alexandria police department. the depecktive director the major city chiefs association. mr. mcewing, chairman of the i.c.p. or international association of police chiefs committee. mr. aaron kinnard, executive director of the national sheriff's association, mr. george wright, executive director of the organization of public safety communications officials. and mr. allen caldwell, senior advisor of the international association of fire chiefs. i would like to thank the following companies for their cooperation in our efforts to acquire the d-block, they would be motorola, at&t wireless, the harris corporation, verizon

wireless and northrup grum mono. there are retchtives from each of these companies here today and we thank them for their support. ladies and gentlemen, a little other eight years ago we experienced 9/11. one of the biggest lessons we learned that day was that we as first responders did not have the ability to communicate with each other. . to remove the d-block broadband

spectrum and reallocate it to public safety. in the aftermath of 9/11, it became obvious to all public safety officials that we needed a better way to share information between federal, state, local and tribal authorities. it's not just voice communication but the ability of local agencies to share information up the chain and the federal government to be able to share the information and have that cross issue going on. the 9/11 commission recommended that congress enact legislation to increase the assignment of additional radio spectrum for public safety purposes as well. however, we are profoundly disappointed that congress and the administration have not acted to secure this critically needed spectrum for the protection of the public. this can and must change. again, this is a call for leadership. it's an opportunity for leadership as well. at this time, i would like tore invite president of the

international association of fire chiefs for remarks. chief johnson. >> i'm jeff johnson, president of the international association of fire chiefs and representing 13,000 fire chiefs across this country. the reason we're involved in supporting the removal of the d-block is because of our awareness of a need for a single data system stretching coast to coast and border to border. nothing we face as firefighters and emergency responders in our daily jobs, nothing out there can get by without the constant stream of data and information. nothing has taught us this more than packing the devices on our hips, whether they are a blackberry or iphone and that information is not available to emergency responders today on a reliable public safety grade system that will not fail in the event of an emergency, that will be available for both police and

firefighters. and in the event of natural disasters or in the event of manmade disasters, nothing is more critical than data and reliable date after arriving on the scene together. the international association of fire chiefs is committed to this project and removal of the d-block and single-wade data system. we urge our partners to join with us in asking the administration to support this effort and asking congress to pass the law necessary to allocate the d-block to public safety and we will continue to pursue this and until we have that -- accomplished that objective. >> thank you. i would like to introduce the president of the international association of chiefs of police. >> i'm russell lane, i'm a

police chief from illinois and immediate past president of the international association of police chiefs. we represent law enforcement throughout the united states. this is a critical issue, no matter what size your agency is. if you are a large agency like new york or if you are a one-man police department, the ability to share information and communicate that information in a timely fashion is critical to public safety. we support wholly the efforts to remove the d-block from the auction and to provide that for public safety. what we need to see is leadership, here in washington. you have heard or you will hear from the public safety people who say how important this is that we are able to communicate and not just law enforcement to law enforcement but law enforcement talking to fire services to emergency services people. everyone must be able to communicate.

they must be able to talk and send data between each other and it's very important that the people in washington, our leaders and elected officials take a leadership position and provide us with the tools so we can make our communities at home safe. >> thank you, chief lane. i introduce chief bob hendricks. >> i represent about 120 chiefs of the major cities across the united states. and the thing i guess that is most important here is to recognize that this is not just about big cities, this is about all of those communities and all can benefit from it. and what we have learned is that because of economist of scale and -- economies of scale and so many factors by allocating this particular brand will allow the

patrol propagation of the networks to be cheaper than they might be other wise. instead of communities and states having to go for individual partnerships and/or contracts with various vendors, it would enable one licensee to have that particular control so that the networking can be done much easier. metro chiefs are in full support of this as well. >> thank you. we would like to hear from chief paul fitzgerald from the national sheriffs association. >> i'm second vice president of the national sheriffs association representing over 3 ,084 sheriffs across america. we go towards the end, all the good things have already been said. i fully support everything that we have worked collectively at

and the important thing for everyone to see here this is the entire first responder community that has come together to unite to see that we have the importance of gaining the d-block to add it to what has already been allocated to the public safety spectrum. or whether you are a large or small agency, you have the important need for communication and sharing of information. and we must make sure that it goes truly interoperable, border to border and coast to coast. the national sheriffs office and the national sheriffs association fully endorses and supports congress to allocate the d-block to the public safety portion of our spectrum. thank you. >> i would like to introduce the major county sheriffs. >> the major county sheriffs

firmly behind this project and we know that all of law enforcement has come together here. we have major city chiefs and national sheriffs association, the international association of chiefs of police and the fire and emergency responders all standing together saying it's about time that we got this done and it's been a project for eight or nine years. and it's time that congress acted. >> do we still have brian here? >> good evening. i appreciate the opportunity to be here and be here with my colleagues to talk about an important issue that's certainly facing the whole world of public safety and that is the ability of broadband services.

public safety needs to have access to broadband and the funding necessary to ensure that broadband is being built. and the emergency network association stands behind the need for broadband and have funding for that network. i walked in late. i don't know if everyone is making speeches. [laughter] >> spoken like a dispatcher, short and sweet. [laughter] >> i would like to introduce our next speaker. >> thank you, chief. i'm president of apco and i represent 15,000 public safety people that build, design and operate these public safety networks. the other we have in common is we are public servants. our goal is to protect people and save lives. if we're going to save lives and do what we're charged to do, we need this spectrum.

we have a variety of different patches, links and other mechanisms which are nothing more than like a patch work quilt. if we're going to do this right, we need this additional block to build a nationwide network that will have the ability to not only move the data for identifying suspects, sending medical data to hospitals but it will be cost effective enough because we are using the same spectrum. to lose the d-block would be a tragedy for americans. as it stands with our fellow public safety people to try to reallocate this d-block back to public safety and do what we are paid to do and that is save lives. >> thank you. in closing as far as the final remarks are concerned, we would like to put this in closing context. there is no doubt in our mind

that everyone wants the same thing. but it has been over eight years and we don't have the ability to communicate with each other. the people working in the subways, the police in the subways can't talk to the people up on the road. and that is unacceptable eight years after 9/11. it is not just the technical aspect, but we have to understand we are talking about human issues here. i have a four-year-old son and 11-year-old daughter and our responsibility is to provide public safety for them, not just at the local level and interacting with each other, but we know the information we have and the information that is at the state and federal level is the type of information we are going to deal with in the future. we need to be able to communicate and speak with one voice. it is about providing protection for our communities and it's about us, our families, our children. it's not just about the voice and data piece. we're talking about the ability

to protect our nation. and eight years after 9/11 it's unacceptable that we find ourselves in the position we have found ourselves. we have had meetings. and we are grateful when we met with congressman waxman today. we sense there is some leadership there. but there's a lot of work we have yet to do. we don't have all of the answers and we may take questions on the technical piece of this. but don't allow the technical aspects to hide the fact that we are providing for the safety of our nation. we appreciate you being here. we'll open up the floor for any questions. yes, sir. >> i guess i wanted to get a sense, you mentioned congressman waxman. can you give me a general sense the reception you got today in your meetings and what are the prospects for legislation? congress has a lot of other things in their plate and they haven't finished health care

yet. >> we have been divided up in a lot of different meetings. we have had positive meetings and some meetings that there is consensus where we have federal agencies pointing to each other saying, let them take the lead. it's been eight years since 9/11. when we met with congressman waxman, i felt like we got a good year and very well aware of what the issues we are trying to confront. i think he gets it and understands the importance of what we're trying to do. but there are a lot of people involved in this puzzle. and it's not an easy puzzle, this is not an easy task. we heard that this is a very difficult project. of course it is a difficult project. we are a nation of many people. but it's a project that we absolutely must do. we do not have the option not to be able to communicate with each other. when we hear people say, this is

going to be a very difficult project, we say we need assistance. we need people to stand up, take a leadership role and together we'll get there. it's not an option to say it's difficult. this nation wasn't built on not tackling difficult projects. other questions? >> what went into the decision to look at l.t.e. when you are moving forward? >> i'll call up one of our technical individuals who can get into that for you. >> again, i guess i'll take that because we started that. this isn't a debate about technology. this is a debate about economies of scale and moving the ball forward. we could spend 20 years discussing different type of technologies and what might be better or worse.

the reality is this is a debate between vhs and beta. they can be used by public safety. l.t.e. holds the lead. it has been adopted by several major carriers and using that synnergy to move the ball forward and help drive the cost down because as we all know when we first bought them they were $1,000 and now you can buy them for $29.95 in the store. so that was the motivation. >> other questions? >> what would be the effort to partner with your allies in industry on the lobby in a coordinated fashion. will there be something going forward coordinating with your industry allies? >> we have a number of industry allies who get it as well.

everyone understands there is a corporate interest as well. we appreciate the fact that we live in a country that companies have put the technology that we have and we have our partners in technology but we can't do this by ourselves. we don't build broadband network. they will have interests in helping us trying to did that. so there will be collaboration in trying to tackle this problem. we have a number of people here from these corporations so i would invite you to talk to them. raise your hands. you can reach them on your cell phones, too. [laughter] >> there is a national broadband plan. is this the recommendation you would like to see in their plan and have you been discussing this with them?

