people representing this country who want wealth redistribution. they want to take money from some people and give it to others. in fact that seems to be their entire focus. spread the wealth around. take up time on frivolous issues. don't deal with what's important. don't deal with national security because we really don't want to talk about that. that's not what's important. but that is what's important to us. and i watched the soldiers who guard the tomb of the unknowns and i had -- was given some insights into the preparation that they have for that job and how difficult it is to get it. would that members of congress had a tiny little percentage of the dedication that these soldiers have to doing their jobs. they do everything with perfection. perfection is not just the

goal, it is the standard that those people live up to. . we are falling short of the standard that our military people uphold for our country. we are so fortunate that we have men and women willing to serve and have been willing to serve since the founding of this country. and this congress is falling short of the goals that they set. i support our military. i support the funding for our military and our troops, the equipment, the medical care and all that we are going to appropriate, but i don't support this marshal law way of operating. i don't support the arrogance of this administration and this congress to bring things up at the last minute and to disregard the needs of those people.

and to put on to the bills things that are irrelevant, things they don't think they can pass any other way. what a travesty, what a shame, what a shame on this congress that we are doing this bill at the last minute and that we are putting these things on here. we should be voting on appropriations for our military and honoring them here just before the holiday. and, madam speaker, i will ask my colleagues to vote no on this same day rule, no on the next rule so that we can stop and debate this and not be against a deadline for a group of our members to go to copenhagen, adding to the carbon problem while they're going over there to talk about it. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina yields back her remaining time. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you very much, madam speaker. and thank you to my colleague from north carolina for her

thoughts. while we don't always agree, i appreciate her reminding us about the soldiers who have fallen, about their families, about her visit to the arlington cemetery. i want to concur, i had the privilege of visiting the cemetery this week. not only did i also grieve for those families visiting the gravestones of their loved ones and family members and those that were there that didn't know who served, i was proud to see the thousands of reefs that were brought down from my home state, the state of maine, in honor of the fallen soldiers, 16,000, and many people that traveled with them to make sure we showed the proper respect for our military, for our soldiers and those who served for their country in the past and virtually every day. and i want to just say that we are here today in part to talk about making sure that there is adequate funding for our military.

and, yes, we all wish that our colleagues in the senate had acted faster on this bill, that we weren't dealing with continuing resolutions, but this is the particular situation that we are in. and it greatly important that we finish our work before the end of the year, before the end of the holidays, that we recognize our soldiers, our current military and many of the other needs in this bill, many of which will be discussed as soon as we finish the debate on this same day rule. madam speaker, in closing, i just want to say the rule before us this morning simply allows the considerations of these measures to move forward. we heard a lot about the process this morning, and i want to simply state for the record, in the 109th congress before i was a member of this body the republican majority reported out over 20 rules that allowed for sam day consideration. madam speaker, -- same day consideration. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying measures before us today. these programs are too important, our constituents are

in too much turmoil to slow this process down even further. i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. ms. foxx: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine rise? ms. pingree: madam speaker, i send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 223, resolved, that

when the house adjourns on any legislative day from wednesday, december 16, 2009, through saturday, january 2, 2010, on the motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned sine die or until the time of any assembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution and that when the senate adjourns on any day from friday, december 18, 2009, through saturday, january 2, 2010, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned sine die or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution. section 2, when the house adjourns on any legislative day of the second session of the 111th congress from tuesday, january 5, 2010, through saturday, january 9, 2010, on a motion offered pursuant to this

concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it shall stand adjourned until noon on tuesday, january 12, 2010, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution whichever occurs first. and that when the senate recesses or adjourns on any day of the second session of the 111th congress from tuesday, january 5, 2010, through saturday, january 9, 2010, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it shall standed a recess or adjourned until noon on tuesday, january 19, 2010, or until such other time on that day as may be specified by its majority leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

section 3, the speaker of the house and the majority leader of the senate or their respective designees acting jointly after consultation with the minority leader of the house and the minority leader of the senate shall notify the members of the house and the senate respectively to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if in their opinion the public interest shall warrant it. the speaker pro tempore: the concurrent resolution is not debatable. th the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. foxx: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the concurrent resolution is adopted. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this is a 15-minute vote on adoption of the house concurrent resolution 223. this will be followed by five-minute votes on ordering the previous question on h.res. 973, adoption of h.res. 973, if ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules on h.con.res 160. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 223 and the nays are 188.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 223, the nays are 194.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 222, and the nays are 195. the concurrent resolution is agreed to. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 973, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 145, house resolution 973, resolution waiving a requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the committee on rules. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on

the speaker pro tempore: on the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226. the nays are 192. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 218. the nays are 202. the resolution is adopted. without objection a the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, to suspend the rules and agree to h.con.res. 160, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 160, concurrent resolution honoring the american kennel club on its 125th anniversary. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 419. the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine rise? ms. pingree: madam speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 976 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house cal tar number 146. house resolution 976. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 3326, making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. with the senate amendment thereto and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order against those arising under clause 10 of rule 21 and a motion offered by the chairman of the committee on appropriations that the house concur with the senate amendment considered in part b accompanying this resolution. the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion without intervening

motion. section 2, upon the adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the joint resolution, house joint resolution 64, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. the joint resolution shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. and, two, one motion to recommit. section 3, upon the adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 4314, to permit continued financing of government operations. all points of order of order

against consider of the bill are waived except those arising under clause of 9 or 10 of rule 21. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. and, two, one motion to recommit. section 4, upon the adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 2847, making appropriations for the department of commerce and justice and science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. with the senate amendment thereto and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21. a motion offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee that the house concur in the

senate amendment with the amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules. the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion. section 5, in the engrossment of the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2847, the clerk shall, a, add the text of h.r. 2920 as passed by the house as new matter at the end of the text proposed to be inserted by the house amendment. b, assigned appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment of the text proposed to be inserted by the house. and, c, conform provisions for short titles within the engrossment of the text proposed by the house. section d, it shall be in ordered within the remaining of

the first session of the -- that the house suspend the rules. the speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the selection of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. section 7, the requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 for a 2/3 vote to consider a report from the committee on rules on the same day it is presented to the house is waived for the remainder of the first session of the 111th congress. section 8, the chair of the committee on appropriations may insert in the congressional record and anytime during the remainder of the first session of the 111th congress such material as he may deem splantory of the senate amendment and the motion specified in the first and fourth sections of this resolution. section 9, on any legislative day of the second session of the 111th congress before january 12, 2010, the speaker at anytime may dispense with organizational or legislative

business. section 10, on any legislative day of the second session of the 111th congress before january 12, 2010, the chair at anytime may declare the house adjourned or declare the house adjourned pursuant to an applicable concurrent resolution of adjournment. section 11, a, on any legislative day of the first session of the 111th congress, the speaker may at anytime declare the house adjourned. b, when the house adjourns on the motion pursuant to this subsection or a declaration pursuant to subsection a on the legislative day of, one, wednesday, december 16, 2009, it shall stand adjourned until 6:00 p.m. on saturday, december 19, 2009. two, saturday, december 19, 2009, it shall stand adjourned until noon on wednesday, december 23, 2009. three, wednesday, december 23, 2009, it shall stand adjourned

until 10:00 a.m. on saturday, december 26, 2009. four, saturday, december 26, 2009, it shall stand adjourned until noon, december 30, 2009. five, wednesday, december 30, it shall stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on saturday, january 2, 2010. c, if during any adjournment addressed by subsection b the house has received, one, confirmation that the president has approved h.r. 3326. two, a message from the senate transmitting its passage without amendment of h.r. 4314. and, three, a message from the senate transmitting its concurrence and an applicable concurrent resolution of adjournment, the house shall stand adjourn until such concurrent resolution of adjournment. d, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the address as though under

clause 8-a of rule 1. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: madam speaker, i have a point of order because the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act. the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the legislation which includes a waiver of section 425 of the congressional budget act which causes a violation of section 426-a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. the gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. after that debate, the chair will put the question of consideration. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: madam speaker,

