them consternation. i do not think rabin ever forgive me for a vanishing into the balcony when he wanted to smoke. over the years, i have shared your pride in seeing the desert bloom, the economy thrived, and -- country flourish. i have held their hands, listened to the doctors described how much shrapnel was left in a leg, an arm, or a head. i sat there and listened to the heart wrenching words that prime minister of rabin's granddaughter spoke at her grandfather's funeral.

i went to a bombed out. in jerusalem. i have seen the looks on the faces of israeli families who knew a rocket could fall at any moment. in 2002 on one of my visits, i met a young man. he was only 26-years old but he was a senior medic. he oversaw a program to train for and volunteers as first responders in israel. i attended the program graduation ceremonies and i saw the pride in his face yet another group of young people were sent off to do good and save lives. he was also a reservist what --

with the idf. when my guess after we met he was killed by a sniper near a road block along with other soldiers and civilians. -- one week after we met he was killed. it has continued to flourish in his memory. when i was there in the 2005, i met with his family. his parents were committed to continuing to support its mission. so was i.. that is why i spent years rounding up votes in introducing legislation to send a message to geneva to it meant them as a full voting member and finally, with your help, in 2006 we succeeded in writing that wrong. -- righting that wrong.

as a senator from new york, i was proud to be a strong voice for israel in the congress and around the world. i am proud that i continue to be that strong voice as secretary of state. last fall, i stood next to prime minister a netanyahu to place a moratorium on new construction in the west bank. i raised it again in cairo, marrakesh and others to make clear that this was a first step and it was an important first that. yes, i underscored the longstanding american policy that does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement. it is our responsibility to give

credit when is due and tell the truth when it is needed. in 2008, i told those congress that barack obama would be a good friend to israel as president. he would have a special appreciation of israel because of his own personal history. a grandfather who bought and the nazis, a great uncle who helped to liberate. obama and his family have lived the that experience. as he told himself he understand that there is always a homeland for the center of our story. as a senator, he visited israel and that families whose houses were destroyed by rockets. as president, he has supported israel and the word and in deed. under his leadership we have a

reinvigorated defense consultation, redouble our efforts to ensure their qualitative military edge, and provided nearly $3 billion in annual military assistance. [applause] as they told you, that assistance increase in 2010 and we have increased another increase for 2011. [applause] sending a son when you to know. more than 1000 u.s. troops participated in the june upper cobra ballistic missile defense exercise this last fall. -- participated in the juniper cobra exercise.

obama has made achieving peace and recognize and secure borders for israel a top administrative priority. the united states has also led the fight in international institutions against anti- semitism and efforts to challenge israel's's legitimacy. we led the boycott of the durbin conference and we repeatedly voted against the deeply flawed report. [applause] this administration and will always stand up for israel's right to defend itself. [applause]

for israel, there is no greater strategic and the prospect of a nuclear armed iran. elements in their government have become a menace posed to their own people and in the region. their president denies the holocaust, threatens to destroy israel, and even denies that 9/11 was an attack. the iranian leadership funds and arms terrorists who have hurt americans. -- americans, israelis, and other people. it has waged a campaign of intimidation and persecution against the people.

last june, they were beaten by batons. political prisoners were rounded up and abused. false accusations were leveled against the united states. people everywhere were horrified by the video of a young woman shot dead in the street. the iranian leadership denies its people rights that are universal to all human beings. that includes the right to speak freely, to assemble without fear, the right to be equal, and administration of justice, to express your views without facing retribution. in addition to threatening israel, a nuclear armed iran would spark an arms race that could destabilize the region.

this is unacceptable. it is unacceptable to the united states. it is unacceptable to israel. it is unacceptable to the region and the international community. let me be very clear. the united states is determined to prevent a run -- iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. [applause] now, for most of the past decade the united states, as you now, declined -- as you know, and to engage in iran. they grew more, not less, dangerous. it killed thousands of centrifuges and spurned the international community but it

faced few consequences. president obama has been trying a different course designed to prevent -- present their leaders with a clear choice. we have made extensive effort to be engaged with them both through direct communication and working with other partners, multilaterally, to send an unmistakable message -- of hold your international obligation. if you do, you will reap the benefits of normal relations. if you do not, he will face increased isolation and painful consequences. we took this course with the understanding that the very effort of seeking engagement would strengthen our hand i iran rejected our initiative. -- our hand if iran rejected. their leaders have been stripped of their usual excuses. the world has seen that it is

iran and not the united states responsible. with its secret nuclear facilities, increasing violations of the obligations under the non-proliferation regime, unjustified expansion of its in richmond activities, and -- of its enrichment activities, more and more nations are expressing concerns about their intentions. there is a growing consensus on taking steps to pressure their leaders to change course. europe is in agreement. russia, where i just returned from, has moved definitely in this direction. although there is still work to be done, china has said in support the dual track approach of applying pressure if engagement does not produce results. this stronger consensus has also

led to increased cooperation on stopping arms shipments and financial transactions that aid terrorists, threaten israel, and to stabilize the region. we are now working with our partners in the united nations on a new security council sanctions that will show their leaders that there are real consequences for their new entries against -- for there actions. art and is not incremental sanctions but sanctions that will bite. -- our aim is not incremental sanctions. we believe that time is a worthwhile investment for winning the broadest possible support for our effort. we will not compromise our commitment to preventing them from acquiring these nuclear weapons. [applause]

but iran is not the only threat. israel today is confronting us some of the toughest challenges in her history. the conflict with the palestinians and with israel's arab neighbors is an obstacle to prosperity and opportunity for israelis, palestinians, and people across the region. it also threatens israel's long- term future as a secured and democratic jewish state. the status quo is unsustainable for all sides. it promises only more violence