>> we have been discussing it with them and met with the f.c.c. chairman this morning. the broadband plan is coming out. what we would like to see is something in it that agrees with the fact that what we are trying to advocate here is worth while, valuable and needs to happen. and they are under a dilemma in that they are operating under current law. we need congress to change that if we are going to be able to go forward in order to get the d-block. we are hoping in that plan we'll say, hey, perhaps, this is how our hands are tied, but we would be supportive of what the public safety is trying to do for the public safety of our country. other questions? we truly appreciate your time what we feel is an important issue for our country. thanks for being here. we'll be available for any questions offline. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> this weekend, tufts university history professor on the 1965 voting rights act, the role it played in black radical politics and how it paved the way for future american leadership. he'll discuss his book with "washington post" national editor on "after words" part of

this weekend's book tv on c-span 2. >> a live look at the u.s. capitol here where the u.s. house is in recess until 6:30 eastern time. a "roll call" vote will take place to establish a quorum. this is part of the house rules to get the second session under way. as always, live house coverage here on c-span. now a look at race, politics and the upcoming mid-term elections. national public radio juan williams was a guest this morning on "washington journal." last summer? >> it's interesting on >> is this a teachable moment? >> it is. eachable about that

word and the notion of dialect? again, i think a rich exploration and as you say, teachable. i also think that when people get into an issue like skin color that someone is more electable in the opinion of a major political figure like the senate majority leader because they are of a lighter skin color, i think it is a window not just into sort of perception of the american electorate and the fact that we have never had an african-american president. we have never had any president who wasn't a white male. i think it is also a revealing window about conversations that take place inside the black community about skin color. i don't think that white people necessarily have those conversations. i'm not sure that they think about these things concretely.

believe me, it is a point of concern and interest and fascination, and arguments about what amounts to beauty and accept acceptability and what you want for your son and daughter in the black community. all of this is real. if you look at politicians who have had success in american life, who are raff can american -- who are african-american, you think, i just stop and think not only of barack obama, but colin powell and condi rice and ed brooks, the first african-american senator in the modern era, and again, you're thinking overwhelmingly light-skinned african-americans, so again, it allows us to have a conversation or a teachable moment. do you think this has consequences? do you think this really matters or is it something we shouldn't be discussing publicly? but it allows us to engage. it allows the dialogue to get started. that's why i think it is a teachability moment. host: this section of "washington journal" coming from

george washington university, five, six blocks from the white house, gathered in the auditorium, representatives of 50 colleges and universities all part of the washington center here for two weeks to learn about government, politics an journalism. we will get to your questions. go ahead, please. >> my question is whether or not you think republicans can win the senate race in massachusetts, and has the national priority kind of missed the ball by only getting involved in that race in the last couple of weeks? host: you're from massachusetts, what do you think is going to happen? >> i think it will be closer than people expected. i'm disappointed in the national view that he was not in the national race from the start. guest: you hear what people say about massachusetts, your home state, what people think of it as a lib ial bast on.

if you look at the numbers, two democratic senators, democrats in congress, democratic governor. mitt romney was governor and had success there but people see that as exceptional. that's why there wasn't much of an effort by the national party initially, but now it has taken on larger significance, so if you're thinking of it in terms you are thinking of, which is that if they had come out early and put a lot of oomph and money into scott brown right out of the box after he won the primary, that he would have a better shot now. i think that their calculation was he doesn't have a chance to win. this is not a good opportunity for us to claim this seat. now, i'm not necessarily convinced that the republican party believes that they can win even now, but what they do believe is that they can really take a shot at the democrats in this white house as sort of a warning shot, if you will, that says to them, you know what? there are going to be big losses in november for the democrats and look how chose it's going to

be in massachusetts o and that's a warning shot that says to people who are democrats, get out, resign, quit, don't run, and says to republicans, who they're looking to recruit to run for office in november, this is our season. this is our cycle. get in. we can win. i think they're using it for those purposes more so than what might appear this morning, which is everyone wondering what happens if scwots brown wins? what happens to healthcare reform? what about the democrats in massachusetts delaying certification of the election so that brown wouldn't have a vote allowing kirk to remain as the senator who would vote for massachusetts on healthcare reform. all that is sort of immediate, but i think republicans now are hooking long term. host: you're next, go ahead. >> i'm sam janes. you just mentioned that you think republicans may gain seats or the majority in congress in the next midterm elections.

i'm wondering how you think it will affect the 2012 elections and if the republicans could get someone into office? guest: i didn't say that i thought republicans could gain majority in 2010 in the midterms. michael steele didn't think so either but he has changed his mind now, the republican party chair, but i do think they will gain seats. if i was just to go with convention a.m. wisdom around this town, it would be between 20 and 25 seats that republicans would pick up. that would not allow them to claim the majority but allow them to say this is a rebuke of the democrats an obama administration and specifically over healthcare. healthcare has become the issue in the coakley-brown race in massachusetts. it is going to be the dominant theme of the 2010 race, short of any sort of catastrophic national security event, terrorist event, so that's where we're going, and what impact does that have on 2010? well, you know what? i have been around long enough so i have some miss tore caliper

speck tiff. if you look at what -- i have some historical perspective and you look at bill clinton in 2004 or ronald reagan what happened to him in '82, again, tremendous losses, both of them came back and won re-election. president obama remains personally popular personally with the american electorate. i think some of his policies are in question, without doubt, but are people willing to end that relationship? well, this would have to be a tremendously convincing and powerful republican personality to come onboard. you know, bill clinton was that personality who broke in on george h.w. bush back in '92 with "it's the economy, stupid." now we will see if it is possible for somebody to make the argument that republicans have been making in such a galvanizing way that the american electorate turns away

from the historic presidency of president obama. host: another question here and then we will get to one or two phone calls. go ahead, please. >> i'm jessica lee from massachusetts. my question to you is how do you feel about the current political discussion on expanding healthcare for minorties and do you think this is an important discussion -- a national discussion to have? guest: when you say expanding healthcare for minorties, are you are talking about as part of the healthcare reform bill or something different? >> for minorties. guest: obviously it does not apply to illegal immigrants. it would apply to all americans, minorties, majorities, everybody, in terms of people not covered for health insurance. we have already seen some expansion in terms of children's healthcare, so it is for

everybody. it is not just for minorties unless i'm missing some part of your question. no? ok. what do i think of this expansion? to me, this is a major moment in american life. this is, to me, akin to the historic effort to, for example, put in place medicare and medicaid, but i think it's more like, to my mind, covering the seniors, you know, seniors are no longer the poorest americans, young people are now, kids, but there was a day in american hive when seniors, especially older women really were in needs of protection, a social safety net. we saw some of that with social security and don't forget it covers widows, orphans and that kind of thing and then with medicare, again, to pick up the idea that the elderly should not be struggling for healthcare coverage, and now, i think the extension would be to make sure that all americans have some basic levels of healthcare coverage and that people don't have to scrap for, you know --

don't have to worry about having some catastrophic illness that will bankrupt them. it is not only them. we think of it in terms of individuals, but i can't tell you how often when i'm not doing or or thing, i come across people who are small business owners who complain about the high cost of healthcare benefits for employees and of course, we have seen what happened with the auto companies, so this becomes larger. it snowballs quickly,@ auá@@@ @ i think people who are at the end of the economic scale, this is a revelation, a major moment in american life and major commitment. there are critics who say this is an extension of some social ideology and drive up the national debt. it definitely has costs to it. but in terms of the basic commitment to the well-being of the american people, it's a watershed.

like a lightning rod in terms of american politics right now. i think people will be fascinated to see what she is like on camera, can she do it? what does she have to say? how well informed is she? you will not only have people who are fans of sarah palin watching? you will have critics of sarah palin watching and examining every word she says because they want to mock her or prove that she wasn't up to it in the latest book that is the talk of the town, all this difference between north korea and south korea and all. that everybody is going to be asking what is going on with sarah palin and is she preparing for a run at the presidency or the senate or whatever. to me, again, i think that management at fox has brought in another superstar.

host: what advice would you give her when she is on with bill o'reilly? guest: understand that she is not the star of the show, that it's o'reilly's show. it may be difficult for someone who is a politician, because they're used to being the focus of attention. it's interesting, like for example, in this exchange with you, steve, you allow the guest to speak, but if you're dealing with o'reilly, part of it is that people tune in to watch bill. they are fascinated by his opinions, his thoughts, his arguments. it is almost like the guest is the foil that allows o'reilly to reveal himself, to really blossom. also, she is going to are have to deal with people the likes meef contradicting her, arguing with her. again, i'll not sure that that kind of fast-paced exchange and people taking shots at you is what she is used to. she is used to critic afar but when they're in your face, it is a little different.

host: we're coming from the campus of george washington university and the students here are part of the washington center. go ahead on the democrats line. caller: hi, yes. i just want to let all the americans know that why should we put the republicans back in office when they were in office, they didn't do anything. they literally brought down the whole company. i am a democrat. i'm thinking about changing my -- going independent. i feel like that's what everybody should do. i'm disappointed in the democrats. i'm also disappointed in the republicans. i think that both of them are have made a mockery out of all of this regarding the healthcare. i do want to give a shoutout. there was healthcare in kansas city, missouri. i do not have insurance.

i have been laid off for a whole year. i went. i found out that when i did go, i found out that i was a diabetic. i also found out that i had high cholesterol, and i thank god for them coming here, and i did follow up. i followed up with my doctor. it cost me $98. i paid it out of my pocket. they did draw my habes in the doctor's office -- they did draw my labs in the doctor's office, so i didn't have to pay for going to the lab and getting that done but i did have a lab bill for $218. i want it to be passed and i want healthcare to be fair. i am also a person in the insurance field for over 30 years. it has never been between a doctor and patient. it has always been about the insurance and the doctor. host: thank you. guest: the interesting thing she said to me at the start was she is thinking to changing to independent.