approximately 68 years ago on january -- in january of 1941, rayburn was elected to the house of representatives. just prior to swearing in he rose on the house floor and said, you have elevated me to a position. i must confess that it has been one of the ambitions of my lifetime. the house of representatives has been my life and my love for this more than a quarter of a century. i love its traditions. i love its precedence. i love its dignity. i glory in the power of the house of representatives. it is my highest hope and my unswerving aim to preserve, protect and defend the rights, prerogatives and the power of the house of representatives. . as speaker, he considered himself a custodian of its traditions, its precedent, and as he put it its dignity. you may ask why i'm telling

this story, why i raise this point. it's because we are about to consider a bill that endorses and condones a practice that has placed a dark and ominous cloud over this institution. this practice for lack of a better term can be called circular fundraising. it involves the awarding of earmarks which are essentially no-bid contracts in close proximity to the receipt of campaign contributions from earmarked recipients. this legislation contains more than 500 earmarks where a private for-profit company is the intended recipient. let me repeat that. this legislation we are about to consider contains more than 500 earmarks, or no-bid contracts direct the -- directed to private companies. in many cases the members of congress securing these no-bid contracts have either received or will soon receive after this legislation is enacted into law large campaign contributions from the executives of the companies and-or the lobbyist

that is represent them. by now my colleagues are well aware of the p.m.a. scandal which was largely centered on the track tiss of circular fundraising. since news broke in 2008 of the f.b.i.'s raid on the p.m.a. offices, press reports and editorials from coast to coast have raised questions about the action of that firm and the integrity of this body. showing public distrust and tarnishing the dignity of the house. just listen to what is being said off the hill and beyond the beltway. abc's news site noted that, quote, p.m.a.'s operations, millions out to lawmakers, hundreds of millions back for clients have made it for many observers the poster child for tacit pay to play politics in washington. an editorial in the "new york times" entitled political animal 101 referred to the relationship between campaign donors and the customized appropriations they are fed by grateful lawmakers as, quote, the ultimate in symbiotic

survival and cynical influence trading. an article in the kansas city star noted that, quote, the earmark gain gets a little less baffling when taxpayers consider the quote campaign donors that grease political palms. "the columbus dispatch" summed it up when they noted congress has an abysmal public approval rating of 26%, and as of early november, and the smell of quid pro quo certainly doesn't help. it isn't just limited to the domestic press. the irish times noted that, quote, europe's congressman tread a fineline between a legitimate political fundraising and influence peddling, between friendship with lobbyists and outright corruption. now a report compared by the committee on ethics in july and detailed in yesterday's "washington post" has provide add rare glimpse into the cesspool of capitol hill politics. madam speaker, i have here an article, that article referred to from "the washington post,"

dated october 30 of this year. it notes that seven members who sit on the proningses committee , the subcommittee on defense, are, quote, under scrutiny by ethics investigators. the article notes that, quote, together the seven legislators have personally steered more than $200 million in earmarks to clients of the p.m.a. group in the past two years, and received more than $6.2 million in campaign contributions from p.m.a. and its clients in the past decade. according to the "wall street journal," members who sit on the defense subcommittee had this issue, quote, received $141,000 in campaign contributions from companies that received earmarks from the law makers, unquote. here we are today, madam speaker w. a backdrop of investigations into the irk circular fundraising, but we

are poised to pass a defense appropriation bill that contains more than 500 no-bid contracts for private companies. in mid july of 2010 we will see a quarterly report from the office of congressional ethics that will shed light into their investigations, thereafter it's likely our own ethics committee will have to provide additional notice of their actions related to the p.m.a. scandal. if the future is anything like the past, additional canls will spring from the earmarks that we approve today. we are surely as the poet said, traipsing down a flower strewn path unpricked by thorns of reason. i should note that circular fundraising is not a partisan issue. both parties engage in it. and the cloud that hangs over this body rains on republicans and democrats alike. it's fair to ask, what about the dignity of this body? are we appropriately concerned that the words pay to play, quid pro quo, swamp and cesspool are increasingly

routine in articles describing the appropriations process? should we have no standard higher than whether the abuse of the process rises to the level of an indictable offense? one thing is clear, the practice of circular fundraising will someday end. the question is, who will end it? will it take us in our own initiative to clean our own house or will we wait for the justice department to launch more investigations and take further action? my own hope is that those who find themselves in leadership positions today will summon the dorment custodial spirit of those who have protected and defended this wonderful institution long before we arrived in this chamber. we owe it to them to correct the process that led to this flawed piece of legislation before us. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine rise? ms. pingree: madam speaker, i

rise to speak in response. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman claim time in opposition? ms. pingree: i rise to claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the gentlewoman is recognized for 10 minutes. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, oose my -- as my colleagues know we have been here before. this is the same point of order that has been raised against almost every appropriations measure during this congress. and each time it is used to discuss something other than its intended purpose. i would want to respond to my good colleague from arizona that i, too, share concerns about the earmarking process and i encourage him to become a co-sponsor on the fair elections bill as we have in maine, public financing takes away much of the scrutiny around the link between campaign contributions and earmarks. but once again this particular debate is about delaying consideration of this bill and ultimately stopping it

altogether. i hope my colleagues will again vote yes so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. this rule provides for enactment of legislation to fund our nation's defense, the brave men and women who serve in the military, particularly those who are currently at war in iraq and afghanistan, deserve a swift enactment of this legislation. this legislation we will take up later today will divert -- also divert tarp money to programs that create and save jobs across the country. we do this by investing $75 billion of tarp money into highways, transit, school renovation, hiring teachers, police, firefighters, in supporting our small business, funding job training, and affordable housing. and for those hardest hit by the recession this bill also provides emergency relief by extending programs like unemployment benefits, cobra, fmap, our health care funding for the states, and childcare

tax credit. those who oppose this measure can vote against it on final passage. we must consider this rule and we must pass this critical legislation today. i have the right to close, but in the end i will urge my colleagues to vote yes and consider the rule. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from maine reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: may i inquire to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman controls three remaining minutes. mr. flake: i thank the speaker. i am using procedural measure to bring up earmarks again. i'll tell you why i'm doing that. i'm doing that because this year for the first time in the history of this institution every appropriation bill that came to the floor, including this one, including the defense appropriation bill, came under a structured or closed rule with only certain amendments being offered. that's the first time in the history of this institution

where every appropriation bill has come to the floor in that manner. individuals like myself and others were only allowed to offer amendments that the other side wanted us to offer. the one that is they said we could offer rather than the ones that we ourselves would choose. i was fortunate in that i got 10 of the 550-some amendments offered on this bill, and i offered that many because that's how many no-bid contracts for private companies are contained in the bill. i thought they deserved some scrutiny. i wish that the appropriations committee was vetting these earmarks. given this it's clear that they are not. this is one of hundreds of articles out there. there is a cloud hanging over this institution because of prior defense bills. this is going to end up the same way. we are guaranteeing that there will be scandal that springs from earmarks approved in this bill. because they haven't been

appropriately vetted. and they haven't been because we weren't allowed a rule, an open rule, for people to bring to the floor amendments that they wanted to offer. i mention i was fortunate in that i got 10 of them. some of my colleagues offered multiple amendments on multiple appropriations bills throughout the year and weren't given the opportunity to offer any of them. not one. here members across the country wanting to represent their constituents and through the entire appropriations process, 12 bills this year, weren't given the opportunity to offer one amendment. because we had the equivalent of martial law on appropriation bills. why? because we were told we had to get it done we wouldn't do any omnibus bills at the end of the year. here we are, we just approved a massive omnibus bill last week and we are here today on -- because the defense bill was held just so that we could tag on additional items that people who didn't -- wouldn't want to vote for them any way would

have to because it's a defense bill. that's no way to conduct business. this institution deserves better than this. it deserves better than to have a bill that has more than 500 no-bid contracts for private companies, of which articles have been written and will be written making a cloud hold over this body. this isn't a partisan issue. this isn't where one party is right and one party is wrong. we are both doing this. we shouldn't. it will come back to haunt us as surely as other practices have in the past. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: again -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded back his remaining time. the gentlewoman from maine is now recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. i want to urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to consider so that we can debate and pass this and the other

important items covered by this rule. and 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. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized for one hour. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, by -- madam speaker, for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina, dr. foxx. 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 976. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, so ordered. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, house resolution 976 provides for the consideration of the senate amendment to h.r. 3326, house joint resolution 64, h.r. 4314, and the senate amendment to h.r. 2847. for the senate amendment to h.r. 3326, the rule makes in order a motion to concur in the senate amendment with the house amendment. provides one hour of debate controlled by the committee on appropriations and waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule 11. the rule provides for consideration of h.j.res. 64 under a closed rule. provides for one hour of debate controlled by the committee on appropriations. provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution except those

arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 11. and waives all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution. the rule provides for consideration of h.r. 4314 under a closed rule. provides for one hour of debate controlled by the committee on ways and means, provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions, waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 11, and waives all points of order against provisions in the bill. for the senate amendment to h.r. 2847, the rule makes in order a motion to concur with the senate amendment with the house amendment, provides one hour of debate on the motion controlled by the committee on appropriations and waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those rising under clause 10 of rule 11. .