and unrealized aspirations. staying on this course means a continuing a conflict that carries tragic human cost. israeli and palestinian children alike deserve to grow up free from fear and to have that same opportunity to live up to their full god-given potential. there is another path, a path that leads toward the security and prosperity for israel, palestinians, and all the people of the region. it will require all parties, including israel, to make difficult but necessary choices. both sides must confront the reality that the status quo of the last decade has not produced long-term security for served in their interests. -- security or served their interests or the interest of the

united states. it is true that-security measures have reduced the number of suicide bombings and given some of protection and safety to those who worry every day when their child goes to school, their husband goes to work, their mother goes to the market. there is, i think, a belief among many that the status quo can be sustained. the dynamics of demography, ideology, and technology make this impossible. first, we cannot ignore the long term population trend that results from the israeli occupation. as defense minister, barack, and

others have observed the mathematics of that democracy -- of demography are hastening the our thehour in which you might have to choose between preserving democracy and staying true to the dream of a jewish homeland. given this reality, a two state solution is the only viable path for israel to remain both a democracy and a jewish state. [applause] second, we cannot be blind to the political and vacations' of continued conflict. -- the political implications of continued conflict. there is a truly a struggle today for reining in the firm may be the first time between those in the region -- today

there is truly a struggle for the first time between those who rejected and sought out on the continued violence. the status quo strengthens the rejectionists who claim peace is impossible and it weakens those who would accept coexistence. that does not serve israel's interest or their own. those willing to negotiate need to be willing to share results for their efforts. those who preach violence must be proven wrong. all of our regional challenges need to combat violent extremism, promote democracy and economic opportunity, these become harder if the rejectionists grow in power and in influence. conversely, a two state solution would allow israel's contribution to the world and to

humanity to get the recognition they deserve. it would also allow the palestinians to have to govern, realize their own legitimate aspirations, and undermine the appeal of extremism across the region. i was very privileged as the first lady to travel the world on behalf of our country. i went from latin america to southeast asia. during the 1990's it was rare that people in places far from the middle east ever mentioned the israeli-palestinian conflict. now when i started traveling as secretary of state and i went to places that were so far from the middle east, it was the first, second, or 1/3 a share that countries raised.

-- it is the first, second, or third issue. can i control the images and messages that are conveyed. we can only change the facts on the ground that refutes their claims. in so doing, we create the circumstances for a safe, secure future for israel. finally, we must recognize that the every evolving technology of war is making it harder to guarantee israel's security. for six decades, israelis have guarded their borders vigilantly but advances in rocket technology mean that is really families are now at risk far from those borders. despite efforts of containment,

rockets with a better guidance systems, longer-range, and more destructive power are spreading across the region. hezbollah amassed thousands of rockets on it the no. border. hamas has a substantially number in gaza. even if some of these are still crude they still pose a serious danger as we saw again last week. our message to hamas is clear -- renounce violence, recognize 30 -- recognize israel. [applause] that is the only path to participation and negotiations. they did not earn a place at any table absent those changes. [applause]

i will repeat today what i have said many times before. he must seek released immediately and returned to his family. [applause] barack's unfortunately, including military action and cost nor restricting access into and out g andaza -- into and out of gaza has stopped the flow of the rockets. they appear to can't -- they appear content to grow rich off of the trade. the people of gaza fall deeper into pop -- poverty and despair. that is also not a sustainable

position for either israelis or palestinians. behind these terrorist organizations and their rockets, we seem to destabilizing influence of iran. -- a two state solution will not end of the strengths. you and i know that. failure to do so gives the pose a pretext to spread violence and instability, and hatred. in the face of the dynamics of demography, ideology, and technology it becomes impossible to entrust our hope for israel's feature in today's status quo. these challenges cannot be ignored or wish away. only by choosing a new path can israel make the progress it deserves to ensure that their

children are able to see a future of peace and only by having a partner willing to participate with them will the palestinians be able to see the same future. there is, for many of us, a clear goal. two states for two people living side-by-side in peace and security. with peace between israel and syria and israel and lebanon. normal relations between israel and all the arab states. [applause] a comprehensive peace that is not real, not a slogan, that is rooted in recognition of israel's right to exist in peace and security. it offers the best way to ensure

israel's survival and well- being. that is the goal that the obama administration is determined to help israel and the palestinians achieve. george mitchell has worked tirelessly with the party to prepare the ground for the perception of direct negotiations beginning with the proximity talks in both sides have accepted. the proximity talks are unhelpful for step. there should be serious and substantive. ultimately, of course, it will take the writ negotiation and between the parties to work through all of the issues and and the conflict. the united states stands ready to play an active and sustainable in these conversations. we want to support the parties as the work to resolve permanent status' issues including security, borders, refugees, and jerusalem. the united states knows that we cannot force a solution.

we cannot ordained or command the outcome. the parties themselves must resolve their differences. we believe that through good faith negotiations that the parties can mutually agreeing to an outcome which end the conflict and recognize. reconciles a viable state based on the '67 lines and israel's goal of a jewish state with a secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet israel's the security requirements. .

