community that i represent.

the southern command is in the congressional district that i represent, and it is receiving in this legislation $55.4 million that completes the $237 million requires for the new headquarters of the southern command. which is extremely important to the national security of the nation and of a the hemisphere, the defense of the hemisphere and obviously to the community that i am honored to represent. personnel have contributed over $1.2 billion and other 20,000 jobs to south florida. south florida is the right place for southcom. we have been for many years working to make sure it stays

in south florida. i want to thank chairman edwards and ranking member wamp and really all of the members of the florida delegation and -- and others who have worked so hard in a united fashion to make this a reality a permanent facility for southcom. it's in a location that is leased from the state of florida for the great total of $1 a year. long-term lease, $1 a year, that's what it's going to be costing the taxpayer. i want to thank former governor bush, jeb bush, for his help in making this a reality. as well as governor charlie crist who is also -- who has also demonstrated great leadership in making this project a reality. we've worked with the county, the mayor of the city of doral, the city of doral has been

marvelous in its goppings. to general cradic, with whom we began working on this important project, and then admiral staredes, who has done a tremendous job as head of southcom, he's now leaving us to go to europe and defend that continent and now general frazier who has joined southcom as the new head. all of them have done a tremendous job along with all the men and women at the southern command and so i thank all who have had an important role in this development and wish the men and women of southcom well as i congratulate them because congress has done its job in funding the new headquarters. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlewoman from maine.

ms. pingree: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: i -- thank you, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: i thank chairman edwards and ranking member wamp for their work in crafting this legislation. as someone who represents tens of thousands of military veterans and their family, i believe we have an obligation to provide them with the benefits and treatment they deserve for their years in service. this legislation accomplish this is a by providing $109 billion for the department of veterans' affairs, a $14.9 billion increase over 2009. it's estimated the v.a. will treat more than 61.-- 6.1 million patients, including 1.9 million veterans of iraq and afghanistan. it will improve access for veterans in rural areas.

it provides vital funding to hire additional claims processers to reduce the backlog of benefits claims. these are two of the most important issues we deal with, making sure we deal with the ptsd issues which continue to be a significant problem and also make sure we have the services available to provide the large number of wounded veterans coming back from our wars in iraq and afghanistan. i was pleased to see the committee included a provision to provide advance budget authority for fiscal year 2011 for related accounts. this is a good step to ensure that they receive a timely stream of funding without subjecting it to the delay this is a can arise due to the larger budget debates. i urge my colleagues to support the passage of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: we have a lot of member of the republican

conference who want to come down and speak about this bill, but we're joined today by the gentleman, dr. beginning ree, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i stand to strongly oppose this rule on military construction and veterans affairs appropriation act of 2010. mr. speaker, this is unconscionable what the democratic majority is doing regarding these appropriations bills. i think this is about the fourth or fifth appropriations bill that we've brought to the floor with a structured rule. this is never -- this has never happened to my knowledge, in the history of this congress. these should be open rules so that every member, not just members of the appropriations committee, the 40 or 50 members that study these bills, but every single member of this body who represents 675,000 people across this country, and

these 50 states, should have an opportunity to offer amendments. i have offered 10 amendments to these five bills. not one, mr. speaker, not one has been made in order. not one of these amendments are dilatory. as an example, on this particular bill, the veterans administration appropriation, i have an amendment that says no party, no republican or democratic majority, should hold that bill hostage once it passes to put it in the form of a mini bus combining with some other legislation to pass something that we don't want to pass and hold our veterans hostage so that they don't get the pay raise they need. they don't get the benefits they need. they don't get the health care they need that, mr. speaker, is unconscionable. for that reason, i stand strongly opposed to this rule. the rule should be open and the chairman of the appropriations committee know this is a. i challenge hi b