provides that the engrossment of the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2847, the clerk shall add the text of h.r. 2920, as passed by the house. the rule waives the requirement of 2/3 vote to consider a rule on the same day as it is reported from the rules committee for the remainder of the session of the 111th congress. provides that the chair of the committee on appropriations may insert in the congressional record at any time explanatoy of the senate amendments and the motions regarding h.r. 3326 and h.r. 2847. provides that on any legislative day of the second session of the 111th congress before january 12, 2010, the speaker may any time dispense with organizational or legislative business. it allows for pro forma sessions until the house

adjourns sine die. and provides that on any legislative day of the first session of the 111th congress, the speaker may declare the house adjourned. madam speaker, the rule before us today allows the house to consider the department of defense appropriations act for fiscal year 2010, which is the last appropriations bill for this fiscal year. the conference agreement on h.r. 3326 provides over $363 billion towards protecting our troops abroad and taking better care of their families at home. to help protect our troops, this bill provides increased funding for the mine resistance ambush vehicle fund and the procurement of new humvees and new heavy and medium tactical vehicles. this is particularly important given the casualty rate and the difficulties our soldiers are experiencing in afghanistan. h.r. 3326 increases pay for all service members by 3.4% and

fully funds the requested and strength levels for active reserve and selective reserve personnel. it provides over $29 billion for top-of-the-line medical care, and increases funding for the wounded, the ill and the injured warrior programs. the conference agreement includes over $472 million for family advocacy programs and fully funds the family support and yellow ribbon programs. the bill also includes $20 million for the army national guard family assistance centers and reintegration programs. this bill cannot provide for a common defense without a common effort. in my home state of maine there are women and men. the skilled factory workers and

assemblymen, the world class machinists in north burick, this is a clear example of why the bills before us today are so interconnected. our economic security and our national security are inextricably linked and our economic security is still in dire straits. madam speaker, if you were sitting at a board room table on wall street today you might hear the employees from goldman sachs discussing their billion dollar profits and bonuses or citigroup talking about bonuses for their executive or that the stock marketes that gone up 60% since this spring or hear words like economic recovery or rebound. so if you are sitting at that board room table on wall street you might think that the economy is fully bounced back and out of the woods. you might believe that there is nothing but smooth sailing ahead.

but if you were at a kitchen table on main street in my home state of maine you will hear a different story. rather than talk of large profits you'll hear about bank accounts that has nothing. you might hear cutbacks on food or health care instead of hearing terms like economic recovery and rebound, you'll hear terms like high unemployment and economic debt. the economic recovery may be at hand. but for the millions of unemployed workers and thousands of small businesses who are struggling to get by, the economic recovery is still a long way off. madam speaker, in my state and all across the country, there are millions of americans who want to get back to work. but they need us to lead the -- lend the same helping hand that we gave to wall street in its time of need. the rule before us today allows for consideration of the jobs for main street act, which will move us down that road. this legislation invests in our nation's infrastructure and

puts more americans back to work by providing $48 billion to rebuild and repair our national transportation system. this investment provides measurable return. not only by creating and preserving jobs, but by literally building the foundation for a long-term economic recovery. this bill will also preserve the jobs of teachers, of police officers and firefighters. and for those who were already lost their jobs, the jobs act extends unemployment benefits for two months and maintains the current cobra subsidies. these programs, these investments, the economic lifelines have a real impact. just this week i heard from a constituent of mine who said these words, "something needs to be done. there are less than four weeks left for my husband's unemployment. after that, we won't be able to pay the rent and we will be out on the streets with a child under 2 years old. every day i wonder what's going

to happen next, and i even have nightmares. you bail out these large banks who then only raise our interest rates and lower our credit line. and for what? that doesn't help the little guy like us. do something to help us." madam speaker, we have the opportunity and we have the obligation to take the bailout money that was used as a lifeline to wall street and give that money back to the american people and those who've been hit the hardest by these tough economic times. the cobra subsidy we passed this spring began expiring a few weeks ago. if we don't act now, it will completely disappear by january 1. in my state, full payment for cobra uses up nearly 90% of the average unemployment benefit. that means an out-of-worker mainer ends up about $150 a month left after paying the full cost of their health insurance. we need to act now and fast to

make sure that main street recovers. if we do not act, we'll have only ensured that wall street keeps their bonuses while american families lose their benefits. we will have only watched wall street get rid of their debt while small businesses take on more. madam speaker, we've already put more than enough into suring up wall street. now we need to focus on creating jobs for the americans that will rebuild our economy from the bottom up. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine reserves the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from maine for yielding time. the department of defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010 is intended to provide equipment and technology for our troops. our country's greatest treasure lies in the bravery,

dedication, and the ability of our service men and women. these courageous individuals protect our freedoms every day. we thank them and we thank their families for their support, dedication and sacrifice. this bill provides top of the line medical care for our troops, including funding for from a matic brain injury and psychological health, funding for wounded ill and injured service members as well as for cancer research. this bill provides our military with a pay increase and continues efforts to end the practice of stop loss, compensating troops for every month their term of service will be involuntarily extended in 2010. this bill includes funding to provide support for our country's military families who sacrifice every day on behalf of our nation and to whom we owe a great debt. this bill provides our troops with first-class military equipment and readiness training in suring that they are fully prepared in their missions.

however, this bill contains several important and necessary initiatives, i'd be remiss if i did not mention my disappointment in the overall funding levels when compared with the increases we've seen throughout the appropriations season this year. while the bill does receive roughly a 4.5% increase over last year, this increase is not comparable to nondefense appropriations bills we have voted on this year, which average a 12% increase in funding levels. and as we have noted before, the federal government is the only unit of government to provide for our national security. this represents the long priorities of the democrats in charge of the congress and of the obama administration. increasing spending for domestic priorities by double digits while in comparison shortchanging national defense represents a dangerous wrong-headed policy that does not rightly prioritize the security of our nation.

thus, while i am pleased that several items in this bill are being funded in order to provide our troops with the tools, training and medical services they need and deserve, i'm disappointed that after increasing the funding levels for domestic appropriations bills by an average of 12%, the democrats in control decided only to increase our defense spending by 4.5%, less than half for the coming year. this is the last appropriations bill, and that is because it has been held in order for the majority to put on to it things that are not related. and i'll be discussing that a bit more. with the extent of the closed rule -- the substance of the d.o.d. appropriations bill is not the source of my concern. the extent of the closed rule before us today allows for consideration of a variety of

additional legislation that's been cobbled together without committee consideration. as my colleagues have said before, our colleagues across the aisle have gone to great lengths to shut down debate. therefore, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule so the bill can return -- be returned to the committee and brought back under regular order. and with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member of the committee on rules, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding, and i rise in support of this rule and specifically i rise in support of the jobs for main street act, which was made in order under this rule. this bill will provide $48 billion for highways, transit and other infrastructure

projects. $27 billion to hire teachers, police, firefighters, and for other job training programs. that's $75 billion for job creating programs that are proven successes and will help put americans back to work. on top of that, the jobs for main street act provides $79 billion in emergency relief funding that will go to critical safety net programs like unemployment benefits, health insurance for unemployed workers, federal matching funds for medicaid, and funding for the child tax credit. all told, madam speaker, the jobs for main street act is a good bill, one that will build on the success of the recovery act that was signed into law earlier this year and one that will put people back to work. we know that these are difficult economic times, and we realize that the american people is hurting. with the -- american public is hurting. we will continue to stimulate the economy, shrinking the unemployment rate and more importantly creating new jobs. 10 months after president obama signed the recovery act into law, we've seen real results