but the negotiations to be successful, they have to be built on the foundation of trust and confidence. that is why both must refrain from unilateral statements. when the hamas-controlled municipality glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent israelis, it insults the families on both sides who lost loved ones over the years in this parliament -- in this conflict. [applause]

and when instigators deliberately miss characterize the rededication of a synagogue in the jewish quarter of jerusalem's old city and call upon their brethren to defend nearby muslim holy sites from so-called attacks, it is purely and simply an act of incitement. [applause] these provocations are wrong and must be condemned for needlessly inflaming tensions and imperiling prospects for a comprehensive peace. it is our devotion to this outcome -- two states 40 who people, secure and at peace -- that led us to condemn the announcement of plans for new construction in east jerusalem. this was not about wounded pride, nor a judgment on the

final status of jerusalem, which is an issue to be settled at the negotiating table. this is about getting to the table, creating and protecting an atmosphere of trust around it, and staying there until the job is finally done. [applause] new construction in east jerusalem or the west bank undermines that mutual trust and endangers the proximity -- proximity talks that are the first up toward the forest -- the full negotiations that both sides say they want and need. and it exposes daylight between israel and the united states that others in the region hope to exploit. it undermines america's unique role, an essential role in the peace process. our credibility in the process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we do not agree, to say so and say so unequivocally. we objected to this announcement

because we are committed to israel and its security, which we believe depends on a comprehensive peace, because we are determined to keep moving forward along a path that ensures israel future as a secure and democratic jewish state living in peace with its palestinian and arab neighbors, and because we do not want to see the progress that has been made in any way be in danger -- and any way endangered. when prime minister netanyahu and i spoke, i suggested a number concrete steps israel could take to improve the atmosphere and rebuild confidence. the prime minister responded with specific actions israel is prepared to take toward this end and we discussed a range of other mutual confidence-building measures. senator mitchell continued this discussion in israel over the weekend and is meeting with president abbas today. we are making progress.

we are working hard. we are making it possible for these proximity talks to move ahead. i will be meeting with prime minister netanyahu later today and president obama will meet with him tomorrow. [applause] we will follow up on these discussions and it -- and seek a common understanding about the most productive way forward. neither our commitment nor our goal has changed. the united states will encourage the parties to a dance the prospects for peace. we commend the government of president abbas and prime minister fayyad for the reforms that have undertaken to strengthen law and order, and the progress that they have made in improving the quality of life in the west bank. but we encourage them to redouble their efforts to put an end to incitement and violence, continue to ensure security and the rule of law, and ingrain a

culture of peace and tolerance among palestinians. [applause] we applaud israel's neighbors for their support of the arab peace initiative and the proximity talks. but their rhetoric should be backed up by action. they should make it easier to pursue negotiations and an agreement. that is their responsibility. and we commend prime minister netanyahu for embracing the vision of the two-state solution, for acting to lift roadblocks and ease movement throughout the west bank. and we continue to expect israel to take those concrete steps that will help turn that vision into reality -- build momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the palestinians, stopping settlement activity, and addressing the humanitarian crisis in gaza. now from the time of david ben- borich on -- ben-gurion, who

accepted the un proposal to divide the land into two nations, israel and palestine, leaders like bacon and red bean ensure road have been dyed it difficult -- have made clear it -- difficult but clear right choices to pursue peace in the name of israel's future. -- israel slight -- leaders like begin and rabin and sharon have made difficult but clear-eyed choices to pursue peace in the name of israel's future. these does bring with the future of promise and possibility. ultimately that is the vision that drives us and has driven leaders of israel going back to the very beginning -- a future

freed from the shackles of conflict, families no longer afraid of rockets in the night, israelis traveling and trading freely in the region, palestinians able to chart their own futures, former adversaries working together on issues like water, infrastructure, and development that builds broadly shared prosperity, and a global strategic partnership between israel and the united states that taps the talent and innovation of both of our societies. from addressing climate change and energy to hunger, poverty, and disease, israel is already on the cutting edge. look at the spread of high-tech startups, the influx of venture capital, the number of nobel laureates. israel is already a force to be reckoned with. imagine what its leadership could be on the world stage if the conflict were behind it.

we are already working as partners. there is so much more we could achieve together. we are entering the season of passover. the story of moses resonates for people of all faiths, and it teaches us many lessons, including that we must take risks, even a leap of faith, to reach the promised land. when moses urged the jews to follow him out of egypt, many objected. they said it was too dangerous, too hard, too risky. and later in the desert, some thought it would be better to return to egypt. it was too dangerous, too hard, too risky. in fact, i think they formed a back to egypt committee and striate -- and tried to stir up support for that. and when they came to the very edge of the promised land, there were still some who refused to enter because it was too

dangerous, too hard, and too risky. but israel's history is the story of brave men and women who took risks. they did the hard things, because they believed and knew it was right. we know that this cheap -- this dream was championed by herzl and others that many said was impossible. and then the pioneers -- can you imagine the conversation, telling your mother and father i am going to go to the desert and make it bloom? and people thinking, how could that ever happen? but it did. warriors who were so gallant in battle, but then offered their adversaries a hand of peace because they thought it would make their beloved israel stronger.

israel and the generations that have come have understood that the strongest among us is often the one who turns an enemy into a friend. israel has shed more than its share of bitter tears. but for that dream to survive, for the state to flourish, this generation of israelis must also take up the tradition and do what seems too dangerous, too hard, and too risky. and of this they can be absolutely sure -- the united states and the american people will stand with you. we will share the risks and we will shoulder the burdens, as we face the future together. god bless you. god bless israel and god bless the united states of america.

[applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪ >> and about 15 minutes from now, we expect the house to come back to vote on measures discussed to date. one would help small businesses obtain capital. as always, those discussions are live on c-span. tonight on "the communicators," reactions to the release of the

national broadband plan. our guest are the chairman and ranking member of the communications subcommittee. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span2. >> i never had any idea that it was going to be this good. >> of lighter moment in washington or a serious one. >> you can search it, clip it, share it, and more online at the new c-span video library. olive every c-span program sinc0 -- it is. >> as president obama prepares to sign the health-care bill into baltimore, there been

efforts to block insurance requirements in the legislation. timothy jost was on this morning's "washington journal" to talk about that. we will watch this until the house returns. charlottesville, virginia, timothy jost. he is a professor at the washington and lee university. he is here to talk about the challenges to health care. good morning. guest: good morning, thank you. host: what do you think needs to be challenged constitutionally regarding health care and the bills passed last night? guest: i do not think anything need to be challenged. i do not think there are any real doubt that constitutional challenges to this legislation. congress is acting within its constitutional powers, granted by article 1 of the constitution

in enacting this legislation. i think your listeners, the worst know there are a number of states -- 36 -- that are now considering legislation that would challenge the constitutionality of a single part of this legislation. two of the states, idaho and virginia, have enacted such legislations. the arizona amendment is a little bit different. under the constitution as it has been interpreted by the supreme court -- and that is really our constitution. everyone has their own interpretation. but constitutional law is made by the supreme court. over the last 80 years, i do not see any serious problem with this legislation, and congress

did not either. host: what are they trying to do in virginia? guest: if you will give a moment to explain the way in which this legislation works -- as everyone has heard, and get rid of the underwriting based on stun a spirited and get rid of pre- existing conditions. you cannot refuse someone insurance because they are healthy or not healthy. here you have 5% of the population consume a 50% of health-care. they are responsible for one perhaps -- one% of health care expenses. the way that insurance pools work right now is you need help the people in there with the and healthy people. what they do now is they keep me really on healthy people out or

charge them higher premiums. what this does is says they cannot do that anymore, so they will be dependent on having loss of helping people in the market. the one thing that the legislation does is says if you can afford insurance, you can buy it. i refer to this as the slackers position. everyone is responsible for themselves. if there are some slackers' that refuse, this law tells them that you have to buy it or you'll have to pay an extra tax. in is not a terribly onerous tax once fully phased in. about 2.5% of your income. it does not apply to anyone who is under the filing limit, which i think is $12,000 for individuals, does not apply for

people with religious objections. there is no criminal penalty for not paying the tax, but it is saying, be irresponsible citizen can get insurance. -- be a responsible citizen and get insurance. the virginia law says nobody can make our citizens by insurance. -- buy insurance. they can say that if they want to, but under to promise a cause, a state cannot tell the government what to do. host:, does the commerce clause bit -- play in to these challenges? guest: that says congress has the authority to regulate commerce across the state. since the 1930's, but power has

been interpreted very broadly. there was a case where a fellow was planting wheat for his own consumption and congress passed a law regulating agricultural production and the supreme court said, you can play it for your own use, but you might sell some of it and you will not be buying as much. cummers sort of flows together and that is part -- commerce sort of close together and not as part of doing business. there was a man arrested for throwing medical marijuana plants on his windowsill and the supreme court said under the control substances act, that was illegal. once again, even more now than ever, commerce is the pivotal peace. who knows where that marijuana

will end up? most recently, the partial birth abortion case in which the supreme court said that congress, under its commerce power can regulate medical practice. it can tell doctors what to do inside surgery. basically, the law now is if there is any kind of economic activity involved, congress has the power to regulate it. there are lots of laws regulating economic activity. the decision to buy insurance -- to buy in now when i am healthy or when i am in not ambulance on the way to the hospital? once congress has the power to do something under the supremacy clause, its walls are supreme to the loss of the state. -- laws are supreme to the laws

of the state. host: i am a 20-year-old full-time student. at the end of the day, i still find their way to make money and get insurance. last night was a market in history where we are no closer than ever -- this health-care bill is not something new. it has been pushed by the democratic party for 50 years. for me, health care is not a right, a result of making good investments in the country. it is not a right of happiness,

it is a privilege. i feel like the government has robbed us once again. host: professor jost? guest: first of all, the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not in the constitution but in the declaration. the constitution does protect fundamental interest, but it does also said where economic activity is involved, congress needs will need to show that its laws have a role at -- russian relationship to the intergovernmental. a lot of people do not know anything about this other than what they have heard on fox news. this is a law that is based on basic republican principles.

it is based on ideas that have been out there for four years primarily pushed by republicans. historically, democrats have called for a public health insurance system. that is not with this creates. this provides subsidies so people can go into the private health insurance system, organizes private markets through managed competition, and provides tax credits for people so that they can go into the market and purchase private health insurance. it is basically a private insurance-based system. there is nothing in the insurance provisions that changes the delivery system. it is simply a system to better regulate and make it more accessible to people. i think if republicans would really read this bill instead of listening to all the roois

representation -- misrepresentation, they would vote for the bill. host: next phone call. caller: as a law professor, looking for the best argument against the bill, particularly with the rehnquist bringing back the idea of restricting what the government can do to the states, in that light, what would be the best or most likely way that this could be found unconstitutional? guest: i think the one part of the bill that would be subject to challenge that is absolutely not frivolous is the individual mandate, that people be required to buy insurance. the argument made there is congress has never before

required someone to buy a product in the private market. you are right, we have an activist court right now. we have a court that has shown itself willing to overturn a long time precedence to reach goals that it find attractive. of course, that makes one a bit nervous. on the other hand, you are also right that justice rehnquist and to a lesser extent justice o'connor, emphasized states' rights in a way that the court had not in a long time. neither are on the court any more. there were a couple of cases, one in the 1990's, one in 2000, where the court said congress's power is not limited when it gets beyond the economic activity. those were 5-4 decisions,

decisions written by justice rehnquist to is no longer on the court. i have not seen the same kind of interest in protecting the state's rights with this current court. even then, some people who are supporting states' rights in this area point to a handful of decisions in recent years where the court has made noises about being more deferential to the state. each of those cases, what was involved was interpretation of the statute or court decision. not on whether federal statutes themselves orlov the land. -- are the law of the land. host: next up, lorain, ohio. democrats line. hello?