she criticized republicans and said she's a democrat but also highly critical of the democrats an considering becoming an independent. when you look at the numbers right now, looking at the trends in american politics, beyond the headlines, the biggest political force of the moment seems to be populism, seems to be people disgusted with both sides, both political parties even as president obama's numbers go down and even the high numbers of defection with democrat majorities in the house and senate, you don't see commensurate rise in terms of identification with republicans at this junction. people are highly critical of obama and remain highly critical of the republicans. i wonder what is going to happen when things like tea parties, the town hall meetings, that energy. that any energy is anti-government, anti-big tax, big spending. you would be surprised, on the left, there is still a great deal of dissatisfaction about the war efforts and president obama's commitment there, so what happens to that energy as

we approach 2010? if you talk to the political establishment in this town, it is about things like healthcare. it is about the president's expressed agenda in the congress on energy, cap and trade and the like, about if you're out in 9 grassroots and talking to the american people, they're more focused on we just want more change. obama was once the bastion for change, but now if you see obama as part of the problem, as part of washington, then exactly what constitutes change? is it, you know, marco rubio is on the cover of a magazine as possibly the first senator from the tea party. he is down in florida. what happens to these people who are doctors affected from both republicans and democrats? is it possible that the republican establishment is able to get comfortable and claim some of those folks? sarah palin, by the way, would fit in with that, or is it the

case that this is the founding energy for a possible third party, that we get back to the likes of ross perot, john anderson, or most recently ralph nader, that somebody out there says it's time to break apart this larger structure. i think it's very difficult to do it, but at the moment there's no question in my mine that that's the political energy of 2010. host: difficult to do because the state writes the rules of who is on the ballot. guest: exactly, who writes the rules, who has the power and the american media. ate he the structure. it's what we built. to try to break that down would be a humongous effort, herculean. host: how many of you, by a show of hands, are frustrated or disappointed with the democrats or president obama? just raise your hand? and how many of you are frustrated or disappointed with the republican party. guest: see, this is what is

going on in america? . host: how many of you voted in america in the last election? guest: wow, i'm thrilled. young people are cynical about the political structure r they are all stephen colbert fans and mock politics and politicians are all a bunch of bums but i'm glad you got involved. host: to david next from springfield, massachusetts -- oh, actually brian from michigan on the democrats line. caller: thanks. i have a lot of respect for you over the years as i listen to us. we have the news media and they are right in your wheelhouse, but how can politicians actually hideaway from direct questions suchs as you're getting, news conferences, we depend on our media to ask direct questions and try to get direct answers but if the president, whether

it's this president or the last president, does not come out in front of them and avail themselves to direct questions, how can we learn more about where they're going and cut through all this clutter? i don't believe this president, president obama, has had a direct news conference since july. guest: that's been a topic at the white house briefings for the last few days, as reporters are beginning to pepper robert gibbs, the white house spokesman with questions about, hey, when is the next press conference? it is interesting because there are some people who say he speaks too often and in public too often. we have a state of the unicoming, and certainly major events and one question that is fascinating about washington life and politics and media is how do you get someone to answer a question? it might seem simple. how do you get somebody to answer a question? remember, there is such tremendous media management that

takes place in this town, that it's hard to break through, because people, you know, i remember ronald reagan used to pick people who wore red but they were seated properly and he would know where they were an there was a chart. all presidents use t all presidents know as they go into interviews the setup for the interview, what is it about, how will it be used? what is the direction of the question? oftentimes there are suggestions throughout as to where the president or major political figure is willing to may, willing to make news, and that of course encourages the average core or the interviewer to go in a certain direction, so that they are on the same wavelength with the person being interviewed and they can get something out of it and make news because that's what you want as the reporter for your interview. the question is how do the american people learn really what is going on and what is in the mind if not the heart of the politician. i think increasingly people look away from the center. they look away from the managed

response to any set of questions and start to hook at things like the person's character, what kind of person it is, what do they see about them with their family, in inscripted moments when they may have had a problem, how did they handle it? they want to know more and more about what makes the makeup of this person, rather than their public statement, and i think that's clearly the direction we're going in, because news management has become so sophisticated in this day and age. host: another question from the back, please. >> my question is who do you think are the future leaders of both political partys? guest: that's tough. if you were to ask me who's running, let's say in 2012, if that's what we're talking about, i would point to people like tim pawlenty, the former governor of minnesota, and i would point to haley barber, the governor of

mississippi, and of course i think about sarah palin, former governor of alaska and my new fox colleague, but i think i would also, more and more, it seems to me, that the energy is with women, and so i would be looking for some of the surprising leadership that's coming from women and the idea that women strike people as much as president obama, as much as president obama did, as someone who could be a game changer, someone who would bring new flavor and new perspective to the political process. i think that still is the overwhelming desire, so it's some of the new faces and energy that would be coming from the republican side. now, if you're talking about the democratic side, again, i think that it's not so much new faces as players who may not have occupied senator center stage coming to center stage, for example, with all the pressure on harry reid back in nevada, what happens if harry reid moves on, then you're looking at

people like dick durbin, looking at people like chuck schumer moving into more prominent positions and becoming more significant in terms of their ideas and their policies in the future. host: david is joining us from massachusetts on the independent line. go ahead, please. caller: how are you doing? i'm calling because first i have a statement and then second i have a question about the constitution of the united states. first, a statement. as an independent voter, i think that the people in massachusetts are going to vote for the person that represents their voice. i know in massachusetts we feel that this healthcare bill is a violation of our state rights. now, we live in a society where naturally we're not going to leave somebody to die on the street. but unfortunately, the hospitals an institutions are carrying the bills. host: let me ask you a couple of questions. you are an independent voter. who have you voted for in past elections in massachusetts? caller: in massachusetts, i voted for john kerry, and in the

presidential elections i voted for john mccain. i voted for mitt romney as governor. i voted for senator kennedy. it doesn't matter your political party. it matters who you are as an individual and how outspoken you are as an individual and are you going to represent my voice as an individual? host: so based on that, mar martha copely and scott brown, who will you vote for next tuesday? >> i'm voting for scott brown for basically where he stands on the healthcare bill and how they were both raised. martha coakley is somebody who has never really experienced the hardships of the world. i don't know much of their difference but i see a lieutenant colonel in the national guard. this is somebody who has endured. i see that as a fine candidate. host: what is going to happen tuesday? what is your prediction? caller: i believe that brown will win because the voice of independents are the sleeping giants in massachusetts.

host: your reaction? guest: the numbers don't suggest that the numbers are closing but if you look at the boston globe and even at some of the polls that just call people sort of on the phone, those are the ones that have it now around double digits, around 10, maybe a little less, but not much. host: but it is a special e@@@@ in a special election it's who shows up and lower turnout than for a normal election. that brings us to the fact that there was a strong democratic machine in massachusetts, that they can produce the votes. now, i think that brown's team is counting on the fact that some democrats may not show up and may not have enough energy and their forces, those people will have a reason to go to the polls to show their concern about health care. but can't those numbers overwhelm the power of the

democratic party in massachusetts? to me, it's unlikely. we are talking about ted kennedy's seat. previous speaker ed gillespie mentioned that the iraq war is a necessary war. do you think that the united states should continue a neoliberal approach toward foreign policy and continue to actor become a prominent international police force in the world? guest: i think we are the lone superpower. there is no question about that. i was interested in your use of the term neoliberal. from my perspective, what you have is the argument for kind of being -- spreading democracy, for intervening in iraq when it wasn't iraq that attacked us on

9/11, would be a neoconservative argument. i'm interested in what you mean when you say "neoliberal." >> well, it depends on which theorist you read, and which term they give you with neoliberalism and neoconservatism, but neoliberalism in the book i'm reading now "stay craft" deals with an approach that intervening not only militaristically but also economically and in every way possible in order to establish countries as democracies to make them partners in the world. guest: again, it's interesting. i haven't read "stay craft" but i see this is an effort on the part of the administration, political theory, was that we want to promote democracy

worldwide. we want more democracy and especially in the middle east. we want the voice of the people to be represented. remember, after the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, then there were different arguments as toss why we were in argument. what is the justification? one of the principle arguments was because we want to foster democratic representation of the people of iraq, so that we can, in fact, have a more stable political structure than, as an example, for the rest of the middle east, and that was coming from the bush administration, so i don't think they would be comfortable being described as neoliberal, and, in fact, the left in the country, i think, was much more quick to say it's time to get out once we didn't have weapons of mass destruction, once it looked like things were going against us and it was the bush administration again that insisted on the surge and the idea that we cannot afford to lose that war and what would the signal be, the cost be, the ramifications down the

road historically if the u.s. was forced to leave? that's why i think we're still there. i think subsequent to the bush administration, that the obama administration has persisted that we will set a time line for the drawdown of troops, but -- and will agree to the state of forces agreement, but what we want to do is exit in such an orderly fashion that we leave behind some structure that will, in fact, satisfy the idea that we we had created more of a democratic iraq than was there previously. host: how many of you are interested in government and public pom si, another show of hands. hopefully it is unanimous. raise your hands up high. ok. how many of you are roop interested in some day running for elective office. guest: wow. good. go ahead with your question. >> natalie valdez from miami-dade honors college. my question is in the current

economic situation, i would like to ask you in terms of education, what is the view of teachers being laid off and so underpaid. healthcare is important but shouldn't this be a priority as well? guest: no doubt that education is the be-all and end-all. i wouldn't be sitting here in front of you if it wasn't for education. i grew up a poor kid. education has been the life changer for me, so, you know, my mom really focused on education. she was a beast about, you know, school, and it's paid off for me and for my brother and sister. i don't think there's any question. when you ask me about education, i think that is the key, the civil rights challenge of this generation, maybe even more so than healthcare, because i think every child should have the opportunity to get a foothold on that hadder of upward mobility to be somebody in american life and you can't do it without education. you have got to have it in this society, and it is becoming much more society, even in economic

