instead of banning earmarks, mr. ellison said congress should focus on creating a centralized place for the public to see who is requesting earmarks and an easily navigatable process for following an earmark from start to finish. madam president, let me say for the record we already do that. and finally, from laura peterson of taxpayers for common sense, an organization that has been outspoken in its criticism of the appropriations committee, in a march "congressional quarterly" article, she said -- "any ban on spending defined on earmarks could end up increasing the practice of securing funding without formally -- without formally securing funding, without formally requesting an earmark. i would be concerned that some earmarks might just migrate to the appropriations bill as the committee adds." madam president, if it weren't so serious, it would be almost laughable. under this amendment, we will not eliminate earmarks. we will only eliminate our role, the role of the constitution assigned to congress. moreover, all

it's up. -- or earmark. host: susan is joining us to set the stage for the discussion about earmarks. monies could be earmarked for non-profit organizations. susan is a senior editor at the hill and has always followed the money story closely. thanks for being with us. as to how much the earmarks account for the federal budget, there is a story here from yahoo! news that suggests in the current year, the total amount is under $16 billion. while that is a tiny percentage of more than $1 trillion in fiscal 2010 discretionary spending, earmarks have become a lightning rod for critics of federal spending and ethical problems in the congress. we would like to hear more from you about whether you think it matters, whether it is a step in the right direction. it has made a great deal of news coverage. let's begin with mike on the democrats' line from baltimore. caller: good morning. all this makes me think that what is missing is popular oversight and participation. if you imagine the founders of the country and he

the tattoo removal earmark, the totally teen zone earmark in and midnight basketball. go through the list, and you say, how does this make sense in light of the fact that the same people who are asking for these earmarks come onto this floor, onto the house floor and in the white house and say, our debt is unsustainable. it's crisis. we cannot continue to spend and borrow and create debt. yet, i need $1 million for a tattoo removal or a bridge to knonowhere or a local museum. the american people are on to us. they know it makes absolutely no sense for us to focus so much time and energy on parochial earmarks for our press releases rather than working on the issues of our country, the general welfare of our nation. all of these projects add up. last year alone, according to the congressional research service, president obama, who said he would not sign bills with earmarks, signed bills with 11,320 earmarks totaling $32 billion for the last fiscal year. that's an increase from $28.8 billion in earmarks from 2008, and $30 billion in earmarks in 2009. big and small, these

we can and we must end the practice of earmarking. now, i have traveled around the country and all around my home state of arizona. i have seen the tea party participants. i have met citizens of my state who have never, ever been involved in the political process before. they are angry, and they are frustrated, and they want change. they want the change that was promised to them last november, which they haven't gotten. they want us to act as careful stewards of their tax dollars. just the other night my colleague from arizona and i, senator kyl, were on a teleconference call to the citizens of our state, and many thousands of they will were on the call, and we responded to their questions and a guy on the phone said -- he was from thatcher, arizona, and he said, i've never been involved nor cared much about politics before, but, he said -- quote -- "you have gotten me off the couch." you've gotten me off the couch. we've gotten lots of people off the couch because they're saying, enough. they're saying, enough of a $1.4 trillion debt

just march 17, a "roll call" editorial, "earmark action.t just a small fraction of federal spending, earmarks have accounted for an outsized proportion of congressional impairment over recent years, so we're pleased to see house democrats and republicans moving to limit them. but until the senate goes along or until president obama determines to veto earmarks when they come his way, the spectacle of special interest spending won't stop nor with it the public's suspicion that many earmark projects are bought with campaign contribution." i ask unanimous consent that the article -- the editorial in "roll call" be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president, i've been on the floor many times -- also, i would ask unanimous consent that the article in the "wall street journal," march 17, called "earmarks in reverse" be included, and "the washington post" of march 12 entitled "all earmarks should be banned in the house and the senate," and finally, the steven and cokey roberts, "a bribe by any oth

i wanted to talk about congressional ethics in the earmarks. i wanted to first get an update on something that was created a couple of years ago. it is the office of congressional ethics. how was it first formed and how has it been operating? guest: it was formed as a campaign promise that nancy pelosi made when the democrats were campaigning on the culture of corruption. the house ethics committee was considered broken at the time the office of congressional ethics was greeted as a new body that would be more independent and investigate members of congress. right now they have no subpoena power. all they can do is to the investigation and forward it over to the ethics committee. the ethics committee has been flapping them back lately, so the office of congressional ethics is making an effort to hold them accountable, while the ethics committee is more interested in covering up. host: so what does this mean for health care they are conducted here in washington? guest: it is a mess. the ethics committee gives cover to members of congress. we saw

