questions. >> see some of their earlier television appearances at the c-span video library with over 160,000 hours of video. it's a quarter century of political history that you can search your way by name, title, issue, committee, interest group and more. all available free online. >> campaign for america's future, a group consisting of progressives, began a three-day conference this week in washington. they heard from gloria totten with progressive majority. this portion is about 15 minutes. . the great

deba to the next level by [inaudible] >> i think it is a pretty clear that mr. barack obama is compromised on everything that is proessive and even sabotages progress of things like single payer health care. he also sabotaged glass- steagall, which would have been an intervention into wall street. he is bought and paid for by wall street and not doing anything about british petroleum. i thin is apparent that if he is not going to do anything to expropriate the british on this to are polluting our golf, he should just step down. thank you. -- polluting our gulf, he should just sat down. >> i am with people for the

american way. i agree with our panelists as we talk about the progressive movement stepping up to the plate to polish politicians to do what we want them to do. too often, we rely on them stepping in and making the rht decisions based on what our needs are instead of making sure we build the type of infrastructure necessary to publish and take the momentum from great electio cycles and actually having infrastructure on the ground where people can plug in, use the of light -- use the energy they had during the election cycle to make sure our voices are heard. also to push republican legislators to do the things we need to do for them to be successful. a lot of what has happened during this administration is there has been a lot of right wing obstruction. making sure we have boots on the ground in those districts and

communities where we have republicans representing in making sure we hold them countable to things like immigration reform and other issues that are backlogged. give some of our democratic friends some backbone in order to move forward. >> thank you very much for the generous mention of the books. i have to say people are much more eager to read and buy a book that is selling cautious hope than one that is selling benevolent exasperation. the first book did much better than the second, though it is not over. let me try to respond to

something that was said earlier. why, given that obama has accomplished so much, do we feel so bad? i think the answer is the pieceal things he has accomplished do not add up to a sustainable winning politics. everybody in this room and millions of other people are working their hearts out to build a movement. but you cannot build a movement between now and november. if he does not do more on jobs and mortgage relief, and full of things that affect regular people where they live, it all goes down the drain in the midterm. then the moment is loss and crazies takeover. that's why we feel so bad. the tight low -- a tight rope that some of a progressives what is as follows -- we criticize tim geithner, the oil companies, wall street, everybody but

obama. because we feel a little bit do you see about criticizing obama. -- feel a -- goosey about criticizing obama. we play an inside game and outside game and don't have that right yet. we have to hold this administration accountable big- time not just for peace deal things but deliver -- but to deliver a politics that is sustainable so that itoes not get short circuit in before it has a chance to get started. we havto redouble our efforts to rebuild a movement. if you look at things a the past 50 years where we have made progress, gay-rights, women's rights, civil rights, the rights for disabled people, every one of those was the result of a movement. if you look at the areas where we have gone backwards, economic justice, that's the one where we did not build a strong of movement, notwithstanding the

heroism of the labor movement. my only conclusion from that is that as powerful as racism was and as powerful as sexism was and as powerful as contempt for gays and lesbians was, wall street is even more powerful and we have to be stronger than wall street. we have to tell it like it is with our president. [applause] >> let's go over here. >> i am representing the gathering for justice. all lot of the work we do in the communities we work with are really below the grassroots, non-traditional leaders, undocumented mothers in arizona, the recent parolee or the young person in juvenile hall. all of these people are doing social justice work and might not look like a campaign, b might be in the relationship their building in the neighborhood, in the mother's circle or the youth group.

my question to the room is how do we include those people in this conversation? how can there voice come into this boys of policy and business suits? the work is happening on t grassroots, but how do they hol obama accountable? the gap is so wide that as people are not being seen and the voices are not being heard. how do we bring that into this room and hold oba accountable? [applause] >> i am proved that green is green. i am out in the field in texas and nevada and oregon bringing brainpower on line to serve america. i'm putting money into clean oil, raising algy. i'm working hard on what we call the tent millennium of man

and it's time we start restoring this planet. it is up and running and has been up a couple of months. you can get on the site and learn about real green things that are creating jobs and people are having success acros the country. but there is more to it. bill, asng to style a opposed to the comments that this movement would not be the place to create a legislation, we want a bottoms up bill that by the end of this year will restore ecosystems, the forrsts, rangelands, and restore our grid so we can get green power instead of relying on a coal and gas. we want to run a campaign that will put the bill into law pad a lot of land and spend money on