terms of haves and have not's and i'm not talking about money, because you can go up and down in terms of your economic form form, but it is almost impossible to pay attention to an innovative-based economy where we have to be sophisticated and almost a world traveler to deal with the fact that we have a global economy. you have to have an education to be economically sufficient in this world, so, to me, the idea that you're firing teachers, laying off teachers, underpaid teachers, i think is a tragedy. now, i will say that there have been excesses, especially in some of the failings big city public schools, and those excesses include wasting money, and so that you get an argument like, well, per pupil spending like here in the district of columbia might be higher than some of the suburbs and yet student performance outcomes don't match that per pupil

spending, and then you get into arguments about unions and teachers halting possible school reforms. that's why you see people, the hike of bill gates, warren buffett, and others putting tremendous money into education to try to make it a political issue to say you know what education is a plim concern and here in washington, education is a political concern and no child left behind was a controversial item under the bush administration, so this is an area of concern. yet, when you look at the polls, right now, education is falling down in terms of preoccupations of the american people. it's not on the screen as a major political item. i think it should be. i'm glad you feel that way, but i don't think it is simply about increasing the dollars t may be that we're in an age when we have to reshape, not only elementary and secondary education but rethink the kind of education experience you're having in college, what's

necessary, what's unnecessary. look at the costs. i don't know what your parents are praying, but here at g.w. it is a big tick tote come to school, more than $50,000. that becomes prohibitive and that cements that class divide and that has all sorts of implications for who we become later in the 21st century as an american people. host: our conversation is with one williams, part of the washington center at g.w. campus. where did you grow up? guest: in brooklyn and went to prep in upstate new york and went to haverford college in halferford, pennsylvania. host: on the republican like from new orleans, william. go ahead, please. we will get a question from one of the students. go ahead. >> hi, i'm ka buhlly. do you think the middle class will benefit from healthcare reform? guest: that's a great question.

there are levels of benefits. if you are thinking purely in terms of taxes, let's say. i would say probably not. there is all sorts of different definitions about who is rich and who is not rich if you start to take the mini millionaire tax of $200,000, et cetera, so there will be additional taxes in there. as you know, the unions were at the white house yesterday complaining about the so-called cadillac healthcare plan tax because if you're an individual, i think it's $8,000, and a family $24,000, there would be additional taxes on those healthcare plans and it is something like 40% of union members of this would be subject to higher taxes because they get some of those plans as benefits often times in lieu of pay hikes, so in absolute terms, i think there is going to be a cost and don't forget the kind

of scoring we have seen from c.b.o. being deficit neutral. it is likely it will cost something to the american people. it may cost us in terms of increased deficits, inflation, all that. there is going to be a price to be paid, but i think there is also benefit in terms of who we are as an american people. this is what i was talking about earlier, that if you say to yourself, is it important to you that everyone has some basic level of health coverage in our society, are you willing as an individual to pay for that? that's a very political question. i as an individual would say yes, i think it is important to me, as part of my american values. it is important to me to think i'm not walking past someone on the street who can't afford to see the dentist or for health reasons can't afford to go and see a doctor or a child that can't be seen. i don't want that as part of my society. am i willing to pay for it, yes? how much am i willing to pay for

it? that becomes highly political, but if you're asking, will the middle class benefit now, one other factor is i think employers who see some limit, who understand that there is some control in terms of healthcare costs, are more likely then to say, you know what? as long as i know what my costs are going to be, and they're not going to jump through the ceiling, i might do a better job of hiring. the other side of that is that they might, because they're add costs an penalties for not participating, not offering up benefits, some employees might be less likely to hire. i think overwhelmingly it will be to the positive side, more people saying as long as i know that my healthcare costs won't drive me into bankruptcy, i can do more in terms of feeling that i have a secure business and therefore more hiring. host: we have time for one more call. go ahead, steve.

caller: i have an assignment for the frustrated democrats in the audience. please go to www.democratz.org, democrats with a z instead of an s, and you won't be frustrated anymore, because we will take on the corporations that give money to conservatives. we're going to boycott them. we're going to force their c.e.o.'s to go to the congress and get us the legislation they blocked. tell your friends, tell your parents all over this country, we're going to take this country back! host: another question from the audience. >> as we all know, the president of the united states is a very important speaker, and as far as i have seen, president barack obama is an amazing speaker.

does he mean his words or is he just talk for talking? guest: politicians, do they say what they mean? well, we were talking about media management earlier and politicians know their audience and speak to their audience's concerns and are trying to win your support, so any politician is speaking in such a way as to try to help them gain your not only vote but your financial support. i don't think there is any question. president obama is part of that group. he is a politician, so does he mean his words? i happen to think that obama stands out in my mind for being brilliant in terms of being able to explain policy. it is almost like a seminar. oftentimes he does it off the cuff at news conferences. he can go on and on about the details in a way that that is astounding. i think he does mean it.

the thing is where does he stand? i'm not always clear even after listening to him and being wowed by his performance and knowledge, not cheer about where he stands. i think that's us that's because he prefers to hear all sides of the arguments, to be familiar, to let the marbles sift out and see what comes. it is not that it comes from him in terms of his principles. if you ask do i know what he stands for, and if he means what he says? well, he is looking a at these ideas but it is not the occasion that, for instance, the nobel peace prize when he talked about just war principles and why it was that we were present in iraq and afghanistan. i thought there he had come to the point where he now felt this is who he was and what he was standing for, but in general, he is a little bit of a cipher. you're not exactly clear where

he's going to put his political capital and what he is willing to ak fies to -- to sacrifice for. that would be the challenge in an obama speech. host: quick question and quick response from over here. >> i had a quick question. how do we help out mom and pop businesses that are getting killed off by corporations jutch as -- such as wal-mart. guest: wal-mart would say they are offering lower prices. but as you travel down, there is no question that wal-mart takes business away from small business along main street. . the midst of this recession, walmart has been doing pretty well, but if 're talking just in terms of american values, why is it that a mom and pop startup

is struggling nowadays and shouldn't we care about that? well, i think we should care about that in terms of hiring, in terms of maintaining the kind of opportunity for entrepreneurs that is so essential to the american dream. a small business hires, also, so we want small businesses to succeed in america. what can we do? i don't know at this point, if you're asking me how can they battle against a gargantuan enterprise that benefits from being so large, it is very difficult. what you're really talking about, then, is small business assistance, tax breaks for small business. you're looking at regulatory relief that would allow them to compete in ways that the big boys can't, and all of that is on the table. it's interesting, if you look at some of the small business policies that both president bush and president obama have pursued, they believe in small business. it's just that president bush's was much more about the tax cuts, president obama, much more

on the other end of believing that if you give them health with healthcare reform and you help them with some of the kind of subsidies that would allow them to get started that then they can prosper, but in this economic environment, it really comes down to working with the banks, and making sure that the banks are willing to open up the credit and support small business and especially the startups much more so than even small businesses that are already a going enterprise. host: juan williams is our guest. we conclude with a round of applause for the students here at the washington center. [applause] host: and also to our host here at the

>> as we wait for the house to come in, former. >> conversation is ed gillespie, former chair of the republican national committee. thank you for being with us. let me begin with a broad overview of the political landscape most notably, virginia and the new juror is a. why do republicans win these two races? guest: virginia has been a counter-cyclical state in terms of politics. having the governor elections the year after presidential elections, going back to 1966, every gubernatorial election since then the party of of power carries the virginia race. that is not the case a relative

to new jersey which is a more democratic-leaning state. i was very involved in the virginia governor's race, and it is much more of a purple state. i've volunteered as the chairman for bob macdonald. in both cases, politically, what happened was independent voters, who are an important chunk of the voters in both states -- in fact, new jersey was the first day to have a registered a plurality of the independents and republicans or democrats. and they broke for chris christie. in virginia, it is one-third, one-third, one-third.

again, independents broke for mcdonald over creigh deeds. there are certain aspects of it that are unique to new jersey and virginia. chris christie defeated an incumbent. jon corzine who had that job approval numbers -- the voters are fed up with him after one term, tired of one-party rule. there was lot of frustration aimed at trenton. in virginia, winter is a one- term limit on the governorship, there is more of an open seat dynamic. mcdonald had a positive agenda putting ideas out on

transportation, and job creation. that was a singular focus for his campaign. there was a bumper sticker that read "bob for jobs." that constant stream of policy proposals on education, higher education, charter schools, more assistance for of virginia students, putting aside green space conservation areas -- it was a proactive, positive agenda. in full disclosure, she is a friend, and i volunteered on his campaign, but i think he set a high bar for candidates to reach. host: what happened in 2006 then? why did john mccain lose the white house, why did you lose

the congress? guest: if you look back, i mentioned the history of virginia in terms of the counter-cyclical aspects. look at the post-war period, since franklin roosevelt. no party has carried the white house for three terms since then, with one exception, which was when george h. w. bush, bush 41, defeated ronald reagan. it is difficult to push the party either direction, giving them the same party, the white house or three terms in a row. history was against senator mccain in this election cycle. the second thing was the party in power is held accountable for economic factors. we had the market collapse in

october which was truly frightening. i was in the white house at that time. there was a concern weaver looking at the prospect of a genuine meltdown in the -- we were looking at the prospect of a genuine meltdown in the financial and housing markets. ben bernanke and hank paulson said to the president, looking at the prospect of an economy worse than the great depression, it took people to their core. it reinforced a change, and republican party suffered from that. let us also give credit to where credit is too. president obama was a phenomenal candidate, literally and figuratively. it was an historical run for the presidency.