so the president earmarks too. if you don't believe it, look at the appropriations conference report. where is the focus on the vast majority of discretionary spending which is dolled out every year by bureaucrats. unelected bureaucrats. i wish more people would understand this. because it's -- it's -- i find that a lot of the people that hammer and dell going the ear -- dem gag the earmark are the biggest spenders. it's a nice way of deviating from your behavior. i thinking is needs to be done immediately. today i'm introducing the "help" act, call the honest expenditure limitation program. the act of 2010. now the bill does three things. one, it places caps on nonsecurity discretionary spending, which i define exactly as president obama's budget does. i do this because i want to show the similarities between what h wants to do and what i really want to do. the second thing it enforces the caps by sequestering any spending through across the board cuts, a process that currently applies to mandatory spending but n

speaker, the amount of earmarks violating both republican and democratic house rules against earmarks is beyond the counting of any of us. so, my point of order is intended to stop the bill until earmarks can be removed from the bill. i might note, mr. speaker, last night, until late at night, for more than 13 hours, republicans offered 80 amendments, many of which could have fixed portions of this bill, none, i repeat, mr. speaker, none were ruled in order. mr. speaker, i make a point of order that an earmark is tantamount to a bribe. an earmark to receive a vote is clearly a way to get a vote in return for something of value. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman deserves to be heard. the house will be in order. mr. issa: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will continue to suspend. the house will be in order. members will take their seats, staff will take their seats, remove their conversations from the floor. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, this legislation is a vast tax increase and a vast increase i

earmark. and, number two, it's something i have serious problems with in terms of of our oath of office. we raise our hands, as the senator from north dakota knows, and swear to uphold the constitution of the united states of america. if we say that we are disenfranchising ourselves from our article 1, section 9, of the constitution, which is very clearly the responsibility of the legislative branch to pass -- or to introduce authorization bills and appropriations bills. this bill, i do have some cosponsors on this, quite a few cosponsors on this. it is a proposal that would freeze discretionary spending at the 2008 level. here's the reason i'm doing this: president obama and some of his, the democrats proposed that they would freeze the nonsecurity discretionary spending at 2010 levels. well, the problem i have with that is this is after it's already been increased by 20%. so kind of big deal. you increase it by 20%, and then you freeze it. what i'm doing is taking the same, same interpretati

earmarking is 1.5%. i am concerned about the rest of it. that is why i introduced a bill to look at. this bill does what obama said we wanted to do. weeding out non-discretionary spending. i looked at that, thinking that is an increase from last year. it went up 20%. so, i felt we should bring it back. i introduce the same bill, saying we should treat it at the 2008 level. bat saved just under $1 trillion over 10 years. we are going to push that. i will try to get some democrats to support it. that is the discussion against the point i am making, that if we shirk our constitutional responsibilities and do away with any kind of appropriations on our part, that will be shifted to the president, you have obama plus a bureaucrat making the decision. >> clearly congress is trying to make some effort to show that they are addressing the debt. is this debt commission going to have any effect on reducing the debt and deficit? >> it is a distraction. you put together these bipartisan things, people saying that they will study the issues. you do not

we got mixed up in the earmarking and abramoff scandals and people went to jail.ll stop this earmarking and top this pork barrel spending because we have committed generational theft. the greatness of america, the greatness of america is about the fact that every generation of americans has handed off to the next generation a better nation than the one that we inherited. i cannot tell you, my friends, that that is the case with the"% way we are doing business in washington, d.c. today. so, what do we need to do? we need to begin the fight.ç first we are going to calendar this law constitutionally. it is not constitutional to force every american citizen to buy any product. and i'mç proud of our legislate and our governor that said we can7tç afford this. we can't afford to have our patients on access thrown off. we can't afford the increased cost in a distressed economic situation. and we are going to then, after we challenge this in the courts as that moves, then we are going to register people to vote and get them out and continue the tea parties and demonstrat