restoring the oceans, restoring the eco in the economy. that is the basis of that word -- it means ecology and that's the natural resources is so degraded that it's hardly useful. we look forward to working with you on that and thank you very much for your efforts. >> >> i am with beyond nuclear, which is an advocacy group. that is beyond nuclear, not beyond petroleum, don't throw me out of the country at. what i would like to know, bng a oup that does actually call our congress people, some of whom are not very evolved and it seems like a very few tile occupation. i'm sitting next to somebody who has to call cantor, so you can now imagine wh kind of thing goes job that is. i would love to hear some more

specifics, not just about what we should do. a lot of us are aware but what we should do, but how to do it? my issue is anti-nuclear. we have mr. emmanuel and people like that surrounding obama and we try to getnto energy planning meetings and erything possible and the door is basically closed. they do t want to hear from us and it's not what they want to hear. i would love to hear more about the movement building ideas that can create change on the ground and will make people in congress feel uncomfortable because they want to keep their jobs and will let obama hear from us in a way that is not blocked by his many advisers, none of them agree with us. [applause] >> i am with american income

life and want to speak briefly about corporate interests. i represe the corporate interest. it may not be the one you are thinking, it may not be wall street or the fact had bankers, but there are so many progssive companies who believe in the social contract who want to respect workers' rights to organize and who believe in economic justice and shared prosperity. i would challenge this group to systematically make and start to include progressive businesses at a loc level, a regional level come and at a national level to be partners in the conversation with our progress of partners. i say that because we have money and you have people. together, it is what will win the conversation in america. i look at financial reform and

employee free choice as to examples. when we spoke out and organize 1700 businesses to speak out, it changed the conversation. with main street alliance and the shared prosperity spoke out in the chamber and said consumer finance protection agency does not harm small business, it changes the conversation. as we build capacity to win the conversation in our neighborhoods at a local and state level, and then went policy battles aa national level, we cannot do it without a business with of reason and responsible corporate partners. i would challenge the progressiv movement to start to include it systematically, not only for our money, but for our voice and sharing that with you. >> thank you for your leadership in that sector. >> i'm from the national

community reinvestment coalition. sometimes it feels like we're concerned about pop culture but we spend all our time talking about celebrities. from awhat i took away conversation -- our orientation is a much toward the white house and those in power with good reason we forget to actually go where culture is being created. we would be talking about these things if we were into pop lture. much of the conversation at our table focused on how do you play the inside game and the outside game but also how do you move away from whiping votes around a particular piece of legislation, which i think many organizations get caught in the trap of and set out a clear vision and set of principles around which you are going to compare any piece

of legislation that comes along? i would say that around financial reform and economic justice matters, we one part of the policy and i think we still have the opportunity to win the debate and continue to win the debate. thanks to bob cutler has been working on this issue for many years, that's an area where progressives can continue to put a lot of energy and emphasis and still win the fight. >> thank you. that gives you the last word. thank you, everyone. we're going to go almost immediately into the next session. i will ask you to hold your seats and we will bring the panelists up and i will do it quick introduction. i'm sure you will be excited to hear what they have to say.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> busiest day of the year for congressional and governors' races with 12 states holding primary is today. senator boxer will learn who her snonet will be. and there is a race in california. we'll have live coverage tonight on the c-span networks. >> british prime minister takes questions tomorrow morning.

it starts at 7:00 a.m. eastern. live on c-span 2. >> we three new c-span books for you "abraham lincoln," "the supreme court" and who eye buried in grant's tomb?" on to order, go to c-span.org /books. >> the state department confirmed that three americans are being detained on yemen. there was confirmation that a new vote on sanctions against iran is expected tomorrow at the u.n. security council. this briefing is about 45 minutes.

>> secretary clinton is delivering remarks at the metropolitan cultural center to a group of approximately 300 people, including alumni of the embassy exchange programs, youth, business leaders, members of the media, academics and diplomats. major speech on the western hemisphere. she will then depart for bogota and will meet with the president and sign the bilateral science and technology agreement and complete with the two presidential candidates to succeed the president. she will conclude her stop with

a visit to a usais center before proceeding on to barbados. have we released this on slovenia? you should be seeing in your blackberries, but the united states, we have just released a statement from secretary clinton, united states congratulates the people of slow ven yeah on the border agreement with croatia. they helped move the region closer to full european integration. we commend the leaders of the governments for resolving to settle their disagreements and agreeing to arbitration in the spirit of good neighborly relations. we believe the arbitration agreement is good for the two countries and for the entire