caller: i am calling in regards -- host: turn down your television. it will work a lot better. are you still with us? caller: yes, i am. i'm calling in regards to the fact -- first of all, i want to commend the democrats for getting this passed. it was needed. do you think there will be anything unconstitutional regarding this law? guest: the senate bill has now passed the house. once the president signs it -- of course he will -- it will become law. the only thing that remains to

be done is to pass reconciliation, which is a fairly short bill that makes some changes in the outlays and revenues under the bill, makes subsidies more generous, makes the individual mandate mass -- less onerous, raise revenue, and a few other things. as to whether it will be challenged or not, on an almost certain it will be. there are some conservative legal organizations gearing up to challenge it. some states may try to challenge it. under established law, states themselves do not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of federal law. that is quite clear. individuals who are adversely affected by the law can bring an action challenging it.

if someone decides that i would rather let someone else pay for my health care, i am not going to buy insurance, and they are assessed a penalty by the irs, they do not pay it, they can go to george -- court to assess the constitutionality of those issues. however, the individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014, so until that point, no one will be adversely affected by the that law. so many challenges will be at least four years from now. i expect any challenges brought before them will be dismissed because they are now ripe yet and the people who are attempting to bring them will not have any standing. but yes, i expect to see signs challenges. massachusetts has an individual mandate where it challenged the

appellate court earlier. the court said basically that it was frivolous. host: professor jost, in this item on cnn.com, they might not the florida attorney general -- write that the florida attorney general sent a letter to 40 other lawmakers asking them to join him on a legal challenge against whatever emerges immediately on one. so you have the florida attorney gene guest: anybody can file lawsuits. if you are state attorney general, you can have the state

file law soon. -- a lawsuit. and as your caller said, we have a supreme court that is open and to reversing earlier precedent that it does not like. but the state does not have standing to do this. under article iii, you have to be able to show actual injury to bring a lawsuit. says the was not in effect yet, and it does not affect the states, i cannot see how they would have standing. i am sure that this is a political act, but it is not something that is going anywhere legally. and i think all of these walls are political statements, and i would remind people that during the 1950's and 1960's here in virginia, we had a campaign of

massive resistance about some school disapprobation, and the state of virginia passed all kinds of laws to prevent va from being the segregated, which were eventually struck down by the federal courts. i think that they they are embarrassed that they did that. the states are trying to say, we don't like the federal law and we're not going to comply with federal law. i should say in fairness that in another campaign, the medical marijuana campaign, we're a number of states have legalized medical marijuana despite the federal laws making it illegal, and there is some evidence that they are making headway, says the federal government is not arresting and prosecuting davis cases as they used to be. -- those cases as they used to be.

but i think in this case, because the individual mandate is so integral to making the private insurance markets work, i do not think the federal government will back down on this. host: new jersey on a line for republicans here on the "washington journal." caller: good morning, rob. good morning, mr. jost. my first point is, i do not understand what all these people across the country who across the country who obvi >> "washington journal" airs every morning at 78 is compared the house is coming back into debate -- to vote on bills debated earlier in the day. live on c-span resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4899, making emergency

supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. report to accompany house resolution 1205, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4849, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to provide tax incentives for small business job creation, extend the build america bonds program, provide other infrastructure job creation tax incentives and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on

the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccotter: mr. speaker, i rise today to commemorate the retirement of the a radio host after 45 years in detroit. he has become a beloved detroit institution. for his work at wmoc-fm, he has been inducted into the national hall of fame and one of the top radio permits. mr. dick burton will be remembered for his personality and philanthropist and friend to metro detroit. i ask my colleagues to recognize his many achievements and in honoring his are contributions to our community and our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? for what reason does the

gentleman from illinois seek recognition. mr. davis: address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. davis: i rise to express my congratulations to the small lib ral arts -- liberal arts college that i attended. it started with seven students, a historically black college in arkansas. they played duke university. i mean, that was a major accomplishment for the athletic department. they didn't win. they didn't place, but they did show. and i congratulate them for a tremendous effort. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition?

mr. paulsen: permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paulsen: i congratulate the dinah boys' hockey team. in a highly anticipated championship game, they beat a very strong minnetonka to clinch their seventh hockey title. the hornets had to hold off a strong third period charge before finishing with an impressive 4 tife 2 victory. the win was a total team effort with four different players scoring goals and the hornet defense and goal tending protecting the lead until the final horn sounded. it was supported by a large king ept of students, faculty, friends and family. to each of them as well as every member of the championship team,

i offer my congratulations and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there any more one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. kilpatrick for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: 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 this house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. mccotter for today, march 23 and 24. mr. latha for today and judge gohmert for today.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from frr northern mariana seek recognition? mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent that any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes revise and stepped their remarks and include extraneous material, ms. woolsey of california, mr. sablan of the northern mariana islands, ms. maloney of new york, mr. defazio of oregon, ms. kaptur of ohio and mr. mcdermott of washington. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. al green of texas.