>> this earmarked has been an ongoing one. we are talking to a couple members about what we had done. we have had significant reductions. we had unprecedented transparency on the internet. they are being publicly disclosed, not just our disclosing of it. there are a marks in designated -- are earmarks a designated. they must compete. that is what we did last year. we decided to go further. wheat pit and a one-year memorialist in 2007. year. members are making their request for air marks. it is important to let them know that they probably should not make a request for an earmark for a business. that is not mean we do not dumping give -- they have done. probably 99% of the earmarks are in the defense bill. many come from the department of defense. they cannot compete with the defense contractors. instead, we will have an innovation. compete for a contract, if that is what it is. the fact that it has to be they do not have to competei spend a lot of time on national security issues. they divided into needs. we say, who can do th

, there was no evidence that members or their staff considered contributions when requesting earmarks. whereas the committee indicated that with respect to the matters forwarded by the office of congressional evidence, neither the evidence cited in the o.c.e. fight -- findings or the evidence found by the committee had reason to believe that violations had occur. whereas the office of congressional ethics is prohibited from reviewing activities prior to march of 2008 and lacks the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents, whereas, for example, the office of congressional ethics noted that in some instances documented were redacted or specific information was not provided and that in at least one instance, they had reason to believe a witness withheld information requested and did not identify what was being withheld. whereas the office of congressional ethics also noted they were able to interview only six former members of the p.m.a. group with many former employees refusing to consent to interviews and the o.c.e. unable to obtain evidence within their possession, whereas "roll

again, discussing the earmarks as well a the possible censuring of marion barry. >>> a warning for women in montgomery county this morning. police there are loong for a man who he they say sexual assaulted a woman. the attack happened last night in silver spring. police say a woman called them claiming a man was attacking her. he's still on the loose. investigators have not released a description of the suspect. >>> two men charged with causing a deadly street racing crash in prince george's county will be sentenced today. one of the men has pled guilty to eight counts of vehicular manslaughter. the other man's trial has ended up in a hung jury. >> a prince george's county jury deadlocked in the case of the drag racing crash that killed eight people two years ago. the jury convicted taylor. >> the jury was not convinced beyond a reason doubt that taylor was responsible for these be deaths. >> reporter: jurors deliberated for a day and a half about their decision. jurors were split 9 to 3 in favor of conviction on the felony manslaughter charges. a unanimous verdict is needed to convict.

n one bill last year there were 9,000 earmarks. why don't we take the final step and put a moratorium on earmarks until there's no more deficit? i think that's what the american people want, to get rid of this corruption that continues there. could i also mention to my friend from tennessee very briefly, you know, the president, when he and i sat next to each other at blair house and i talked about the special deals for the special interests and the unsavory deal that was cut with pharma and how the american people as angry at the process as the product. the president's response to me and the certain accuracy associated with it he said, "the campaign is over." well, i would remind my friend that before the campaign, before the campaign, when the president was still a senator, he said this about reconciliation. he said, "know "you know, the fg fathers designed this system, as frustrating as it is, to make sure there is a broad consensus that the system is as fair as -- that's prompt ago change in the rules that would change the char

earmark. so we have this as a very serious problem right now one of the reasons that i have always said that i don't like the idea of the -- of the earmark discussion is that people don't understand. they think somehow earmarks are something that if you eliminate, you save money. you don't save a cent. earmarks of the spending that takes place, it's discretionary, not mandatory, but discretionary spending, it constitute 1.5% of i'm concerned about the 98.5%. for that reason i introduced a bill that is very similar to something that president obama said. everyone rejoiced during the state of the union message when he said, i'm going to freeze non-defense discretionary spending at the 2010 level. everyone applauded. they thought that was a great statement to make until i went back and i looked to see and i found out that non-defense discretionary spending had increased between -- 2008 and 2010 by act of this president, obama, by 20%. so what he's saying is he's going to increase discretionary sp

comes out to read earmarks requests all the way through the final bills we see the ecosystem that's not antiearmarks it's just let's see what's going on so we can do public oversight and administer well. that is one of the examples of the thousands we will need to develop in the different areas the government deals with as we go forward. cautious congratulations to the obama administration so far. there is so much work to do though. >> for the remote audience don't forget to e-mail questions@opengovernment.org or call and the speakers that are out in the lobby could come and sit down if they would like. john, you spend a lot of time on issues of the federal and permission policy and practices. what do you see as the biggest opportunities and challenges that face this administration and its efforts to make the government more transparent and what is the sunlight working on to help sustain openness in the government? >> thank you. so, i have to start off by saying what an incredible sunshine week. we were hopeful a lot of these things would have been put on top of the weather i have l