across the country. according to the transportation and infrastructure committee, real jobs are being created by the recovery act. and we're seeing the impact of these jobs in the unemployment figures. look at the results. because of the recovery act we've seen the creation of almost 630,000 direct and indirect jobs in the transportation industry alone. that's 210,000 direct hires alone. the result of these direct hires is a $1.1 billion payroll, is $179 million in unemployment compensation not spent, is people's insurance restored, health insurance restored and $230 million in paid federal taxes. additional jobs have been created because of the clean water and high speed rail projects, all told, the transportation and infrastructure committee estimates that the recovery act has created or sustained approximately 857,000 jobs. all this underscores the importance of public

infrastructure programs. these projects aren't for the safety and well-being of our neighbors but these are projects that puts these friends and neighbors back to work. madam speaker, this congress is acting. this house will pass the jobs for main street act, and even more jobs will be created. earlier this year, my republican friends chose politics over the needs of the american people -- over the needs of the american people, and every single one of them opposed the recovery and reinvestment act. they like the same old same old. while that was their way of thinking -- that's the old way of thinking. that way of thinking took bill clinton's accomplishments and creating a record njoumber and deficits and paying down the debt and turned it into george bush's recession, a recession that caused millions of americans jobs, a recession that -- a recession that add billions and billions to our debt. and add that debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. madam speaker, people in this

country want us to create jobs and that's what we're going to do. i yield back my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. miss fooks: -- ms. foxx: i would like to yield three minutes to my distinguished colleague from texas, one of only five c.p.a.'s in the house, mr. conyahweh. -- conaway. mr. conaway: two aspects of the rule, it sets up a vote on a trick that allows us to vote on the stimulus bill that will be coming before us later this afternoon, voting having stripped out the senate amendment to h.r. 2847 and put in place this other legislation. this trick, would not allow a motion to recommit or substitute on that bill. this legislation of some $150 billion was apparently thrown together in the dark last night, posted on the internet about 11:10. we are now 12 hours and 35

minutes or 25 minutes into being able to study this bill. again thrown together. it will increase the deficit in spite of the rhetoric that says we are going to use tarp money to do that. the intent of tarp all along was once it was paid back was to be back into the treasury to reduce the amount of money we had to borrow and/or reduce the deficit. there are two provisions in the slush fund, bill that you need to be aware of. one it creates additional billion dollar spending in the barney frank slush fund, housing slush fund, and makes acorn available to get back in the game. much to the chagrin of this body. it also replaces the $2 billion in clash for clunkers money that came out of the stimulus bill last summer. we were on the floor when the proponents of the cash or clunkers said this will not increase the deficit because we'll take it out of the stimulus money. immediately the speaker came to the floor along with others saying contrare, we'll find a replacement for that $2 billion in this bill. now the stimulus bill, first

stimulus, is up to $789 as you know we all enjoyed the cash for clunkers, but this money is back in the bill with respect to this new stimulus. the other bill i'd like to talk about is the defense department appropriations bill, this bill waives the demand, requirement, that the chairman of the appropriations committee post on the internet the earmarks and/or plusups depending how you want to call those in this bill. some 1,700 of them we are told. some good, some bad. we ought to know what's in there. they were shortly posted on the internet last night for a brief period of time and taken down. madam speaker, i would like to know what's in this bill that embarrasses the majority. they would not allow this transparency to come before us for us to look at it. like i said i'm not against for or any of those, but we don't know what they are. by not posting them until after this bill is voted on sometime between now and the indof the year we are going to be voting blind one more time at the specific request of the majority. it is your responsibility, madam chairman, through your --

the appropriations committee to have posted these earmarks on the internet so that those of us could look at them and see them. we are not going to see those. what has been stuck in here in the dark of night between last night when we passed the bill and we are going to vote on this afternoon? why is there things in there that's going to embarrass the majority? madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and against the underlying bill on this stimulus bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, a member of the committee on rules, mr. arcuri. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. arcuri: i'd like to thank my colleague from maine for yielding. i rise today in support of consideration of h.r. 3326, the department of defense appropriations act an the underlying rule. not for the reasons just stated by my friend from texas, but because the bill ensures that

our brave men and women who are in the military are paid what they deserve to be paid for defending us. they have the tools to fight the war on terror and that they are able to do the thing that we ask them to do and that is to fight terror to keep us safe. that is why i support this bill and the underlying rule. i would like to thank and commend the members of the appropriations committee in the house and senate, their counterparts, for bringing before us this bipartisan approach that puts the preparedness and safety of our troops first. and also continues president obama's pledge to put the cost of the war on the books. the bill does not include funding for an escalation of troops in afghanistan and i have heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle criticize that we may have to consider a supplemental measure to provide funds for that purpose. i want to make it very clear, there is a difference between requesting supplemental funding to address changes on the ground and simply using the supplemental appropriation act

to fund the majority of the wars in iraq and afghanistan as we have done under the prior administration. the house passed our version of the defense appropriations act on july 30 of this year. at that time we determined that the amount of spending necessary for the ongoingp operation in iraq and afghanistan. since that time our generals have stated that they believe conditions in afghanistan warrant additional troops. president obama is listening to those generals in the field and may require additional funds. however, that is what a supplemental appropriations act are intended for -- responding to changes and circumstances throughout the year, not for funding ongoing operations. in addition to ensuring that our troops have first class weapons and equipment, the bill also includes other important aspects that improve transparency and accountability of the defense department procurement process. for instance, congressional earmark account for only 1% of the total funding of this bill. in addition, for the first time

in house-senate agreement retains the requirement that has been included in every house passed appropriation bill this year that requires any earmark for a private company to be competed. i applaud the leadership of our side of the capitol to institute this important new measure of accountability in the earmark process, and i hope it will become a part of all final spending bills as we go forward. i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the bill and i thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i now would like to yield three minutes to another distinguished colleague from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. madam speaker, apparently the house is due to adjourn for the year today. but before it does, the house apparently will presume the american people -- present the american people with a number

of christmas gifts wrapped up in one nice, neat little package represented by this rule. the first christmas gift that the majority is giving the american people is the fifth, fifth increase in the debt ceiling since they took control of congress. raising the debt ceiling an additional $290 billion, more debt to be placed upon the backs of our children and grandchildren. the second gift for the american people at christmastime is, guess what? yet another stimulus bill. this one weighing in at $150 billion. i lose track, madam speaker, don't know if this is stimulus four, stimulus five, it's a little bit like those old friday the 13th movies. it just doesn't go away. the next gift, madam speaker, is kind of a recycled gift. one that they have given the

american people all year and that is unemployment. double-digit unemployment under the economic policies of this administration, under this democratic controlled congress. they continue to give the american people double-digit unemployment. the rule that is before us, madam speaker, allows for more of the same. i would hope, i would hope that one day for the sake of the country that my friends on the other side of the aisle will realize that you cannot spend your way into more jobs. you cannot borrow your way into more jobs. you cannot bail out your way into more jobs. that is not the recipe. we suffer from double-digit unemployment not through a lack of bailouts and spending and debt, which is the hallmark of this congress. if we truly want to create jobs, madam speaker, the first

thing we have to do is show the american people that we are serious about this sea of red ink. nobody wants to launch a new business enterprise in an economy that's going to be socked with debt and taxes and possible double-digit inflation as the debt has to be monetized. the uncertainty and cost of a nationalized health care system which is going to cost the american people their freedoms, their opportunities, not to mention $1 trillion. a $600 billion energy tax passed by the majority. last week we just passed the perpetual wall street bailout and credit contraction act of 2009. madam speaker, where does it all end? if we want jobs, we have to reject the failed policies. this rule brings more of the same. let's vote against the spending, against the debt, against the bailouts. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves.