for what purpose does the gentleman from from the northern mariana islands arise? mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent that i claim the gentleman's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: thank you, very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sablan: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, when we open our hearts to our young people, give generously and support and encouragement, these young people consistently exceed our expectations. let me tell you of the story of a dedicated group of students from a tiny island in the western pacific ocean and the teachers who supported and encouraged them. because on april 20, those students, the high school concert band, exceeded any reasonable expectations and will be performing at america's premier musical venues, carnegie

hall. the high cool school opened a few years. it was a beautiful facility and needed to be filled with life and heart. the new students and new teachers quickly adopted the motto, one school, one heart, and began to bring their school to life. one of the new teachers, mr. dewitt. he is a musician and inspired his students who were enthusiastic to learn. but few had musical training. yet, within a few months of opening, he enjoyed the performance of his band, the concert band and quickly and the musical reasons became the

heartbeat. the band's perform at pep rallies and sports competition, p.t.a. and graduation. whenever there is an event, the beat of the band provided the musical backdrop. the monterey has reached a level of proficiency that allowed to take latin rhythms and "west side story." and the reach extended beyond the school as they began performing and spraining for the annual taste of the mariana festival and charter day, western pacific judicial conference and many other community events. how that heartbeat grew stronger. in 2008 and in 2009, the monterey concert band captured first place at the international music festival on guam. student members of the monterey

concert band joined the official youth orchestra at the 2008 summer olympics and performed in beijing china. the program has grown to more than 150 aspiring musicians. and it has performed under grailt conductors and played in "may fair lady," and "it's a wonderful life." they host their own concerts and perform at others as well. the monterey concert band does more than 20 performances annually. these young musicians and teachers have struggled with the difficulties of travel. but they have not lost heart. nor have they forgotten that music can inspire. when a security guard was brutally murdered at a sister

school, they raised funds for the grieving family. after a shooting rampage that left four dead, the montereys raised spirits for those in mourning. the concert band deserves recognition, but they won the most recent distinction sole by the quality of their music. they have won the right to play at new york's international music festival at carnegie hall. the montereys will play with their heartbeat. as usual, they won't be playing for themselves, but for others. the band is dedicating its performance to the first principal at the high school who is courageously trying to recover from an illness.

mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does does -- mr. poe from texas. mr. poe: request permission to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker, there is a new push for an amnesty bill to pass this congress. yesterday, tens of thousands of people marched in washington, d.c. wanting amnesty. and as i looked over this very peaceful crowd and all those people marching, i wondered why there were no american flags. in any event, amnesty is not the answer. even the talk of amnesty causes the flood of people to come across our southern border. amnesty is no answer to the problem, because the problem is the lack of border security. the violence is already out of control in the border region.

thousands more people illegally crossing the border will make an already dangerous situation a much more worse disaster. first, we must secure the border and start securing the border from the criminal enterprises, including the drug cartels. a week ago, an american consulate employee and his wife were murdered in juarez in mexico. they were murdered in a drive-by shooting near the santa fe bridge. the husband of another consulate employee was gunned down on the mexican side of the murder. this has caused the closing of the u.s. embassy there until further notice and the u.s. state department is now rushing to relocate consulate employees in nogales, monterey, and other

localities, all because of the kid+ localities, all because of the kidnappings. shootouts have killed thousands of people, mostly mexican nationals. the drug cartels are fighting each other and drug enforcement into the united states. good people from both sides of the border are being placed in harm's way by these murderous thugs. even an armed mexican military helicopter insprudestruded into the united states airspace in texas. the intentions of this incursion are still unknown. over a year ago, governor rick perry asked for homeland security secretary, janet napolitano, for 1,000 troops at the border to help with the increasing violence and prevent the drug cartels from entering the united states. the governor has asked for predator drones and trying to head off the violence of the the help he requested has never come

and the governor's request for drones at the border has been ignored for over a year. in response to the murders of these americans, governor perry again recently asked for help and asked for surveillance planes and 1,000 fresh troops at the border to help stem the violence. . secretary napolitano thinks there's already enough troops on the border. so governor perry has decided he can't wait around on the federal government. even though it's the federal government's responsibility to secure our borders. he's ordered the texas national guard, the texas national guard helicopters to the border to support law enforcement that is on the border already. they're trying to fight the border violence spillover into the united states. texas military forces have requested and obtained o.h. 58 and other helicopters to be used to fly up and down the texas-mexico border along the

rio grande river from brownsville to el paso, texas. of course their number and exact location will not be disclosed for security purposes. i've had the opportunity to be on the texas-mexico border with our texas air national guard and fry up and down that region to see firsthand the problem of the incursions into the united states all because the border is not secured. i would hope our federal government would support the governor's actions. the federal government should actually do something to stop the violence and secure the border. it is the first response -- responsibility of government to protect the people and that includes the people who live along our international borders. we should send more troops and the violence is getting worse every day. our border sheriffs and law enforcement are outmanned, outfinanced and they're outgunned but they're doing everything they can to protect the citizens along the texas-mexico border from the violent drug cartels that come in the united states. every single county and city and

town along the border needs help in the border war. it is irresponsible to leave these people defenseless. and once again it affects good people on both sides of the border. mexicans and americans as well. mexico's drug cartels are waging war on our border and people are not only sneaking across into the united states, they're shooting their way into our country. the violence is exploding into america's border communities. so the time to put an end to this madness, send sufficient troops to the border and uphold the national responsibility to protect the citizens of this united states and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. woolsey from california. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes.