. >> on earmarks, was there any pressure to take a tougher stance, especially on corporate earmarks? >> this earmarked discussion has been an ongoing one for us. we are talking about what we have done on the earmarked situation. we have had significant reductions, by nearly half, and president transparency, requiring members air marks -- unprecedented transparency, earmarks designated for profit must compete. we decided to go further. we put in a one-year moratorium in 2007. it did not have a anything to do with that. it had to do with the time of the year. members are making the request for earmarks, and we thought it would be important to let them know that they probably should not make a request for an earmarked for a business. that does not mean that we do not respect some of what they have done. most of the earmarks, probably 99.99% of them are in the bill. many of them come from the department of defense that on certain small businesses to get an earmarked because it is a fresh thing, but they cannot get it in the budget. these companies cannot compete with the big defense cont

-- or earmark reform.hings that have very little or in most cases nothing to do with this underlying will. it is just that this is an authorization bill and opened for amendments and we have amendments on a wide range of issues. we have amendments on issues that are germane and related to this piece of legislation much we have been working to put together an amendment with rockefeller's staff and working with other colleagues make suggestions that make a lot of sense and i think we're making progress there i've described before the need for this. i last year met with some of the europeans who put together the modernization program in europe. this issue of modernization of the air traffic control system -- i think i heard senator mccain talk about world war ii vintage air traffic control. it is the case that those who are now taking off this minute from national airport, when that airplane leaves the runway and is in the national airspace, it is the case that someone in a control tower somewhere is watching

earmarks in conference committee. finally, earmark recipients should be held accountable. this means randomly auditing earmarks every year and publishing the results for our constituents to see. next, we need to deal with the challenge of passing real campaign finance reform that reduces the outside influence of special interests. i intend to support the bill that senator schumer and congressman van hollen are putting together and urge my colleagues to do the same. finally, we need to reform the institution of the senate itself. the filibuster has been used in the senate for quite some time. it's been used by the minority to slow down debate, have their voices heard, and in some cases stall legislation. i would remind members of my own party that just the threat of a filibuster stopped the privatization of social security. however, during this session of congress, the right to filibuster has been abused. it has become a normal part of business, a way to stall every piece of legislation and simply slow the senate to a

stipulated they should be competitive or merit based, often times later, members of congress will earmark funds directly and some of these accounts we have for merit-based grant programs are completely earmarks just a few years later, so individuals or organizations, nonprofit organizations or state agencies can't even compete for them because all the money has been earmarked. we need look no further than the fema national predisaster mitigation program, it was a competitive grant program designed to quote, save lives and reduce property damage by providing for hazard mitigation planning, acquisition and structures on the floodplain. this was going to be a competitive grant program. the fiscal 2010 homeland security appropriation bill appropriated $100 million for this program, almost $25 million was earmarked for projects in mebs' home districts, leaving fewer funds available for localities that wished to apply for funding. a grant program to establish the emergency operation center established by congress in the 2008 homeland security appropriation bill, 60% of the funds in that grant p

the senator from alabama was among those seeking earmarks. for fy 2010, the senator requested earmarks totaling more than $400 million. i ask my colleagues, how is the appropriations committee supposed to live within the tight constraints of these proposed spending limits over five years and still satisfy those earmarks? i would also point out that like many other senators, the senator from alabama has come to the floor on many occasions to seek additional millions of dollars for support of building a fence along our southwest border. the total cost of that fence is estimated to be around $8 billion. madam president, it would be virtually impossible to provide the billions required for this fence under the terms of the amendment offered by the senator. other senators have supported launch program increases, such as adding $2.5 billion to continue the c-17 program. i've strongly supported continuing the c-17 program, but all members should realize if the senate wants to cut discretionary programs like the c-17, are unlikely to continue to be f

the bill by definition, therefore be thill doesn't have earmarks. we can't believe our lying eyes because somebody said by definition it doesn't exist? they argue by definition they don't want to fund illegals, but the result is, 6.1 million illegals taking advantage of the senate version of the bill by the call cue lage of the nonpartisan congressional budget office. the house version funds illegal the senate version funds illegals and the house version, i know a little better, it funds them in a myriad of ways. also the senate version funds abortion with american people's tax dollars. that's something else the president says they're not doing and something the speaker of the house say they're not doing, i haven't heard majority leader harry reid say one way or the other. but there are a couple of way this is happens. one is in this chart right here. so, madam speaker, it goes like this. when you have americans that have to fund into these three different systems, pay taxes, or enroll in exchange plan, or enroll in exchange plan that covers a i abo