he blazed a lot of trails in terms of technology, voter contact, so he deserves credit, as well as the dynamic working in his favor. 2006 was the second midterm of president bush's two terms. host: let us get to some student questions. go ahead, please. caller: good morning. i would like to know simply if you believe the republican party is ready to gain control in congress? guest: i do believe public and party is ready to take control. -- a republican party is ready to take control. the good thing about our system is a checks and balances.

you learn lessons and i think the republican party has learned from the defeat. there is more that we can learn, but republicans in congress have learned the importance of maintaining the mantle of fiscal discipline. that was his darkly something the republicans did, we will be more stringent on your tax dollars. we lost some of that. in fact, in 2008, most voters believed the republican nominee for president as well as congress -- believed a democratic congress would be more likely to rein in financial spending. they believed the democrats would be more likely to reduce the deficit. that democrats would be more likely to cut taxes than the republican candidate. that is a tough environment for the republican to run in.

i think that has changed, not so much because of what republicans have done, but because of what president obama, speaker pelosi, and harry reid have done in the past year. president obama has proposed more debt than all three previous presidents combined. we will triple the dead under the next 10 years. we are about to raise taxes pretty significantly. president bush's tax reliefs are about to expire. a 24% increase in non discretionary defense spending is too much. we need to focus our spending on restoring economic confidence. -- non-discretionary defense

spending is too much. if you elect us, we will not allow these tax increases to hit us at this time. i think republicans are prepared to take the majority and work with president obama, at least for a couple of years, until we can win back the house. i think voters will see that in the next 10 months. host: our guest is republican strategist ed gillespie. we are coming to you from george washington university. chris is on the democrat line from virginia. caller: mr. gillespie, i want to make a point. don't yout think -- don't you think looks and personality has a lot to do with who want of being governor with the commonwealth, more so than when

there is a democrat or republican in the white house? i know both of these gentlemen. creigh deeds is a wonderful man, but he stutters. he looks like he fell out of bed when he presents himself. bob macdonald is charismatic. he is very attractive, and his policy for the commonwealth is to basically sell everything. we are going to have offshore oil wells. we have beautiful beaches. one mistake, one storm can destroy our beaches. we will have tolls on the road to. -- roads. people do not really look at what they are doing, but how they look, and how they present

themselves. host: style versus substance? caller: style is important. when voters are gauging someone for a job, particularly for an executive job, like a governor or president, and take into account demeanor, style, temperament. i would agree. i think creigh deeds came across as injury throughout the campaign. he did not seem to have a clear vision of where he wanted to take the commonwealth. -- as angry to run the campaign. you talked about selling everything. what bob mcdonnell proposed was privatizing the state's liquor stores. right now and virginia, as with a few other states, the state owns and runs the liquor stores. it is an antiquated system and

we could get a lot of revenue. i think most of us would agree that it is not their role of the state to run these liquor stores. the private industry could do this. from a moral perspective, it might be better for the private industry to do that. by privatizing@ @ jr @ @ sáo),å coming in from the taxes, still from the sale of the liquor -- i will core itself. it's a good -- liquor itself. it's been done in other states in the past i think it will work in virginia as well and help to us relieving some of the congestion we face in northern virginia, those of you who are here visiting over the next few weeks, if you drive, you know, go down to mt. vernon or to arlington national cemetery, the beautiful parts of northern virginia, you'll probably find yourself sitting in some traffic. we need to fix that, reduce

that congestion in northern virginia and a way to get the revenue to build those new roads and improve our infrastructure one way is to privatize the state liquor stores. is by privatizing the liquor stores. we have beautiful beaches in virginia. offshore drilling would be 50 miles away from the shore. one storm is not going to affect the beaches or cost oil to wash up. i would point to hurricane t katrina, the worst storm to hit the gulf coast in american history. we all saw the damage that was done to new orleans, alabama, and mississippi. all of those rigs, by the time it came through the gulf, was a category four hurricane. the most rigs we have are in the

western part of the gulf of mexico, and not a single drop of oil was lost in the storm. that is because of the technology. we can enhance our domestic energy resources in environmentally-sensitive ways which could bring high-paying jobs -- to bring up the slogan of the campaign. i think more jobs in the hampton roads area could reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and we would be bringing revenue to the treasury of virginia, which right now is facing a severe deficit. to answer your question, i think character and personality are important components, but the

agenda and policy that people put forward, -- how will the voting for this candidate improve my quality of life? i would also say his demeanor -- you can see him being the governor of virginia. in fact, i look forward to that exact thing happening this saturday. host: our guests spend 18 months as the counselor to president bush. we have a question in the back. by the way, what was that like, working with president bush at the end of his presidency? guest: it was incredible. the surge was in effect, we were dealing with the petraeus- crocker hearings. we went through the financial crisis.

we had some pretty serious battles with a democratic congress. i came in in june 2007. then, of course, we had one of the most thoughtful and organized transitions of power in our nation's history. it was exciting and interesting to be there. obviously, from a partisan perspective, i was disappointed with the outcome -- but from an american perspective -- to see the transfer, it was encouraging to me. i am proud of the way we handled it. >> i am from the university of iowa. i am very concerned with the upcoming health care bills, and

also the potential for another upcoming stimulus bill. my question is, how much of this bill -- sorry, let me rephrase that. how much money will we be spending on this? where will that money come from? how much of that money will be pushed onto my generation and upcoming generations? guest: a very good question. you have reason to be concerned. as health care proposal before congress, and the onus will fall on many of the people in this room. it will hurt younger workers entering the workforce. it will hurt you and your children. they say it will be deficit- neutral, but that is smoke and mirrors. all of the tax increases put into effect start immediately, while the spending does not start until 2013.

in some cases, 2014. all the budgeting in congress is done in a 10-year window. if you get a running start and you do full funding for 10 years but you only to spending for five years of it, then yes, you can make it look like it is a deficit neutral. but once you are in europe 11, 12, 13, it will increase debt on future generations. this president has decided to take the debt to $534,000 per household, i believe is the estimated number. that is unsustainable. that is going to affect our ability to grow our economy in future years. it will make it harder for people coming out of the workforce to be able to find

high-quality, paying jobs. it will be the result in higher taxes, inflation, or reduced government services, greater influence in our economy by the chinese -- to whom we owe much of our debt. in health care bill, there is a provision that says you can only have -- senior citizens, understandably, in later stages of your life -- consume more health care. those of you in college, new in the workforce, you do not have the demands of the health care. i have lost both my parents, but clearly, at the end of their

life, they generated a lot of health care costs. the health care bill says that you can charge senior citizens only twice as much as you charge your people. in order to do that, if they are spending five times more for your health care cost, then the younger voters, in order to make sure you are not ant a 5-1 ratio in terms of cost, but a two-one ratio, you have to bring up the cost on the under voters. that is tough for these younger people just entering the work force, trying to set aside money. i think that is incredibly unfair but the truth is older

voters are more likely to vote in the next election than younger voters. there is an income redistribution aspect of it by state. if you lived in nebraska, because your senator cut a deal, you are not going to feel the burden of higher medical costs. the other 49 states are going to bear the burden. there was some question as to the constitutionality of this bill. on and not sure it is constitutional to say to the younger worker who chooses not to purchase insurance and spend some of their disposable insurance on health care -- which by the way, and believe it is a bad mistake. but to say we are going to impose a penalty on you.

this is the first time the government will say we are not going to tax one person and spend it here. we are not going to take your money in the form of taxation. we are going to tell you, you have to spend your own money this way. if not, we will punish you for it. i am not sure that is constitutional, whether the government has the authority to say to someone, you have to spend your money this way. by the way, is a frightening precedent. what if a future congress says, we did this with health insurance and we did not raise taxes, but if people have to spend a certain percentage of their income on housing, college? now we have the government directing not only where taxes

go, but individual personal income. from a young person's perspective, you should take a close look at these health care proposals because they are going to diminish your ability to get a job in the future, it imposed costs that you do not have now, and at the end of the day, will make it less likely that you and future generations live in a country where we will be quick to our progeny greater prosperity than we receive from our parents. it is hard to see under current dynamics how there will be greater prosperity for americans then was handed to this house generation. i think that must -- that is a concern for a number voters. host: tony on the independent

line. caller: i can see that you are for the republicans. i am not a democrat. i am upset with the democrats, i am a registered independent. this man is full of so much hypocrisy. republicans have been there for eight years. what did they give us? they gave us two wars. they drove the country into bankruptcy and they are complaining about spending. i do not even know what to say about you. you have been here for eight years, what have you done? host: a response?

president clinton did have a budget surplus when he left. host: that is right, but president -- guest: no denying that president obama inherited a bad economy. but the same thing for president bush. he passed tax relief for american workers which allowed americans to keep more of what they earned. i would urge the caller to go back and look, under president bush, we have 52 weeks of positive job creation. that is a record. because the tax relief to a new british economic growth, we have more money coming into the treasury in 2010 -- 2007 than any other year. a number of things improved under president bush in terms of domestic policies.

no child left behind narrowed the gap of test scores between what students and minority students, enhancing educational opportunities in places where schools were suffering. teenage drug use was reduced by 24% under president bush. you talk about the two wars. they were necessary. i believe that because right now we are almost a successful in iraq because of the president. it was a tough decision but he decided that we would be better off as americans with a free and stable iraq. i applaud president obama for his decision in increasing the troops strength in afghanistan. he is correct to do that. we know if afghanistan does not have a stable government, we cannot have security there.