the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. before i yield to one of my colleagues i do want to mention one point of concern i have in the bill. the conference agreement on h.r. 3326 is the first step towards cutting wasteful defense spending, but it is by no means perfect. and it is by no means the last step we must take. the conference agreement provides $465 million for development of an alternative engine for the f-35 joint strike fighter. this provision represents business as usual in washington by providing funds for an engine that's already being built and built well. there is no need to devote our precious federal dollars to a wasteful alternative engine program at this time when americans are struggling to find jobs to pay their medical bills and put food on the table. every defense dollar that we spend wisely contributes to our national security and every defense dollar we waste hampers our economic security. madam speaker, i would like to yield two minutes to the

gentleman from illinois, mr. hare. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. hare: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying bill, the jobs for min street act. first i'd like to thank all the members of the democratic leadership for their hard work in putting together a jobs bill, the jobs for main street act. it is an important step forward. as we all know since december of 2007, our nation has faced the greatest economic crisis since the great depression. as a result, 15 million or 10% of our americans are out of work. the jobs for main street act is an important first step in re-employing america and making our families more secure. specifically i want to call attention to several principles that i have championed that have been included in this bill. such as extending the cobra subsidy, this is a critical safety net for the millions of unemployed across this country. protecting and expanding our nation's critical public work force with teachers, police, firefighters. putting people to work to

improve and rehabilitate our federal, state, and local public lands. i'd also like to commend chairman oberstar for his leadership on this transportation and infrastructure portion of this bill. there is no better way to invest in our economy and create jobs than by investing in infrastructure. for example, only 4% of the recovery act went to programs under the jurisdiction of chairman oberstar. however that 4% has created 25% of the jobs under the recovery act. this is a testament to the effectiveness of investing in infrastructure. over half of this bill is dedicated to investing in our roads, bridges, trails, transit systems, airports and waterways. madam speaker, i look forward to working with leadership to ensure that this congress passes this bill and takes further action in the next session to put americans back to work. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i'd now like to yield to a

third colleague from texas who has come to speak against this rule, one of the most fiscally conservative members of the house, mr. culberson. the speaker pro tempore: how much time does the gentlewoman yield? ms. foxx: such time as he may consume. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: thank you, madam speaker. slow down for just a minute and think about what is happening here today. the house is scheduled to vote today on a package of four massive bills, spending over $1.1 trillion hard-earned tax dollars. that will be paid for by additional debt that our children must repay. worst of all these bills were only posted on the internet last night for the american people to see about 11:00. so literally 13 hours for the public, for the taxpayers, for the members of congress to read

these bills, spending over $1,100,000,000,000, and the only copy of the bill before us, the defense bill anyone can find, is the one on the clerk's desk. these bills were put up there 13 hours ago. they are not even outside in the house lobby. it's always tradition at absolute minimum that members of congress would be able to physically read the bill outside in the lobby, but this is all i found. this empty box outside the lobby is all we have. before us today. . why the rush? why are we rushing to do this? so speaker pelosi can catch a plane to copenhagen. we're spending $1.1 trillion on top of the $6.7 trillion that

this liberal majority has already spent this year. that means in the course of 12 months this liberal majority in congress has already spent, in this house, nearly $8 trillion in 12 months. it's unprecedented, it's unsupportable, it will bankrupt this nation and crush our children under a burden of debt that they cannot possibly repay without crushing tax burdens and massive sack nices. we may be the first yen ration in american history that leaves our children worse off than we -- than the world we inherited from our parents. it's unacceptable and outrageous. and as my colleague and i introduced legislation earlier this year to require the house to lay these bills out, every bill, for at least 72 hours before they can be voted on on

the floor. i want to ask the speaker a simple question. what's more important, giving the american people time to read these bills to give the members of congress time to read these bills, or to catch an airplane to a global warming conference? that's what's going on here today. i would ask speaker pelosi in all sincerity, madam speaker, please, cancel your flight. give the american people time to read these spending bills and it's time to stop forcing congress to vote blind. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington a member of the committee on premises, mr. dicks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two

minutes. mr. dicks: i wanted to discuss a change made this year in the appropriations process. i want to read it into the record to correct something said earlier. each item specified in this act, the defense bill, or the explanatory statement regarding this act, also identified in senate report 111-74, and intended to award to a for-profit entity, shall be subject to acquisition regulations for full and open competition on the same basis as each spending item intended for a not for profit entity contained in the budget request of the president. exceptions, they shall not apply to any contract awarded by a means that is required by federal statute, including for a purchase made under a mandated preferential program, two, pursuant to the small

business act 15rk u.s.c. 631, or in an amount less than the simplified acquisition threshold described in section 302-aa of the federal property and administrative services act of 1949. any congressionally directed spending item specified in this act or the explanatory statement regarding this act that is intended for award to a for-profit entity and is not covered by the competition requirement specified in section a shall be awarded in full and open competition except any contract awarded under full and open competition that remains in effect in fiscal year 2010 shall be considered to have satisfied the conditions of full and open competition. in this section, the term congressionally directed spending item means the following a congressionally directed spending item as

defined in rull xli-5 of the standing rules of the senate a congressional earmark for purposes of rule 21 of the house of representatives. i think this clarifies the misstatement that was made previously by the gentleman from arizona. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. the west continues to be well-represented here. i would like to yield three minutes to our colleague from arizona, mr. flake. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona for three minutes. mr. flake: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i had hoped the gentleman would rise and explain what he just explained. now i will gladly yield him such time as he needs to explain why this would only apply to earmarks by house

members alone and why the competition requirements don't apply to earmarks that are jointly requested by a house and senate member? if we're hanging our hat on language that requires that these earmarks be subject to competition, then surely we would extend it to anything that had our name on it, but we're not. my understanding is that the language only applies to those earmarks that are requested solely by a house member and that if you have a senate member on your earmark request, then it is not subject to competition. the language just explained does not apply to it. so you can't have it both ways. i will argue it doesn't matter anyway because right now if you talk to the department of defense, and i have, we've held meetings in my office with the procurement officials, we've asked them, how does this work when the earmarks come over?

are they subject to competition, they said, yes. we follow the rules. yes. -- yet, when you ask them to do a cursory examination of those earmarks requested in prior years, you'll find an uncanny alignment, as you might expect, between the intended recipient and those who actually good the earmarks in the end. you can say, yeah we're going to subject these to full and open competition, the department of defense already says that and these articles i talked about, the scandals currently under way are under a policy where the department of defense already says we subject these to full and open competition. but let me tell you if an earmark comes over from a member of congress, particularly those on the appropriations committee, i should explain that the majority of ease earmarks, a -- of these earmarks a disproportionate number are

from the powerful members on the appropriations committee, believe me, those procurement officials at the department of defense take that into account. they know who butters their bread and they know they better award this contract to the intended recipient or they might not get funded the next year. if that's not the case, why have we seen so much, an uncanny alignment between the intended recipient and those who got the earmark in the first place? first, again, let me say, if we're hanging our hat on the language that these are subject to competition, why wouldn't we apply it to every earmark that's contained in this bill. doesn't apply to senate earmarks nor does it apply to earmarks requested by both senate and house members. are we going to say, we're going to subject these to competition and these others, yeah, it's ok, that doesn't work. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: i yield to the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: this is an initiative mr. obey put into place this year, this is the first year we've had in initiative. it says if an earmark is directed to a for-profit company there lub full and open competition. in the conference that was extended to the united states senate as well system of again, the gentleman from arizona misspeaks and misleads the house of representatives on a very important and very sensitive matter and there ought to be competition on these things and i thought the gentleman would recognize how important it was and compliment mr. obey for his initiative, but i dent hear that. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: madam speaker, having

a charge of misspeaking is very serious. i would like therefore to allow the gentleman from arizona to speak again on the rule. for such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. ms. flake: i thank the gentlelady for her indulgence, this is important. i ask the gentleman, if i yield him time to respond, is it your understanding that this language, this new competition language, applies to senate earmarks as well as earmarks requested by both house and senate members. mr. dicks: it is my understanding that this language applies both to the house and senate earmarks for for-profit companies requiring competition. there are some little variations on -- because of section 8-a and other restrictions that the senate still claims that should be

followed, but this is a major step forward and i think mr. obey deserves great credit for this. i just want to clear this up. on for-profit entities, there is full and open competition on these earmarks. i yield back my time. mr. flake: let me simply say, if that is the case that is in conflict with the agreement we understand to be in effect. the agreement we understand to be in effect, what i was told is that only those earmarks that are requested solely by a house member have the language that applies to competition. if it is an earmark requested by both a house and senate member, it does not apply this year and supposedly it will next year, though there are no guarantees and the senate didn't agree to this at all. that's what we understand. if there is some difference

there, then please let's have the chairman of the appropriations committee explain it. but again, the question is, that language is so important, why wouldn't it apply across the board? and doesn't it strike a little bit -- strike everybody a little bit funny that you have an earmark that when the member requests it from the appropriations committee, they say this earmark of this amount, $500,000, $2 million, whatever, is to go to this company at this address. it's that specific. it goes to that company at that address. now the appropriations committee will say, we're just providing a look-see, so the department of defense can say, well, we didn't know that that company existed, but now we do. and we're doing nothing more than give themming a look-see and giving them a chance to see which companies those are. i think that doesn't quite pass the test.

mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? i think the gentleman is trying to confuse himself. clearly what we're talking about here is that there has been a decision to have full and open competition. the gentleman has been an advocate for that, it doesn't matter how it's written in, the law says full and open competition, so please don't try to confuse yourself and the house and the american people. this is a reform you've been advocating for. you ought to be saying, thank you for doing it. and it's the right thing to do. but you'd rather have the issue than -- and try to cause trouble than to resolve something. i yield back my time. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for explaining my motives. what i would like to see is no more earmarks in the defense bill because when you have earmarks, you don't have full and open competition. mr. dicks: the gentleman knows

full well -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona crols the time. mr. flake: i would not like to see in-bid contracts for private companies in the defense bill. when you have that, i don't know how in the world you can say we have full and open competition. like i say, i don't believe that language means much at all. to the extent that you believe it does mean something, at least you should apply it across the board, not just to earmarks sought by members of the house solely, but those earmarks that are requested by senate members as well. how can we say with a straight face, hey, we're doing things right because we're applying that competition language to us, but all you have to do is get a senate member to request it along with us yao and you don't have to subject it to full and open competition. it doesn't make sense, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady for her indulgence and i appreciate the discussion and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina reserves. the chair reminds members to

address their remarks to the chair. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas -- ms. pingree: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the distinguished gentlelady from maine and thank the speaker. i wish to start by wishing america a merry christmas and to other americans a happy holiday and i'd like to give my thanks to the rules committee and the staff of the rules committee for doing an enormous job. our chairwoman, louise slaughter, has been at the forefront of the major successes we have had on behalf of the american people. . i offer my congratulations to mr. murtha as well. many of us today support the

definance appropriation bills even as we consider the next steps in afghanistan. but why am i standing here today to be able to speak to my colleagues and the american people? one, because history gets distorted. we are in this predicament because the last administration of republican leadership took away our surplus that had been created in the 1990's. they dashed and dashed and destroyed and devastated. isn't it interesting that you come now to complain about a leadership, president and kemic -- democratic leadership in congress that have had to make the political sacrifice to ensure that americans can work? so let me just set the record straight. the american recovery and reinvestment act that secured no republican votes, created 3.5 million jobs, and gave 95% of american workers a tax cut. and today as we speak we are cutting the job loss every

single month. why i'm standing here today is because i'm enthusiastically supporting this rule because we will then pass a jobs bill. and i will be able to go home to those in the 18th congressional district who told me over the thanksgiving holiday as i was participating in feeding those on thanksgiving day, i lost my job for a major corporation. i'm going to tell them that because of infrastructure funding, $48 billion in fact, we will be able to invest in highways and mass transit, $1 billion in federal investments to highways, creates 27,800 jobs. is there something wrong with that? the wrongness of it is that the other side is not thinking about the american people and has not had a good thought about how to invest in america. you know what this jobs bill is going to do? it's going to keep states from cutting teachers and police and firefighters and it's going to provide job training. i am proud that they have taken my ideas and many of our ideas

on work i have done on summer youth jobs. they are going to put $150,000 people -- 150,000 people in job training positions and one of the ideas that can be incorporated that i have put forward in a bill is to make sure that people can keep their unemployment while they are in a job training and receive a stipend. dignity, jobs is what we are talking about. and then my small business friend, i want you to know that you will have the opportunity to engage -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: an additional 30 seconds. ms. pingree: 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 15 seconds. ms. jackson lee: answer your question about getting loans. but the big thing is, riverside general hospital because of the astuteness of those who work on the defense bill, will get $1 million for the first time. a african-american hospital, to help our soldiers with posttraumatic stress disorder. merry christmas to america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i want to say thank you to our colleague from arizona for his very valuable input on the issue of earmarks and say that i join him in opposing all earmarks in any of our bills until we fix this broken system. i think what we need is a study of how these specific earmarks then get awarded stins there seems to be open competition. i would welcome the majority to institute such a study and just see how open the competition is. i now yield three minutes to my colleague from iowa, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa for three minutes. mr. kidge: thank you, madam speaker. -- mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady from north carolina for yielding. before i take up the subject that i came here to talk about, i can't help but remark that the gentlelady from texas said that the people on our side had

not had a good thought about how to invest in america. not a good thought. i'll submit, that would be a direct quote, i would submit that the good thoughts are right there on the immigration naturalization flash cards. what is the economic system of america? flip the cart over, if you want to be naturalized as a citizen you need to answer the question this way, free enterprise capitalism. free enterprise capitalism has been the enemy of this administration. tim geithner said that free enterprise capitalism is what brought us to the brink of ruin. can you imagine tearing asunder the very foundation, one of the principal pillars of americanism, somehow hadn't had a good thought about america. and i'd ask again, why do we need african-american hospitals? why can't we have hospitals that take care of god's children? why can't we all be members of the human race? why is there any legislation that's brought into this

congress that sets aside special privileges for people based upon the -- their skin color rather than the content of their character? i think this is a wrong path. we have to embrace each other as individuals. this wallowing in self-guilt has gone on and on, madam speaker. and we had a president clinton that went and apologized to entire continents. now we have a president obama that has apologized to entire continents as well for americanism. in this bill on page 109 of the bill we have another apology. apology from congress that says, first it's got good things in there. talks about native americans, recognizes special legal and political relationship that indian tripes have in the united states. that's good. it commends the native people for the thousands of years they protected this land. part of that's real good. part of that record's not real good. this doesn't say so. the third piece says it recognizes there have been years of official depp pra

dayses, ill-conceived policies, and breaking of covenants by the federal government regarding indian tribes. that's true. there's also another side to that thing that isn't negative. now it says, 109 of the bill, it says we as congress ask the president, the united states, acting through congress, actually, to apologize on behalf of the people of the united states, to all native people for the many instances of violence, mistreatment, and neglect inflicted upon native people by he the people of the united states. as if there were no guilt on the other side. madam speaker, i direct the attention of this body to the declaration of independence and there in paragraph 29 of 32 as i count them it says, and i'm going to stop short of violating the political correctness, but i'm going to read directly from the declaration of independence. speaking of george, excited domestic insurrections among us and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our for what purpose does tiers. there i stop.

and commend the text of the declaration of independence which apparently violates this bill. i urge a rejection of this rule for this and many other reasons. i yield back. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. cummings: thank you very much, madam speaker. i rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill, the jobs for main street act. as a member of the transportation and infrastructure committee and chairman of the coast guard and maritime transportation subcommittee, i have seen hundreds of thousands of jobs created through infrastructure and funding. i have seen improvements created by that funding slow the recession and help begin our recovery. however, that recovery is simply not complete. we still have far too many americans without jobs. the unemployment and food stamp

extensions in this bill are crucial to help those who are in need or who have lost a job through no fault of their own. these fall lifelines can be immense to those who are suffering. for some americans who still face foreclosure, this funding can help keep them in their homes. so that the loss of their job does not result in the further devastation of an entire family. finally, the jobs we create through our work today must be open to all americans, including the minority communities who are being particularly decimated by unemployment, foreclosure, and crisis of credit. before we pass the recovery act, i requested bonding assistance allowing small and disadvantaged businesses to obtain the insurance they needed to win contracts. to become prime contractors and to hire workers. the bonding assistance program created in that act led to much needed jobs and minority communities and so i requested further such assistance in this act. the $20 million included in

this bill today will ensure that jobs created will be available to i ever american and every business and every community so they can compete on an inplaying field. i support the fair competition for government projects and the jobs that they will create. i encourage all my colleagues to support the underlying bill and the rule that will bring this matter to the floor. with that, madam chair, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maine reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i'm sitting here listening to the crocodile tears, particularly of my colleague from maine, who spoke earlier about the many people in her district who want to have jobs. and it is the very molcies -- policies that she and her party have passed in this session of congress that have caused those people to lose their jobs. what we need to do is let the american people keep their