he said he hopes to eliminate 1,000 earmarks. the move follows an ethics probe of allegations that seven house members earmarked funds in exchange for campaign cash. the investigation found no wrongdoing. in economic news, the senate approved a new stimulus bill worth nearly $150 billion. it extends jobless benefits and some tax breaks for another year. and on wall street, the dow jones industrial average gained nearly three points to close at 10,567. the nasdaq rose 18 points to close near 2,359. those are some of the day's main stories. i'll be back at the end of the program with a preview of what you'll find tonight on the "newshour's" web site. but for now, back to gwen. >> ifill: an american woman who called herself "jihad jane" was charged yesterday with using the internet to launch a home grown terror plot. colleen larose, who lived in suburban pennsylvania, was accused of trying to murder a swedish artist, lars vilks. vilks angered muslims by depicting the prophet muhammad with the body of a dog. authorities say the case

they were purchased by university employees and earmarked by needy families, but the school did not earmark who received the gift cards or who received the purchases. daviin july the new president ts over. there could be more in annapolis a senate appropriation commit ie is looking at the budget here at the university of baltimore. we will see what come from that. joel d smith, fox 45 morning news. >>> coming up federal help for the unemployed is over today. what is holding up the extension of the program. >>> it gave us the platform and the reasons for them to come. >> will that be enough to payoff the billions of dollars how about over here? hmm... let's go back to the left. uh... waffling is back at dunkin' donuts with the return of the waffle breakfast sandwich. two oven-toasted waffles with a hint of maple, complete with fluffy egg, a slice of melted cheese, and now with delicious sausage. so hurry in today because it's only around for a short time. america runs on dunkin'. try our oven-toasted waffle breakfast sandwich today, only at dunkin' donuts. >>> sting the olympics is an honor

we simply cannot afford to wait any longer for real earmark reform. last year i introduced house resolution 614, which prohibits earmarks for for-profit entities. last week the appropriations committee took up the premise of this resolution by establishing a one-year moratorium on earmarks for for-profits. we must make this ban permanent and act in an open and responsible manner, allowing for public scrutiny of all requests. moving forward each dollar spent must benefit the american people, not some special interests. our work today will help us build a safer and stronger community tomorrow. now is the time to answer the president's call. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> today i rise to express how disappointed i am in this institution and the presidency with what's happened this last weekend. when we are a nation that'

you know, i think that's what's going on here. >> which is about the earmarks.e point -- >> it's will the house now consider the resolution? they're not actually considering the rule of resolution yet. >> right. >> it's dragging it out to a certain degree, gloria. but that's part of the process. >> it is part of the process. and normally we're used to it in the senate more than in the house but in the house there are always ways to play with the rules, to call points of order to delay and delay and delay what could be inevitable today which is the passage of health care reform in the house and i think again republicans are doing this for their own reasons. they want to use every opportunity they can to point out what is in this bill that the public should not -- >> and we should know with less than 15 minutes, about 15 minutes from now, whether or not the democrats will in fact have 216 votes that they need to pass the senate bill, make that the law of the land, and then go on and pass the separate reconciliation bill. that's becau that's at the top of the hour.

this is the pma investigation we were talking about, and charred wood whether or not members were earmarked in for -- the ethics committee took with the office of congressional ethics said and they did not do anything. they never spoke to either office. yet, he has been cleared. it is odd that the ethics committee has a lower standard of conduct and then the justice department. they believe there are possible criminal charges but the ethics committee did not even wait to see what would happen before they said that there was nothing wrong. host: caroline, louisiana. republican line. caller: i believe her ethics committee is, like united nations, sort of neutered. nancy pelosi was supposed to drain the swamp but we still have small animals in congress and it makes dysfunctional. about the other people saying that we think the ethics committee should be on c-span because barack obama was on to spend -- it was his idea to be on c-span. i wish and pray that some day you will be unneutered and be able to do your job. you should be an entity that is almost like a judge, lawyers, and put these thin