that poses a threat to the united states. if they have safe harbor for the taliban or al qaeda. i would say to the caller, we did some things wrong anbut i believe our agenda was a positive one. we worked for the taxpayer. by the way, reform of the health-care system with medical savings accounts -- trying to get liability reform. i believe president bush had a productive eight years. i know people disagree with the decisions he made, but you cannot disagree that he made those tough decisions. i believe history will be kind to the eight years of the bush presidency. you can dismiss that as propaganda. the fact is, i believe strongly

in the things that i am saying today. i believe in civil discourse. i disagree with my friends on the democratic side of the aisle although i have many friends on that side. one thing we generally tend to agree on is we are in this to make the country a better place. we just disagree on how to get there. host: how it is the president possible coming along? guest: very well. -- president's >> now the house returns to officially start the session of congress. members will come to the floor to record their presence to signify the start of the new session. later in the week members will debate government accountable office authorities and changes to laws governing commercial space programs. live coverage of the house here on c-span. will use the

electronic system to ascertain the presence of a quorum. members will record their presence by electronic device. [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.]

sproip the journal stands approved. the house will come to order. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from nebraska, congressman smith. mr. smith: will those in the gallery join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under

god, indwissable, with liberty and justice for all. speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 998, resolved, that a committee of two members be committed by the speaker to notify the president of the united states when a quorum of each house has assembled and congress is ready to receive any communication he may be pleased to make. the speaker pro tempore: wox,

the resolution is agreed to and the motion to rereconsider is laid on the table. mr. hoyer spk: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following members to the committee on the part of the house to join a committee on the part of the senate to inform the president of the united states that a quorum of each house has assembled, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer and the gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. hoyer spk i spend to the -- mr. hoyer: i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: will the clerk report the title. the clerk: be it resolved that

the house inform the senate that the -- that a quorum of the house is present and the house is ready to resume with business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the motion is agreed to and laid on the table. mr. hoyer spk i send to the desk another privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: that the hour of daily meeting of the house shall be 2:00 p.m. on monday, 12:00 p.m. on tuesday and 10:00 a.m. on wednesdays and thursdays and 9:00 a.m. on all other days of week and that the hour of the daily meeting of the house shall be noon on

mondays, 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, wednesdays, and thursdays, and 9:00 a.m. on all other days of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and a motion to reconsider is laid on the payable. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. hoyer: i asked that order of the house of january 6, 2009, for morning hour debate be extended for the remainder of the 111th congress and the date of may 27, 2010, shall be used in lieu of may 18, 2009. the speaker pro tempore spk without objection, so ord. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent that if a veto message is laid before the house on this legislative day then after the message is read and the

objections of the president are spread at large on the journal, the joint resolution shall be post-uponned until the legislative day of wednesday, january 13, 2010, and on that day the house shall proceed question of constitutional consideration without any intervening motion. the speaker pro tempore: wox, so ordered. the chair lays before the house a communication from the clerk. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam. pursuant to the commission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2, i have the honor to transmit a message received from the white house on wednesday, december 30, 2009, at 1:20 p.m. containing the returned enrollment of house joint resolution 64 and a memorandum

of disapproval from the president, with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the message. the clerk: department of defense appropriations act 20 10, public law 111-118, signed into law on december 19, 2009, has rendered the enact of continuing appropriations f.y.-2010 unnecessary. accordingly, i am withholding my approval if the bill. the pocket veto case, 279 u.s. 655219 to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed as unnecessary legislation, in addition to withholding my signature, i'm returning house joint resolution 64 to the clerk of the house of representatives along with this memorandum of disapproval, signed, barack obama, the white

house, december 30, 2009. the speaker pro tempore: the message of the president will be spread at large on the journal and the veto message will be printed as a house document. further consideration of veto message of the joint resolution are post-uponned until the legislative day of wednesday, january 13, 2010 and that on that legislative day the house shaledshal proceed to the constitutional question of consideration and dispose of such question without intervening motion. the chair lays before the house a communication from the clerk. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the u.s. house of representatives, i have the honor to transmit a sealed envelope receive fled white house received on december 29,

1:21 p.m., said to contain a proclamation of from the president to regulate duty-free treatment, signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the messages. the clerk: the g.s.p. offers duty-free treatment to specialized products from developing countries. the g.s.p. is authorized by the trade act of 1974 as amended, the act. in accordance with sections 502f1a, i am notifying my intent to add the maldives to the list of countries under the g.s.p. countries and my intent to end the designation of croatia you should the g.s.p.

program. proclamation 6813 of july, 1965, maldives is a beneficiary development country is suspended. after considering the criteria set forth in the act, i have determined that the suspension of the designation of the mall teeves as a g.s.c. developing clint should be ended. in addition, i have determined that croatia and equatorial guinea have become a high-income country as defined by the official statistics for reconstruction and development. in accordance with section 502b in the act, i have determined that the designations of croatia and equatorial guinea should be terminated effective january 31, 2011, signed, barack obama, the white house, december 31, 2009. the speaker pro tempore:

ordered to the committee of ways and means and ordered printed. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extends my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise tonight to salute a washington correspondent who is a good friend of mine and who this month is marking his 45th anniversary with wtop radio. since 1965 dave has been a radio washington institution. since 1981 he's been reporting full time from capitol hill. i dare say that every one of us in this chamber has had an opportunity to talk to our friend david mcconnell. he's reported with the insight and impartiality that tipified journalism at its best. in that time, dave's career has been recognized by his colleagues of the his honors include, among other, the aair

lifetime achievement award, maryland, virginia, a.p. broadcasting journalism award and induction in the society of professional journalist hall of fame. decades of listeners have turned to dave for inside knowledge on how their congress works. and along with many other members of congress, i plan to call dave a friend with he share our home state of maryland and abiding love of the institution of the house of representatives. and i trust that that love will inspire dave's work here for many years to come. as he has often saped and i quote, as long as i have a seat covering the greatest show on earth and can witness history being made i'm going to keep reporting. dave, we hope you do. you do it well. god bless you. and congratulations. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> address the house for one

minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, cbs' "60 minutes" is the winner of the media fairness caucus' highly uncoveted lap dog award for this week's most glaring example of media bies. a new book called "game change" has brought the comments made by the senate majority lead that are some peemed find offensive. on sunday, 60 minutes featured a 13-minute story about the book and interviewed its authors. not once did "60 minutes" mention the majority leader's comments. instead they devoted 10 minutes to negative comments about former governor sara palin. what an astounding example of biased journalism. it's no wonder five out of six americans see the national news media as very or somewhat biased, according to a public opinion poll. cbs and 60 minutes d should

report the facts, not engage in double standards. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, today i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of tony who recently passed away at age 74. tony made a difference in the lives of countless residents of our community. his active involvement as command -- commander of the post and civic organizations like the exchange club serves as a lasting example for the residents of danville and of the valley. at age 17 tony joined the army to serve our great nation during the korean war. later he became a tireless volunteer and advocate for his fellow veterans. he spear headed the effort to renovate the veterans' memorial building in danville and volunteered at countless events to benefit veterans.

tony was a warm and respected leader and a dear friend. he will be missed. i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of tony and in sending our thoughts and prayers to his moved family and friends. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> on december 26, our nation lost a true hero. army specialist jason johnson of al byan, new york, was killeded in action in southern afghanistan while serving on his second tour of duty. he volunteered to return feeling a strong commitment to his fellow soldiers and insisting on joining them for a second deployment. specialist johnson was an elite soldier, the top 1%, according to major general from the u.s. army at fort bragg where jason was stationed. his bravery was without question. and his valor beyond measure.

it is because of the sacrifices that our nation's brave soldiers like specialist johnson make each and every day in regions far across the globe that keep americans sleeping safely at night. specialist johnson was one of the nation's finest soldiers. as his family said last week, he was a hometown hero who died serving the country he loved. he will be missed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this past week the city of memphis and the world lost a great musical producer, a musical icon, willie mitchell. willie mitchell was laid to rest today in memphis, tennessee. he produced a sound that included bill johnson and anne peebles but his most famous find was al green. great horn player and a great

musician, willie mitchell was in texas and al green was on the bill. he told al green, come back to memphis and i'll make you a star you and he did that. it happened so much in memphis. come to memphis and i'll make you a star and it happened. willie mitchell is a great part of that legend. he received the trustees award from the grammys in 2008 for a lifetime of achievement. he gave people lots of love and happiness and reasons to stay together, he and al green. he lives two wonderful daughters, two grandsons, a step-son and a musical history and a musical tradition that will live on forever. we'll all miss willie mitchell and i appreciate the fact that he came our way and helped produce the memphis sound. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> advice and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. >> mr. speaker, last week the bureau of labor and statistics released its final economic report for 2009. unfortunately the reports show that the year ending on a very disappointing note. 85,000 more jobs lost and 10% unemployment for the month of december. it's very clear that the excessive borrowing and spending in washington is not paying off where it's needed most. job creation. in fact, just this week an investigation by the associated press found that large portions of the $787 billion stimulus plan had, quote no, effect on local employment, unquote. mr. speaker, americans across the country have already made their 2010 new year's resolution. congress now needs to make its own. and that's that job creation will be our number-one priority. an economic recovery without jobs is not a recovery. i urge congress as we get back to work this month to finally work together to enact real bipartisan solutions that will give the american people what they want. more jobs without breaking the