mr. mcdermott: as the dust settles, mr. speaker, on the capitol today, i read an article called "waterloo" by president george w. bush's speech writer. i think it sum u.p.s. nicely what we just witness -- sums up nicely what we just witnessed. he began, conservatives and republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960's. it's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. conservatives may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today's unexpected vote with a big win in november, 2010, selections, but, first, it's a good bet that conservatives are overly optimistic about november. by then the economy will have improved and immediate goodies in the health care bill will be reaching key voting blocks. second, so what? legislative majorities come and go. the health care bill is forever. now comes the hard lesson. a huge part of the blame for

today's disaster attaches to conservatives and republicans themselves. at the beginning of this process, he says, we made a strategic decision unlike, say democrats in 2001, when president bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration, no negotiations, no compromise, nothing. we were going to have all the marbles. that would be obama's waterloo, just like it was with clinton in 1994. the hard liners overlooked a few die facts. obama was elected by 53% of the vote. not clinton's 42%. the liberal block within the democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993 and 1994 and of course the democrats also remember their history and also remember the consequences of the failure of 1994. this time when we went for all the marbles we ended up with none.

no illusions, please. this bill will not be repealed. even if republicans scored a 1994-style landslide in november, how many votes could they muster to re-open the doughnut hole and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? how many votes to re-allow -- reallow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? how many votes to banish 25-year-olds from their parents' insurance coverage? and even if the votes were there, would president obama sign such a repeal? we followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, he says, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. they were the leaders who knew better, would have liked to deal, but they were trapped. conservative talkers on fox and talk radio whipped the republican voting base with such a frenzy that dealmaking was rendered impossible. how do you negotiate with

somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? or, to be more exact, with someone whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder your grandmother? i've been on a soap box for months, she says. now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. let it -- yes, it mobilizes supporters, but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. the real leaders are on tv and radio. and they have very different imperatives from people in government. talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. when rush limbaugh said he wanted president obama to fail he was intelligently explaining his own interests. what he omitted to say but what is equally frue is that he also wanted republicans to fail.

if republicans were to succeed, if they governed successfully in office, and negotiated attractive compromises out of office, rush's listeners would get less angry and if they're less angry, they listen to the radio less and hear fewer ads about slumber -- sleep number beds. so today's defeat for free market economy and republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more dispointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on radio and television. for them it's a mission accomplished. for the cause they purport to represent, it's waterloo. ours. this is a very good

self-reflective view of what happened yesterday. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. jones from north carolina. without objection, recognized for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you. today i was going through some of the newspapers on the internet and i found a very interesting article that i wanted to bring to the floor. this was the "newsweek" march 19, 2010, and the title is, "the gang that could not shoot straight." $6 billion later, the afghan national police cannot begin to do their jobs right. never mind relieve american forces. let me repeat that. $6 billion later the afghan national police cannot begin to do their jobs right, never mind relieve american forces. mr. speaker, this is a rather large -- excuse me, long

article, but i just want to read part tonight and i'll read some tomorrow night because i think about the men and women in uniform, god bless them, all over in afghanistan and iraq, and i think about the situation they're in, i'm not an expert on history, but i know enough about history to know that any nation that ever tried to conquer afghanistan never did. they basically failed. from this article, america has spent more than $6 billion since 2002 in an effort to create an affected afghan police force. buying weapons, building police academies and hiring defense contractors to train the recruits, but the program has been a disaster. more than $332 million worth of invoices for police training were approved even though the funds were poorly accounted for, according to a government audit and fewer than 12% of the

country's police units are capable of operating on their own. let me repeat that. more than $322 million worth of invoices for police training were approved even though the funds were poorly accounted for according to a government audit and fewer than 12% of the country's police units are capable of operating on their own. and the state department's top representative in the region has publicly called the afghan police an inadequate organization riddled with corruption. i'm going to also repeat that, mr. speaker. ambassador holbrooke, the state department's top representative in the region, has called the afghan police an inadequate organization riddled with corruption. during the obama administration's review of afghanistan policy last year, and i quote again, this issue

received more attention than any other except for the question of u.s. troop levels, holbrooke told "newsweek." we drilled down deep into this. the worst of it is that the police are central to washington's plans for getting out of afghanistan. mr. speaker, i will again tomorrow night read another portion of this article, what it is saying and what we in congress need to keep in mind. we can't even fix the streets in my home town in east and north carolina yet we're spending billions and billions and billions of dollars in a country that at best is living in the 16th century. and i don't know, we debated the health care this weekend, that we have other issues we'll be debating and even though those issues are very important to the american people, how in the world can we keep wearing out our troops overseas, spending billions and billions of dollars that we can't even spend here in america? so, mr. speaker, as do i every

night, because my heart aches for the military and those who have lost their lives, i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, i'd ask god to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform, i would ask god to hold the families who have give an child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq, and i would ask god to please bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god, i will ask god to give strength, wisdom and courage to president obama that he will do what is right in the house of got -- in the house of god and three times i will say, god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. . mr. moran from kansas. mrs. maloney from new york.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. maloney: i request permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i rise to recognize and honor one of my constituents, captain ratan for graduation today from the u.s. army officer basic leader course. he was reyou recruited and commissioned by the u.s. army in 2006 as part of the health professionals scholarship program. after completing his final year of dental work, he joined the u.s. army basic leader course, captain ratan contacted me to indicate his strong desire to continue serving the nation he loves as a u.s. army dentist. while abiding by his deep

articles of faith. these articles of faith include wearing a turban and uncut hair, including a beard. at the time of his recruitment, he was assured by army recruiters that his articles of faith would be accommodated, only to later be informed that he must abandon his articles of faith in order to continue his duty as a united states army officer. after learning of his case, i led a number of my house and senate colleagues in sending letters to secretary gates requesting the accommodations be made for captain ratan and other sheek americans who wish to serve. his request was granted. i'm grateful to secretary gates for reviewing and ultimately granting the accommodation.