democrats are pushing a new rule that would most likely forbid earmarked expediters to private for-profitontractors for least one year. such businesses -- billions annually in federal grants directed their way. one way to rebut charges they have been soft on ethics issues." julia, south carolina. what is the name of your town? caller: bakersfield. host: good morning, ma'am. caller: please give me sufficient time to explain why i believe that both of the people and the government are the problem. we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. in a democracy the majority of the people, no matter how wrong the bill is, a majority can get it passed. in a constitutional republic, what our founding fathers gave us was a limited government guided by a set of laws where they have to go through the process of a constitutional amendment. what we have been doing for years, since the institution of the federal reserve started practicing keynesian economics, where you spend and spend and never pay the bill, the health care is totally unconstitutional. under the bill of rights, socialist programs h

we have to say to the american people we will stop this earmarking.e will stop this pork-barrel spending. we of committed generational theft. the greatness of america is about the fact that every generation of americans has handed off to the next generation a better nation than the one that we inherited. i cannot tell you that that is the case with the way we are doing business in washington today. so -- what we need to do? we need to begin the fight. first, we're going to challenge this law constitutionally. it is not constitutional to force every american citizen to buy any product. [applause] i am proud of our legislature and our governor who stood up and said, "we cannot afford this. we cannot afford to have our patients on access thrown off. we cannot afford the increased costs in an already severely distressed economic situation. we are going to, after we challenge this in the courts -- we're going to register people to vote. we're going to get them out. ." we're going to continue the message to obama, harry reid, and nancy pelosi. repeal and re

council is meeting today to discuss an invtigation into earmarks and city contracts.ll have much more on this coming up a little bit later. >>> another big story. tomorrow same sex couples can apply for marriage licenses in d.c. the d.. superior court is getting ready for a rush of people. earlier this morning we spoke with judge lee satterfield about the process. >> there are a number of things we ask that you bring with you and one is their patience because we expect there to be a long line and we want to make this a good experience for all. bring the completed application and make sure you bring the exact amount of money in cash or a money order and if you are registered as a d.c. domestic partnership the fee is waived so bring your certificate and the clerk will waive the fee. >> the applications are available online so applicants can fill them out and speed up the process. and we'll link you to the site on myfoxdc.com. after applying couples still have to wait a full three business days for the licenses before exchanging vows. actual ceremonies will take place ma

you know, people criticize congressional earmarks. think we should have the transparency in executive and the ministry of earmarks and today i'm to going to declare war on agencies who make determinations for awarding grants behind closed doors. at least we are elected officials. at least we are elected officials and i'm not picking on the obama administration. remember when we failed to pass an appropriations measure for transportation appropriations, some of you were here. there were 1155 earmarks that went before the committee. we put on display. they were provided by an elected member of congress through the congressional process passed in the house of representatives open to the public and the bush administration when we failed to determine how that $800 million was to be spent took that money and behind closed doors some arrogant bush administration folks put on five projects of their choice with no hearing, no public recourse. if the obama administration is going to do the same thing i am declaring war, executive earmarks today

earmarking is 1.5%. i am concerned about the rest of it. that is why i introduced a bill to look at. this bill does what obama said we wanted to do. weeding out non-discretionary spending. i looked at that, thinking that is an increase from last year. it went up 20%. so, i felt we should bring it back. i introduce the same bill, saying we should treat it at the 2008 level. bat saved just under $1 trillion over 10 years. we are going to push that. i will try to get some democrats to support it. that is the discussion against the point i am making, that if we shirk our constitutional responsibilities and do away with any kind of appropriations on our part, that will be shifted to the president, you have obama plus a bureaucrat making the decision. >> clearly congress is trying to make some effort to show that they are addressing the debt. is this debt commission going to have any effect on reducing the debt and deficit? >> it is a distraction. you put together these bipartisan things, people saying that they will study the issues. you do not

it was the earmark of earmarks. we found a program in the intelligence committee. that program involved a new asset known as the u.a.v.'s. jack immediately, even though the air force could not imagine our ever wanting an asset where somebody wasn't sitting in a seat, jack recognized the potential of that future asset. and if it were not for his work and for his support for our effort, that $40 million earmark would never have gone forward and predator would have never been in bosnia. another occasion, a demonstration of incredible foresight and leadership. jack murtha joined me in the committee taking a look at tactical aircraft. we decided that we could not go forward with the f-22, and we pulled the procurement for the first seven of those aircraft. you would have thought we blew the top off the pentagon. and to say the least, lots of consternation out there, but jack fore saw that unless we tested the software in the wings before we started to fly this baby it never would fly. always willing to lead. charlie wilson's war would not have been charlie wilson's war