bank. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: permission to speak for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: i've introduced h.r. 4414, the responsible bankers act of 2010. now, many of you know i voted against both pieces of tarp legislation. it's time that america got their money back and imposed a 75% tax on the bonuses that bankers are planning to pay themselves using windfall profits earned from massive taxpayer support of the financial services industry. the responsible bankers act will not penalize banks for making a profit but rather will tax the bonuses that are set aside. as i pointed out a month ago,

bankers are preparing to pay themselves record bonuses rather than lending and investing in american prosperity. they should use their profits and they could use their profits to do many things to improve the prospects of the american economy. like strengthen their capital base, reduce fees fees charged to customers or increase lendsing to small and medium sized companies. well, they're not doing that. they're hoarding it. they're using noun take over other banks. h.r. 4414 drause on the movement that's happening right now in the u.k. and around the world where people are waking up that banks are not there to help with the economy of the nation, then they should have to pay a serious tax on their bonuses. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, james madison said in federalist 45, the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal

government are few and defined. those which are to remain with the state governments are numerous and indefinite. the late -- later codified in the 10th amendment, the founding fathers intended the powers of the state to act as a check to the federal government and the supreme court said in 1975 that congress may not exercise power in a fashion that impayers the states' integrity or ability to function effectively. mr. speaker, time and time again this congress over the past year has forgeten -- forgotten the purpose of the 10th amendment, from hate crimes to health care, we either stand with the founding fathers, the constitution and the revolution or we don't and if we do not we do so at our peril. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. happy new year to america. as we start this new year i believe it's important to clarify a lot of misinterpretations about what the job of the federal government is and what this

congress' responsibility is. we are problem solvers. we work to solve the issues on behalf of the american people. and as we look at this health care debate which i hope will be entirely transparent, let the underlying premise be that 36 million people are without insurance. in addition, this health care bill will generate numerous numbers of jobs and new health professional scholarships to provide for doctors and nurses, making sure you do not have a denial of insurance because of preexisting disease and jobs we must make. we must move forward on the jobs bill and i in particular are pushing one that says if you're unemployed you can continue to get training, stipends will be given to you so you can train for the new job. we have to be innovative and know what the american people want. but most of all the government of the united states is a problem solver. the people of america are hurting and we must address the questions of health care and the underutilized ability for americans to be served by new health care and as well new

jobs. america must answer the call. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, california's governor is seeking billions of dollars of additional federal funds in order to fill his ever-widening budget deficit. last april he imposed the biggest tax increase by any state in american history despite repeated warnings of the damage it would do to the state's comet. california already had the highest sales and income taxes in the nation, he increased both. the taxes were supposed to produce $13 billion of additional revenue. but after nine months, california's sales tax collections are down $270 million, income tax collections are down $10 billion. the only major tax not raised, the corporate tax, is the only tax that's producing more

revenue. that's up 2.-- $2.4 approximately in the same period. i have a modest suggest to governor swart neglecter. rescind the tax increase that has crushed california's economy and its revenues and to my house colleagues, let's not repeat governor -- the governor's folly nationaly. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: my democrat colleagues are going to solve the health care problems with a 2,000-plus page bill and it's going to simplify the procedure and make everything better. we passed an amendment in this body that deals with the internal revenue code so people would buy more green cars that weren't going to pollute the atmosphere and buy electric cars. john stoss el of fox network

saw where there were free golf carts. he found out he could get a golf cart for $6,490, but because he -- because congress screwed up the tax code, he could get all that money back from the u.s. taxpayers. if you think that's bad, think what's going to happen if we pass this terrible health care bill that's going to ration health care and hurt seniors because it's going to cause them to lose their medicare and medicare advantage coverage. that's why we shouldn't be rushing to judgment on the health care bill. s the kind of screwup that should not take place. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from welve rise -- from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in

awe of the penn state university women's volleyball team. we often here in this chamber about undefeated or championship teams. but rarely have a heard about this. these nittany line lyons hasn't lost a game since 2007, they have a record 18 consecutive ncaa victories and they beat the university of texas lady longhorns for their third consecutive championship. i can't say enough about the team and its leaders masme began hodge became just the fifth player in division one history to be named first-team all american four years in a row and also was named the american volleyball coach's association national player of the year for twibe. it is enough to say i'm proud of this team. i repeat that i'm awe struck and struggling to find the words to properly praise them.

i will simply say congratulations. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: wok. >> mr. speaker, on sunday i was pleased to see "the new york times" acknowledge afghanistan and iraq as the central front as the struggle against islamic extremism and cites how the u.s. is making progress, turning authority over the u.s. and iraqi police force. "the new york times" covered reyear-end review and highlighted how there's been a 92% dide-crease in security incidents and a 90% increase in civilian deaths due to the surge. attacks dropped from more than 200 a day in two years to approximately 15 today. i want to thank general petraeus, our troops, military

families and veterans for their commitment to victory in iraq and afghanistan to protect us here at home by defeating forces overseas. daughter of jennifer and allen wilson at lexington medical cent for the south carolina. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: thank you -- mr. smith: we heard the president say back in 2008, that's what i'll do, bringing the parties together, not negotiating behind closed door bus brings parties together and broadcasting the negotiations on c-span so the american people can see what the choices are. we know in the debate -- when he was running against john

mccain, our now president said, i'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. we'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators, insurance companies, drug companies, they'll all get a seat at the table. they just won't be able to buy every chair. what we'll do is this. we'll have the negotiations televised on c-span so people can see who is making aferingts on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of their drug companies. we heard the speaker say, when she was speaker this would be the most open government ever. it's delipe perplexing, since we know they would never lie why they're preventing what they promised from coming true. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. abercrombie of hawaii for today, january 12rks an wednesday, january 13. mr. crenshaw of florida for

today. mr. haste offings florida for today and the balance of the week. ms. eddie bernice johnson of texas for today and through january 27, 2010. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i have been served with a subpoena issued in the superior court for santa clara county, california, for documents in a civil case. after consultation with the office of general council, i have determined that the compliance with the subpoena is in compliance with the precedents and privileges of the house, signed, sincerely, michael m. honda. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today, following

legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. mr. poe, january 19 for five minutes, mr. burton, today, january 13 for five minutes, mr. goodlatte, today for five minutes, mr. murphy from pennsylvania today for five minute, mr. paul, january 13 for five minutes, mr. many ran, today, january 13 and january 19 for five minutes, mr. conaway today for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following member mace be permitted to address the house forefive minutes to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials.

ms. woolsey of california, ms. kaptur of ohio, mr. grayson, florida. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previoused orer of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. jones of north carolina. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> to claim the time of the gentleman from north carolina. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in the news, since christmas day, has been great concern about the security of our country related to individuals entering this country and attempting to perpetrate harm on our citizens.

it hes back to september 11, 2001, -- it hearkens back to september 11, twune and what we have done to make our nation a safer place. one area where we could make it much safer and much fairer for all our citizens and those who come to the united states would be to eliminate the visa lottery program. this is a program that awards legal permanent resident status or green cards to foreign nationals based on pure luck. literally, the state department conducts a random lottery, millions of people submit their names on very short forms, about a half page long, and then they randomly select out of those millions of people 50,000 winners each year who get to enter the united states through the visa lottery program. they don't have to have any family ties to the united states, they don't have to have any job skills that are in need in the united states, they simply through pure luck get to

enter this country. usually immigrant visas are issued to foreign national that was existing connections with family members lawfully residing in the united states. under the visa lottery program, visas are awarded to immigrants at random without meeting such criteria. a perfect example of the system gone awry is the case of hashem mohammed ali hadayyat who killed two and wounded three during a shoot spreeg at los angeles international airport in july of 2002. he was allowed to apply for a legal permanent resident status in 1997 because of his wife's status as a visa lottery winner. in fact, since this program was established in the early 1990's, nearly one million people have come into the united states regardless of the need for them to enter this country, regardless of the

unemployment rate, which today stands above 10% and with 15 million americans looking for work, we give 50,000 visas to people to enter the country, not based upon any family ties, not based upon job skill, simply based upon pure luck. the state department's inspector general testified before congress recently that it continues -- he continues to believe that the program contains significant risks to national security from hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists attempting to use the program for entry into the united states as permanent residents. with the tool of legal permanent resident status in hand, terrorists and spies would have free reign to travel, meet, and plan terrorist activities within the borders of the united states. even if technical improvements were made to the visa lottery program, nothing would prevent terrorist organizations or foreign intelligence agencies for having people apply for the

program who don't have criminal backgrounds, maybe recently left a ma dra is a in the middle east and has no record of affiliating with a terrorist organization, but that organization could assist them in submitting their name and if their name is drive they don't get a temporary visa like the 9/11 hijackers or the fellow who attempted to blow up a northwest airliner. rather they get permanent resident status, a green card to live permanently in the united states. 13 of the 14 countries other which the t.s.a. is exercising greater scrutedemi in the wake of the attempted christmas day bombing plot are eligible to participate in the visa lottery, including yemen, the focus of much activity on the part of terrorist organizations. the swree visa program is wrought with fraud. it's common for people to apply

many times with different ail -- aliases. the state department declared the visa lot rahry program is subject to widespread abuse and fraudulent documents are common place. a 2007 government accountability office report found that the visa lottery program is vulnerable to fraudulent activity commited by and -- committed by and against applicants. the same report found that consular officers at six posts reported widely -- widespread abuse such as fake birth certificates and pass aborts -- passports provided challenges. the visa lottery program is unfair to those who ply with immigration laws. most wait for years to obtain visas, yet the lottery program pushes 50,000 random immigrants with no particular family ties,

job skills or education ahead of these family and employer-sponsored immigrants each year with no wait. mr. speaker, this legislation should be overturned and i have introduced legislation to do just this, this congress should bring it up for a vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, the year 2009 ended 12 days ago and many were glad to see it go. it was a very difficult year for american families as they struggled with the recession. it was also a very difficult year for our brave troops in afghanistan. the death toll was 317. that was twice as many as the previous year and it made 2009 the deadliest year of the war. we'd all like to believe that this year will be safer for our

troops in afghanistan but it doesn't look like it will be that way. our military leaders have already predicted the president -- that president obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops will lead to an increase in violence this spring and summer. sadly, america's military families who have already sacrificed so very much must brace themselves for more as the attacks on our troops continue. violent extremism is thriving in afghanistan. because of the crippled economy, the broken infrastructure, the lack of education and other service the breakdown in law and order and the belief that the central government isn't doing nearly enough to help their people. mr. speaker, this is -- there is no military solution to these problems. that's why i'm opposed to send manager trooping to -- troops to afghanistan. we don't need new troop, we need a snu gnu strategy.