money. their money. it is not the government's money. it is the hard-earned money of those who work in this country. let me point out even president obama has said, and i'm going to quote, november 18, 2009, it is important to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt even in the midst of this recovery that at some point people could lose confidence in the u.s. economy in a way that can actually lead to a double dip recession. but what are we doing today? adding to the debt with the support of the president. do they think the american people are not paying attention to -- attention? to the contrary, more than ever the american people are paying attention to what's going on in this congress. and they have spoken in many, many ways. they have spoken through the

polls. they have spoken through election polls in terms of where they are voting. and they are telling us every day this is not what they want this congress to be doing. they also are aware of the fact that this congress is breaking every promise that it made before the majority was elected. and i want to say with apologies to elizabeth browning and her sonnet number 43, how many ways can we count the promises that have been broken? many, many ways. too many ways to talk about today. but let me give some examples. one from majority leader hoyer. i think it's a very important pursuit. our committees and members are served on both sides of the aisle by pursuing regular order. regular order gives to everybody the opportunity to participate in the process in a

fashion which will affect, in my opinion, the most consensus and best product. again from senator -- a letter to majority leader hoyer from members of the democrat blue dog and new democratic caucuses which said committees must function thoroughly and inclusively and cooperation must ensue between the parties and the houses to ensure that our legislative tactics enable rather than impede progress. in general, we must engender an atmosphere that allows partisan games to cease and collaboration to succeed. we look forward to working with you to restore this institution. and what are we getting? just the opposite. even speaker pelosi endorsed the idea of regular order with her spokesperson stating at the time, the speaker prefers to consider legislation in regular order and the committees of jurisdiction held -- hold hearings and markup on the current economic recovery bill.

he said, in a few cases because of urgeent financial crises, the leadership agreed to use expedited procedures. less we -- lest we forgot promises the democrats made which promised that bill should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee markups. with appropriate referrals to other committees. members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill. we pointed out it's blare been 12 hours since the bill, the bill underlying this rule, was presented. bills should come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives including a substitute. as mr. dreier pointed out earlier, the first congress in the history of this country

that has not allowed that. members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10:00 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day. we can go on and on and on about promises broken. the president said bills would be available for 72 hours. the president promised he would post bills five days before signing them. he said he would read every bill line for line and he said there would be no earmarks. he would veto bills with earmarks. this is a bill with 1,700 earmarks in it. is he going to veto the bill? i doubt it. so here we have one promise after another that's broken. how can the american people believe anything that is said by the other side after this?

. again, they're paying attention, i know they're paying attention, and there will be consequences to the fact these promises have been broken. madam speaker, i would like to enter into the record a letter written by republicans, 173 of us, speaker pelosi on december 11, 2009, asking that we not continue this practice. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine is recognize. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to discuss at least one thing my colleague and friend from north carolina mentioned. i'm a northerner, i can't claim to be an expert on crocodiles. but i have seen when you're talking about crocodile tears

you're talking about being insincere and i just want to say i receive letter from my constituents every day about the urgency we have to do, and i cannot get through that pile of letters without crying real tears. it's saddening to hear the problems they're going through, losing jobs and everything. i want to read one of them that is in front of me before i yield a little time to my colleague from california. this one says, my husband and i were both laid off -- my house mate and i were laid off, me in december of 2008 and she in january of 2009. we had to cash in our meager 401k's and have been thankfully for the -- thankful for the cobra subsidies so we could afford insurance in this most

harsh of times. the subsidy is about to expire and we cannot afford the huge jump in premiums. we cannot afford both the mortgage and the the insurance. we cannot afford our prescriptions and our health care will be at stake, as if things aren't bad enough we will also lose our home. please help push through the cobra extension and continuation of the arra cobra subsidy. it is an immediate fix for so many families who will surely gain employment over the next six months, now that the economy has finally taken an upswing. those are the things that make us all cry real tears and makes wasn't to pass this rule and go tonton passing this legislation. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizing the gentleman from california.

mr. mcnerney: i think we promise our constituents to do everything we possibly could to see that they were well cared for and that the government is acting on their behalf. if we are looking at a rule and whether it's going to be applied and that becomes the most important promise of all, we have fergetting about the well-being of americans, of whom there are 35 million unployed and there are tens of thousands unemployed or underemployed my promise to those people is that i will do everything i possibly can to see that they have a job. this rule allows us to get to that. it allows us to get to the point of providing a jobs program that's going to provide at least $35 billion for highways and transit, that's going to provide soom 500,000 young men and women the opportunity to have summer jobs to expand americorps so people can provide services and

employment. it's also going to take care of those who are unemployed who for no reason of their own, have found themselves out of a job. it's time for us to stand for them and it's frankly time for us to move away from the motion of just providing those unemployment benefits to providing a job. far better that there be taxpayers than tax receivers. that's what this is about. it gives us an opportunity to do that and we will do everything we possibly can on our side of the aisle to make the fundamental promise of making sure that the federal government is doing everything it possibly can to provide jobs and opportunities for businesses, for employment, and for taxpayers to actually have a job so that they can pay taxes. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognize. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to point out it's

not the role of the federal government to provide jobs. it's not our job to take money from some and give to others to try to make them dependent on the government. i urge my colleagues, madam speaker to defeat the previous question so an amendment can be added to the rule, the amendment to the rule would provide for separate considering of h. rizz 554 a resolution -- h.res. 554, a resolution to require that legislation and conference reports be available for examination for 72 hours before voting. i ask my colleagues to vote no on the previous question, the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady yields back her remaining time. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, the legislation we are considering today is about investing in jobs. it's about investing in infrastructure and it's about rebalancing our economy so it's

not just the big banks and wall street firms that benefit from an economic recovery. this bill is about helping the american family this week, the "new york times"/cbs news polls surveyed unemployed americans. not surprisingly they found that being unemployed take as a toll far beyond what can be measured in dollars and cents. half the people surveyed said they suffered from depression and anxiety. half said the recession caused them to make major life changes and nearly half said they'd seen changes in their children's behavior they know is a result of their difficult financial situation. we are not just helping men and women who have lost their jobs, who have suffered from emotional pain and indignation but we are helping their families and we are helping their children. it's time for us to invest in the jobs and policies that will get the american dream back on track and restore the promise of opportunity and prosperity forern. i urge a yes vote on the

previous question and on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate having expired, the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. ms. foxx: madam speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house resolution 976, if ordered, and suspension of the rules with regard to house resolution 905. s that 15-minute vote. -- this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] ay which we

covered live on the c-span networks, what do you think was accomplished with that rally

yesterday? >> well, we're really upset with the fact that congress continues to pass bills creating a tax burden on the taxpayers. our biggest focus should be jobs. coming into office i wish the obama administration had focused on the jobs. the idea is that you need to increase your tax base and we're focusing more on these entitlement programs. so we're concerned about that. >> mr. robert says the prospect for a health bill improving. we may see a vote and possible passage within a week. if that happens what will your strategy be that the point? >> well, right now the tea party's depathered and we c5u8d for a national day of prayer. today is also our birthday, the boston tea party was this date in history. so our strategy is basically we're going to take back congress and we're looking for democrats and republicans who really care about the constitution and get back to

what signing fathers have taken from the beginning. the so called tea party movementer, my guest is the head of tea party.org. when and where and how did this start? >> i've been protesting for two years and basically i was unhappy with how the elections were going. i didn't care for either program and thought they were bad choices. i think the party can do bet tore provide people with depth of character. but after the baiut, it's the last straw. the they pushed the bailout on us rapidly without any thought process and i'm, like, i'm going to start the tea party, because 50eu6 been debating this for semple months. >> i said the tea party is the only way that has us connect around they'll be calling to restore them.