he told the american people, no earmarks -- what we have? thousands of earmarks. says, well, the first one, the stimulus, well, that was needed. ok, maybe so. but the defense bill that went through, 3000 earmarks. host: let us stick to health care. if health care passes -- will exist as did this, as health care passes, how would you vote -- caller: republican or independent -- not democrat anymore. the majority people do not want this thing and they are ramming it down our throats. host: are you concerned about a democrat like that? guest: concerned, for sure. this is an issue that, when you talk to people, there is general concern about comprehensive health-care reform. at the same time, if you take specific elements of health care reform and say what do you think about dealing with insurance policy abuses, people say, no, that ought to be dealt with. it what about trying to limit the growth in the cost of premiums, that ought to be done. so the various elements of the bill are generally supported by the american people. so, i think there has been a failure to ad

grow more anxious and actually while it grew in its disappointment in the republicans with their earmarksnd george bush with his t.a.r.p. and this consistent behavior on the part of republicans to be like the democrats, it never in fact found its legs because it had a ready of hope. they believed initially that when george w. bush was defeated and democrats came back that things would get better and people said why weren't you guys out in the street marching? because many of our activists bought barack obama is going to save us from this crowd up there, the crowd of people who don't understand the bush republicans. and when president obama got in office immediately we got more than allowed, the automobile industry, we had the great insurance takeover scheme, we had cap and a trade living and mandatory unionization out there and these folks started to say oh my goodness what have we got here? this guy scare's us. nancy pelosi, speaker pelosi scare's us. we have people that do not cherish america the way we do we would do it with destruction with a romantic egalitarianism. they didn't read

we have to say to the american people we will stop this earmarking.will stop this pork-barrel spending. we of committed generational theft. the greatness of america is about the fact that every generation of americans has handed off to the next generation a better nation than the one that we inherited. i cannot tell you that that is the case with the way we are doing business in washington today. so -- what we need to do? we need to begin the fight. first, we're going to challenge this law constitutionally. it is not constitutional to force every american citizen to buy any product. [applause] i am proud of our legislature and our governor who stood up and said, "we cannot afford this. we cannot afford to have our patients on access thrown off. we cannot afford the increased costs in an already severely distressed economic situation. we are going to, after we challenge this in the courts -- we're going to register people to vote. we're going to get them out. ." we're going to continue the message to obama, harry reid, and nancy pelosi. repeal and repl

barry'sttorney maintains he did not violate any laws since there are no rules within the council regarding earmarks and personal service contracts. >> we don't believe there was a violation of any of the rules and policies and regulations involved. >> reporter: today in a special meeting, the council is expected to vote on censuring barry, stripping him of his power in government. >> most of those actions were recommended by the investigative team that was put together on mr. bennett, so in essence, the council has before it the findings of the investigation to act upon or not act upon. >> reporter: now, the language in all of these resolutions is very strong language, and they're saying all of this is coming from the proposals that were made by the investigator into this probe involving councilman barry. this expected meeting is supposed to be happening around 3:00 p.m. we have not seen any of the supporters here just yet. back to you in the studio. >>> we'll take a look outside right now. we see some gray skies overhead and possibly the chance of some rain and wintry mix coming our way. >> yeah.

. >> when the republicans were in power, they tripled earmarks, turned the budget surplus into a deficit and enacted a prescription drug plan without paying it have they hurt their credibility on budget and deficit matters? >> that's the point i'm making. i said that to john boehner who's a true conservative you and a lot of people don't realize that but in 1994 when we had we did the contract in america it was john boehner who wanted to include a ban on earmarks. he got it then and he gets it now. but the fact of the matter is, they went back in office and did a disservice to this country and they offended a lot of their natural voting constituency in doing this. that's why they can't do in my estimation, they can't come back with a second contract with america. you can't offer a contract if you don't have the standing to offer the contract. i say i'm from washington. i'm a republican. and i got a contract for you and you're going to say, oh, yeah, you want me to fall for that again? that's why the grassroots activist movement has developed and through participation by grassroots activi

what senator mccain is doing today and fighting so hard against the growth of government and the earmarksof our budget that we are seeing today. those things i absolutely agree with. the majority americans agree with senator mccain allowing for a smaller, smarter government, more prosperity for private sector for our families. i agree with what he's proposing to rein the get of government. with health care, he's provided a lot of the solutions along with other good folks in congress like representative paul ryan with his road map and others who have been adamant about getting the obama administration and pelosi and reid to listen to what the other side has in terms of solutions. i agree with what senator mccain has proposed for reform in health care needed in this country. he certainly has been the fighter against obama care that has been the take over of 1/6 of our economy i agree with where he's going there. >> greta: the tea party movement i think most agree if it going to keep any votes it is taking votes from the republican party. is the tea party movement going to have an impact on