we need to improve the lives of the afghan people and give them hope for a better future. one of the keys to this new strategy must be a civilian surge. a surge of experts and aide workers who can help the afghan people to rebuild their communities and to are build their country -- and to rebuild that crir -- their country. everyone seems to agree this is a good idea. the president said it's a good idea. our diplomats and military leaders in afghanistan have said it's a good idea. the people of our country certainly know that it's a good idea. the last supplemental appropriations bill, however, which i voted against, lacked significant funding for the civilian surge. and president obama only mentioned it once in his address to -- on afghan at west point. the numbers on the -- on

afghanistan at west point. the numbers on the ground tell the story. when i questioned ambassador eikenberry he indicated that there will be 1,000 civilians in afghanistan by the end of this month. but we will have 100,000 troops there soon. that's a ratio of 100 to one. so we aren't getting the civilian surge that we were promised. the current strategy in fact of relying on military -- the military option ignores what really will work in afghanistan. a real commitment to economic development, humanitarian aid and social services, better law enforcement to disrupt terrorist networks and better governance and systems of justice. the afghan people desperately need a better future and a reason to reject violent extremism. they need a winning in

afghanistan is about winning the hearts and minds of the afghan people. marked security -- more security is the way to do that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes mr. burton from indiana for one minute. >> ask unanimous consent -- ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for five minutes, speak out of remark. >> this past saturday the school honored him with ron butler day to thank him for his years of service to their community. ron worked at ranger college from 1964 when he was hired until his retirement in the year 2000. during his tenure at the college, he filled many roles. he was the head coach of both the men's and women's basketball teams, head coach of the softball team, head coach of the football team and also the alingt letic director. throughout much of his tenure he held many of these jobs at the

same time. most remarkable about coach butler's ranger was the unqualified achievements the school had in athletics. in almost every sport, coach butler's teams found success and championships. a college as small as ranger this is a big deal. it is not a stress to say -- stretch to say that the president of ranger college was right when he said that, i single-handedly give credit for the reputation and success of ranger college to ron butler. compeling in athletics enabled the school to be able to grow and build its reputation as one of the finest junior colleges in texas and beyond the nation. beyond the wins and the championships, he has touched 25 years of students and families. his unwavering dedication and commitment can be seen rippling through the lives of everyone who has played under him or served alongside him. after all of this, coach butler continues to serve his school today as a member of the board of regions. mr. speaker, it's my great pleasure to share with this body the small story of someone who gave so much to so many. ranger college and all of its

alumni owe a great debt of gratitude to this man and it's my honor to thank coach butler publicly tonight. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes mr. defazio of oregon. the chair recognizes mr. grayson from florida. mr. grayson: mr. chairman, i was suppliesed to -- surprised to hear a few days ago rudy giuliani say that there were no terrorist attacks during the bush administration on u.s. soil. he later corrected that remark to say that there were no terrorists attacks on u.s. soil while president bush was leading the country except for just 9/11. only the terrorist attack on 9/11. and i realized that i was witnessing the birth of a new political discourse from the right wing in this country, the

exception, the exceptional exception, the exception that proves the rule or disproves the rule as the case may be. so i'm expecting that in the future we'll hear from the right wing the claim that no cities drowned under the bush administration except for new orleans. and that there were no wars that were started by mistake under the bush administration except for the war in iraq. and that the bush administration added nothing to the federal debt except for $4.5 trillion which works out to $15,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. and that they respected all of our constitutional rights as americans except when they didn't. i think that we'll hear the republicans claim that the bush administration managed the economy quite well except when they brought it to the brink of national bankruptcy. in fact, they'll claim that the bush-cheney administration was a complete success except for the

fact that it was an abject failure. an abject failure. in fact, what we learn in watching them for eight years is that the reason why the republicans hate government so much is because they're so bad at it. and there are those people among us who look through that terrible time and we look back on it and they'll say that they'll vote for anybody on the ballot, absolutely anybody on the ballot, with one exception, except if that person happens to be a republican. i yield the remainder of my time. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes mr. connelly from virginia for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent except his time or use his time and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: you know, mr. speaker, i get a big kick out of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle who continue to beat on the bush administration. i mean, we're not in the bush

administration. we are in the obama administration. and the obama administration this year has outlined a $3.55 trillion -- trillion budget. and you know, they always seem to come down when they talk about president bush and his administration and some of the shortcomings and there's never been an administration that didn't have some shortcomings, but they don't talk much about what's happened since they took power. when the democrats took over congress three years ago, less than three years ago, the national debt was under $9 trillion. it went from $9 trillion to $10 trillion to $11 trillion to over $12 trillion. that's just in the last three years. they're spending money like it's going out of style. they've increased the national

debt limit five times, five times in just the last three years and the increase of $3.4 trillion is 38%-plus over what the national debt was when they took control of this chamber. and the other chamber. it really bothers me when they talk about all this and in retrospect and they don't pay any attention to what's going on now and what should be going on in the future. they're talking about a national health care plan now that's going to cost, i believe, you know, $3 trillion over the next decade and they're behind closed doors trying to ram that thing through without really having even a conference committee. they're doing it with just the leaders and they're doing it in a smoke-filled room with -- well, maybe they don't smoke, but they're doing it in a closed room where nobody can see, not even c-span, even though they promised that they would. let's just look at what happened since they took power with the white house as well as the house and the senate, since january of

2009. they passed the state children's health insurance reorganization act which was $73.3 approximately -- billion. in february they passed the stimulus bill which has not worked, unemployment which was not supposed to go over 8% went over 10%, now it's at least 10%. and that bill was $1.16 trillion when you include interest. also in february they passed the consolidated appropriations act which was $410 billion. when you add interest to it, it's $625 billion. and then in june of 2009 they passed the defense supplemental which was not a bad deal because we had to do something about our military personnel in combat around the world, protecting our freedoms, but in addition to what we were doing for our military personnel and defense they had all kinds -- i think they had 3,000 or 4,000 pork barrel projects stuck in there.

and then in december they passed a consolidated appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010 which was $3.554 trillion. now, the president has said just the last couple of days, we have to do something about spending. man, that is really, really a great statement. i wish he'd thought about that about a year ago when he first took office. but nevertheless it's better to be aware of it now than to not do anything about it at all. but he's talking about cutting spending by between 3% and 5% on discretionary spending and that's going to amount to, oh, maybe $150 billion. but he's spending $3.55 trillion. and so you're still going to have about $3.4 trillion, even if we were to cut spending by 3% to 5%. the spend something completely out of control. the health care bill they're talking about is not going to start providing coverages, benefits, until 2013 and yet the

taxes start right now, which means simply that the $1 trillion they're talking about being the cost of that health care plan is not going to be $1 trillion, it's going to be at least $1.5 trillion and if it's anything like other government programs that they've rammed through in the past, it will double that and i really believe we're going to see a $3 trillion cost to the health care bill in this next decade if they pass it. and i'm very hopeful that the senate, some senator, at least one or two, will see the light and realize the american people simply don't want that. the overwhelming majority of americans don't want anything coming between them and their doctor, especially government. and they don't want socialized medicine and they don't want all this spending. they want to do what ronald reagan did back in the early 1980's when he came in and the situation was even worse then. we had 12% unemployment, we had 14% inflation, a misery index of 26%, that's what they called it,

and reagan came in and instead of raising taxes as manies his advisors said he should do, he said, no, no, i'm going to cut taxes, i'm going to cut taxes across the board for individuals, for businesses, for corporations, for industry. because if we give them more of their tax money back, they'll be able to spend more on investment, they'll be able to spend more to buy cars and refrigerators and everything else, and as a result the economy turned around and we had a 20-year expansion of the economy which was unparalleled in my lifetime. and yet we haven't learned from john f. kennedy and we haven't learned from president reagan. we're doing exactly the opposite. we're spending money like it's going out of style and coming up with new government programs which is going to cost jobs and dig us into a debt that we're going to never get out of. it's going to cause inflation and higher taxes. well, we -- what we should be doing right now, as i've said on this floor many times, is we

should go back to the reagan and john f. kennedy formula and cut taxes, give this economy a real shot in the arm by letting people keep more of their money and you'll see us create jobs. we won't have 10% unemployment in a year or two or three. it will be down, it will be going down, it will be going down fairly rapidly once it starts to take hold. but as long as we just keep spending and spending and spending and digging ourselves into a deeper hole by coming up with new programs like this crazy health care bill they're talking about, we're never going -- going to solve our problem and our kids and our grandkids and the posterity of this country is going to look back and say, why did you do this to us? why did you do this house? i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes mr. murphy from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: thank you. the speaker pro tre