>> and a marine. host: and also educated with an associate's degree in engineering and a degree in political science, university of washington. going back, particularly to that rally. yesterday. what kind of mood, what kind of rce is coming out at an event like that? >> well, again, guest: there's a resounding voice that we're unhappy with the congress about the way things guy. i believe congressmen will push the stimulus no matter the fact that bere out there protesting. and i really don't think they care what the american interest because they feel they are comfortable in their seat ,technicaly -- guest: i think there's great people in congress and some people that don't do their job. so i regret the fact that the they would vote on a bill and

the american people are not interested. they are interest indeed jobs. if you put your priority anywhere other than squobs, you end up taking advantage of the congress. >> restore our country economically the way it needs to be. you look at the principals of the founding fathers. i think that we need to create jobs and frove is a vie want economy. i think the government has to be out of business. align themselves with special interests. we have the monopolies set up. the government was right. seemed to be -- host: how many people do you claim to have following you at tea party.org? guest: we have a coalition of groups. the coalition is in excess of 2 million members. so we're developing new coalitions all the time. from the beginning, i kind of

wanted to develop into a coalition. because i think everybody has to be held accountible. and one single entity, if that's it, maybe you're being controlled. so you need to have checks and balances in your structure. dagen: larry, republican from idb. go ahead, please. caller: ok, yes, can you hear me? yes. guest: i am so glad that people in the united states are becoming aware an more interested in what's going on in washington. caller: and i think that there's one thing that i have heard people bring up, and i cannot even understand is the democrats were quote c.e.o. for one thing and saying it's going to save money on this health care bill then the republicans say a totally different thing, saying that this is going to cost money, $1.5 trillion for

the first year and $2.5 trillion for the second year. and the democrats say it's going to savior $130 billion the next decade. then $458 billion over the next. if this is going to be a savings bill that's going to reduce the deficit. and it's going to provide all this health care. it's going to cut medicare. it's going to raise taxes. now what is the difference in the c.b.o., i mean, are they quoting two different c.b.o.'s? or the same? host: thanks. guest: liars figure and figures lie so each party is going to take the information they were given and present it in a way that's more favorable to them. so you can't ensure 30 million people and expect it not to cost you anything. there's got to be taxes in there.

we're enormitying taxes in there and provide saverings which is just pie in the sky. to me, it's like prove it to me first and then maybe you have some credibility to go for that, too. host: middle town, new jersey. bonnie on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: yes. good morning. mr. robert son. i, progressives and your tea party there have a few things in common. we'd like to see jobs brought back, and if you were truly concerned about that, you'd be talking about tariffs and having things manufactured here once again and producing everything that we are capable of produceing in our nation rather than sending our jobs overseas. but as far as well, your tea party name kind of tickles me a bit.

there's a bit irony. that had a lot less to do with taxes than monopoly and the dutch trading company and tea. that seems to be the issue with the health care. our health care problems now. we have a health shurns cartel. it's very much like any other organized crime group that takes protection money. and in return gives us pretty much nothing. it has nothing to do with delivering health care. it's a middle man just like the mafia. and murderer incorporated in the days of old. and we have organized crime that's still doing the same presently. so if you're truly concerned about the american people and their interests, you would be concerned about us having affordable and accessible health care without taking back the job by a corporations that really supply us nothing.

they get incredibilityal wealthy off the pain and suffering and misery of overs and the bottom line is profits. host: thank you, caller. guest: i think you bring up a good point. if you go back 100 years ago, many corporations provided health care and a pension plan to their employees. when congress got in bed with these monopolies with businesses and health care and other things, he developed these hedge mights. and these monopolies that they've roadies in order to compete with those people who actually have an advantage because congress has gotten in bed with these special interests, is they've got to cut their own bad habits. i have a same understanding that you have. i'm concerned over the fact that corporations don't sthride to you. but the unions right now,

they've got that cadillac plan. that's what it was all modeled after. prior to these countries a couple years ago. why is that good? because these monopoliesal promise less and are a twitter? are you an economist. caller: i've been affected by the economy. i lost my job so i put a lot of money on the line. and i've been attacked both sides from the right and left. taken a lot of donations. they usurped the moment for a certain degree but those entered the tea party the reason i did, they want their country back. i could address 100 million issues. but the the important thin is if you can cut off the blood money, the constitution is about the rest ration of man. let's restore the leters then

but if they go to $3 billion or $4 billion, all they are doing is filling up their hopper. the reason they are failing is because failed ideology permits wide varieties. host: hi. you're on the line. caller: yeah, mr. robert son. the reason i called will call is to ask about -- caller: the reason i'm calling is i wanted to know about the complaints that have been coming from the other tea party organizations, namely the houston tea party society, alicia craven's complaining about some deaveuated files under ericsson county. for those of you who don't know that that's members.

it's the basically your legal right to do business. and it appears mr. robertson has been buying up names to names sump as tea party, tea party of houston and 1776 tea party and so often. i guess he didn't think of the name tea party society because now for some reason this -- assume this -- yes. felicia creighton and her associates are basically saying that he is buying uprights to the name of different tea parties that people can think of and then selling them back to the people who want to do business with him. so why aren't you in stores as people who actually each because the tea party is supposed to be against taxes. host: let's hear from mr. robert sovereign. 2k3w0eu7 i'm glad you fwrauth that up.

the cravens is a republicans preaching chair in harris county and she actually took donations even though i put a lot of money into the tea party movement. i bauth those url's after i started the tea party movement and when she legally started to collect donations and by the way, i'm not suing her. i'm a christian i don't believe you should be going is out suge people. i've asked to talk to her privately and all she did was come out and slander me. i contacted the harris county's republican party and they all turned a blind eye and are allowing her to continue to collect donations on what behalf of the tea party. legally i've not profitted from this. i lost my house out of it. i'm not proud to say that on national tv but our founding fathers were willing to risk

everything to save the nation and she can do what she wants to do and i can't stop people from starting their own tea party and i'm not going to israeli sue somebody just because of it. i believe in coalitions and checks and balances. if she wants to be a part of what she's doing she's more than willing to do this by i think if you have do that you have an all terror motive. mr. robertson does the tea party support union worksers and the right to organize? guest: yes. a lot 06 union workers are great workers and they can bring value to the table. i do think they are being controlled by special interests so they are not being unleashed from their potential. think there's potential as far as unions, they have a value to bring to the table as far as corporations and business. but it is good in some situations and not in others.

i think that when your goal as a unit to extract all the profits. shock on the republican line. good morning. chuck? you there? caller: hello? host: go ahead, sir. caller: yes. i'd like to call in on the show. host: go right ahead with your comment. caller: yes. oh, i'm on. yes. what i'm thinking, you know, you say that you're about the constitution and all this good stuff. well, the constitution is kind of over. it needs to be updated, you know? this is not your forfathers with the wigs on. look, when i say about the health care is the people that don't want it don't have it, ok? and the people that really needed him want it and we should have it.

this country was build on blood, like you know. you know who built they've country, we don't need to go there. there needs to be rep rations. you should be fighting for that also. there are certain people in this country that went through barbaric acts, and the key points should be about the ultimate moments also. you're always quoteing the constitution. the constitution had slavery, ok? and that's not right. so it's a lot of things that need to be changed. >> yes. host: to tell you we were the only white family there. guest: being a veteran child and my dad died a double amputee, i hear a lot of people give lip as far as, so nobody helped my family out. i know there are organizations today but i had to strug to get where i'm at and right now i'm

out of a job. so if anyone wants to hire me that's fine, but i agree with you, the health care issue should have been addressed by business. when you get congress involved anytime, it never comes out well. medicare, medicaid. they are wasting tax dollars. i've said as far as studies with congressional groups before says we warrant to scan votes. i said if you got a good business they should provide health care for you. host: jenny beth martin, co-founder of tea party patriots, her opinion on things from the rally yesterday. >> senators and their staff are playing games with you guys, with the patriots around this country. they don't want to listen. they want to ignore us. and they think we're going to go away.

we're not going away. they are counting on us, us, they count on us to go away, think after christmas, they won't pay attention, they'll be too wrapped up in their families. i don't know about you, but this health care bill, it will increase the taxes, the expansion of government. that is about my family. my congress! host: caller now from milford, connecticut, linda on the line for democrats. you're on with dale robertson of tea party.org. go ahead. caller: the anniversary of george washington. so it's a very historical day in our nation. i'm not so sure -- [no audio]

quite a bit of moneyff of these efforts. it's a conglomerate. if you look on the websites. u.s. impact group.org it's a proxy domain that's housed and there's there's a lot of splange to do. they should come forth and admit that there's a lot of special interests and maybe there's one of them and maybe they are being manipulated. but have a good one, sir. guest: i agree there's a lot of people making money from the tea party movement. if we work together i believe most of it should be going back to the local states or chapters. i think there's a l