they have both shown tremendous foresight in recognizing that our nation's 21st infantry fighting force should incorporate all aspects of american society. they fought for all wars in the united states. they serve in the military of great britain, canada and india, among others and united states peacekeepers, often working closely with american troops in troubled regions. throughout our nation's history, the military has succeeded in training individuals from diverse backgrounds and communities to achieve one unifying goal, to protect and defend the united states. by denying these officers to appropriately practice their religion while serving, the army denies itself access to the important tall especially and

abilities of these individuals who are willing to fight and die for our nation. no american should have to choose between his religion and service to our country. at a time when this country is fighting two wars overseas, we can ill afford to turn away skilled, accomplished and patriotic americans like captain rmp a tmp arch n who wishes to serve. his achievement today underscores the importance of preserving diversity in our armed forces. it is a testament to one of the most fundamental values, freedom of religion, upon which our nation was founded and which makes the united states a beacon of hope and liberty throughout the world. i wholeheartedly congratulate him on this very important occasion. thank you very much, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. burton from indiana.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request to take the time and address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. we have seen for some time the federal government since 1913 you supering states' rights. this federal government, house and senate with the come policity with both republican and democratic presidents sending to the states unfunded mandates demanding that they come up with millions and billions of dollars that they didn't have, just out of the blue. we now come up with one that many states believe it will bankrupt them. how did we get here? well, in 1913, the

constitutionally sanctioned process of electing senators was changed by the 17th amendment. that was put in the constitution after great debate. and what it required was, that the state legislatures, the states select, not the overall populations of the states but the state legislatures they chose would select the u.s. senators. that was a check and balance on the federal government's usurpation of states' senators because if anyone came up and voted an unfunded mandate, he was going to be quickly recalled as happened before. and i don't know how i would have voted on the 17th amendment, because it sounded so good. we ought to let the people in the u.s. states elect our senators. and once that amendment was passed, there was no further check on states' rights and the protections afforded in the 9th

and 10 amendments that reserved all power not specifically enumerated as it says here. in the 10th amendment, the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited by -- to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. both republicans and democrats have violated that concept. and what could the state do about it? after 1913, they had no power to do anything about it. they didn't have an army as big as the united states. and we didn't want cessation again and didn't want another civil war. it should be done legislatively, diplomatically and within legislative bodies and within the framework of the u.s. constitution. well, the constitution, when it was drafted, addressed that point. and it's very clear.

and perhaps it took a government to run away as with one state representative or governor said, the mother of all unfunded mandates. the states, there are 39 of them who have said we aren't going to take this anymore. we're going to do something whether it is legislative, litigation, whatever. we're going to stop this. but the truth is, it may take years to get through the courts, to the supreme court. it may take years. so here's the solution. it was in the constitution all along. it's called article 5 of the united states constitution. now. we know that article 5 has been used many times by this first line, the congress, whenever 2/3 of both houses shall deem it necessary -- whe know that has been used many times. house and senate agree we need an amendment. so they called for the amendment

to be produced. but something -- i haven't been able to find if it has been done before, but it can be. it's there. but, here it is. or, on the politics of the legislatures of 2/3 -- application of the legislatures of the 2/3 of the state, congress shall, not any choice, if 2/3 of the states apply and say, we want a convention, not a constitutional convention, because this can be restricted by the congress. but an amendment, one amendment would be all that was necessary to return a check and balance on the federal government, give the state what the 9th and 10th amendments reserved to them. 2/3 of the states make application. congress shall call in a

convention for proposing amendments not rewriting the constitution, and this is a procedural issue that the supreme court has always said with regard to procedural issues, that's political, that's procedural. congress, you do it however you want to. we aren't going to issue a decision. congress could -- this is how we return control and some sense of order to the states. i yield back. up the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. defazio from oregon. mr. mccotter from michigan. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mccotter: thank you. so this is what change looks

like. if he were here, mr. speaker, in this time of moment to us national distress, i would remind the president of the united states, that he is not the leader of a party or ideology, but the lead are of our country, one founded not to emulate others, but to inspire the world. as families lose their jobs, their homes and dreams for their children, as our troops fight and sacrifice in foreign fields for our liberty and security, president obama's obsessive compulsive pursuit of takeover of health care has defide the public's objections to spoil this, the people's house and further alienated americans from their representative government. as president obama's campaign mantra of hope and change has degenerated into tax and hate, various reports, the public

overwhelming thinks that the u.s. government is broken. only 21% of the public is deemed governed with its consent. 26% of the public trust the federal government most of the time or always. 56% of americans think the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedom of ordinary citizens. 70% believe the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors. and 71% of americans think the federal government is a special interest. in the wake of this health care debate, process and product, it is clear, the most dangerous special interests is big government and president obama is its lobbyist. in contrast to americans facing themselves every piece of legislation proffered by the president and his democratic government congress, expands big

government. and a view of americans as dependents desiring state benefits and enablelers defies the american people and congress to jam through a takeover of health care. why? for so many americans, the answer is that this president and its democratic congress think they are smarter than you, want to run your life and want to make government your ruler, not your servant. she threatens not only our health care system, but tears at the fabric of our nation. the president's ideology has put divisions in our nation and a dissent and puts freedom and self-government on the precipice of implosion. to do so, the president has the power, but not the right. thus, he has merely scored a

victory over the american people. ultimately his scheme will be repealed and replaced, because america's strength and salvation remains her free people, not a person. and this november, america's conch citizens will remind the citizens that we, the people, do not work for government, the government works for us. no, the president and his democratic congress will not break us beneath big government, devoted to our freedom and more perfect union, we will keep the faith, trust the public, calm the times and heal our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. kaptur from ohio