it was the earmark of earmarks. we found a program in the intelligence committee.t program involved a new asset known as the u.a.v.'s. jack immediately, even though the air force could not imagine our ever wanting an asset where somebody wasn't sitting in a seat, jack recognized the potential of that future asset. and if it were not for his work and for his support for our effort, that $40 million earmark would never have gone forward and predator would have never been in bosnia. another occasion, a demonstration of incredible foresight and leadership. jack murtha joined me in the committee taking a look at tactical aircraft. we decided that we could not go forward with the f-22, and we pulled the procurement for the first seven of those aircraft. you would have thought we blew the top off the pentagon. and to say the least, lots of consternation out there, but jack fore saw that unless we tested the software in the wings before we started to fly this baby it never would fly. always willing to lead. charlie wilson's war would not have been charlie wilson's war had

more amendment number two would again sent the rebates to the treasury board would have been earmarkedor affordable the credits. again i do appreciate the hard work all of the committees of jurisdiction have done in this distinguished panel. i look for tomorrow to voting for the beginning. it's not a perfect bill and i am not asking you to perfected by masking that my one or the other of my amendments to be made in order because i am trying to protect jobs particularly in my district these jobs in my district 65% of them are women they are not fat cat insurance ceos who make $24 million a year and with that i would yield back and ask if there are any questions. >> thank you. does anybody have questions of ms. moore? thank you very much. you may go. we appreciate you being here. saxby for three >> mr. shimkus. islamic it's great to be with you, an old freshman next-door neighbor, we've come a long way haven't we? >> i agree with ms. moore three we are going to go down in history tomorrow but i'm not sure in the manner that she is hopeful. i've got four amendments the i want to address a

and actually while it grew in its disappointment in the republicans with their earmarks and george bushith his t.a.r.p., and this consistent behavior on the part of the republicans who are trying to be like the democrats, it never really, in fact, found its legs because it had a ray of hope. they believed initially that when george w. bush was defeated and democrats came back things would get better. and people would say why weren't you out on the streets marching because many of our advocates said barack obama will save us on these drought up there. and the bush republicans and when president obama got in office, immediately we got more bailout. we got meddling in the automobile industry and we got the great insurance take-over scheme and we had cap-and-trade looming out there. we had mandatory unionization out there and we these folks, oh, my goodness what have we got here? this guy really scares us. nancy pelosi, speaker pelosi, scares us. we have people who do not cherish america the way we do and would do it destruction with their romantic egalitarianism. they didn't read ayn rand.

people say earmarks is what it's all about. earmarks is 1%. they're not the thing that's really a threat to the budget. the thing that's the threat to the budget are three entitlements, social security, medicare, and medicaid. two of those have to do with health care. medicare and medicaid. and what's the problem with medicare and medicaid? well, they're financially broken. if they continue as they are right now without changing those laws, they will bankrupt our country. so we've got medicare and medicaid, government programs that are currently bankrupting our country and so what are we trying to sell the american public? oh, hey, we've got the government running medicare and medicaid, they're bankrupting our country, let's take other all of health care with the government. there's something intuitively counterintuitive about that, isn't there? why would you want the government to take over something it's already messing up and that is not working financially. that it is in the process of bankrupting our country. if you can't do it in a small

. >> host: do other countries have problems with earmarks as we do here in the u.s.?s from paul. >> guest: oh. well, other countries certainly have powerful members of the parliament taking national money and pumping it into their districts, yeah, that definitely happens. they don't call it earmarks, but i'd give you a good example, you know, in japan if you're, any town of any importance in japan nowadays has a bullet train. this is really important that you have the high-speed bullet train come to your town. and we used to live, many years ago peggy and i lived on the southern island of japan, and it's far from the big cities on the main island. so it took a long time to get the bullet train down there, but there was a very powerful member of the japanese dyad from the southernmost, it's kind of like miami, the southernmost town. so he got a bullet train built from midway, but the middle part of the island still didn't because they had a weak parliamentarian. so they had this national train system with a big gap in it because one powerful congressman got his city th