region. and just to highlight a statement by secretary clinton last evening where she applauded the bill and melinda gates foundation for the announcement of $1.5 billion for women and children's health. we share their commitment to making child health a priority focusing on women is not only the right thing to do but also the smart thing to do because investing in the health of women improves the health of their families and communities. turning to africa, united states government expresses its concern over a pattern of increasing political repression and the deteriorating environment for civil and political rights, including the arrest of opposition leaders, journalists and peaceful demonstrators. sudan east authorities arrested two leaders, releasing one after several hours while they continue to hold the other in

detention and we are troubled by the closure of the newspaper and arrests and alleged mistreatment of staff members. separately, authorities prevented several activists from departing the country to participate in the international review court conference in uganda. in june, authorities arrested several individuals in connection with a doctorso strike and police reportedly injured 12 persons while breaking up a peaceful protest. we call on the government of sudan that those in custody receive access to medical care. we call for the security agencies to cease any censorship of media. the united states is concerned about the harassment of journalists in sudan and reminds the government of sudan of its international obligations to respect human rights, including

freedoms of assembly and of the press. behind, we are just -- for those -- we launch a new mobile site. the site provides a collection of news releases from state.gov optimized from mobile phones and other devices. the top stories include secretary clinton, country information, daily press briefings and more news. today, for example, on the site, you can highlight a podcast of a program we had conversations with america where this morning, bob blake and former ambassador had a nice 45-minute discussion of the implications of the u.s.

dialogue completed last week. and then just a few cats and dogs before taking your questions. we were asked yesterday when did we become aware of the leak of -- alleged leak of department cables? we became aware of that on may 27. we were asked regarding potential requests for extradition involving a u.s. citizen and former executive of union car bide. the united stateses has an extradition treaty in force but we do not comment on extradition requests in any particular case. regarding the canadian boom, we expect to see the first somewhere around 9,843 of boom arrive this evening by truck in

alabama and we would expect to have two additional arrivals on wednesday and thursday. you have been asking in recent days regarding the extent of our assistance of humanitarian aid po gaza. in terms of the current fiscal year -- fiscal 2010, we estimate -- we have appropriated roughly $400 million in assistance to the west bank and gaza. and right now, we estimate that $45 million is committed for humanitarian assistance activities in gaza and the west bank so far as well as $35 million in support of united nations' relief and work agency for palestine and refugee agencies. that commitment so far this year is $35 million.

if we go back last year, we committed both -- close to $200 million in a variety of projects for gaza and refugee activity and $80 million the previous year. we can go into greater detail if you wish. >> can you go back to the canadian boom. i think you said delivery in alabama. did you give or do you have a more specific location? >> no. the trucks are coming from new brunswick, canada. all i have is alabama. >> it's a big state. relatively small coastline. >> it would be helpful -- >> for the obvious reasons, i think. >> sure. and i would probably send you down there. we'll find out where specifically the trucks are coming.

and finally, i want to give you some additional clarity to the topic of conversation thaw raised yesterday in terms of american citizens in custody in yemen. we gave you a figure of 12 yesterday. talking to the post today, actually that number fluctuates from time to time. it can be as high as 20. that number, you know, regards the total number of citizens and consular access regarding any crime allegedly committed within yemen. there may well be some people who have dual citizenship and may not know the entire population of people who are in custody in yemen at any particular time. but, you know, there was some suggestion that there had been new arrests involving terrorism.

we can report to you, we continue to check with the yemeni government and not aware of any new arrests on terrorism charges at this point. of the people who are in custody, we can tell you that there are three citizens, three u.s. citizens currently in custody that we are aware of associated with charges of terrorism. and we have consular access to each, but the one caveat those people have been arrested in the last couple of months. and so we are not aware of any new arrests regarding terrorism in yemen. >> these three or perhaps or perhaps others that have been released, did the u.s. ask the yemen government ask them to arrest them based on suspicions you had on them? >> we have close cooperation with the government of yemen,

mutual support regarding our concerns about al qaeda and beyond that, i will not comment on the nature of our exchange of information. >> have these three citizens been interrogated by the f.b.i.? >> i do not know. >> can you take the question. >> you can ask the f.b.i. >> yesterday, you were talking about the number and you said 12. where did that come from? >> i have my sources. no. no. i was very careful yesterday to say -- i was not suggesting that the 12 that we are aware of are all society wd terrorism. i said i'm not going to go into the details. in the light of the coverage, i can tell you that right now we are only aware of three american citizens in custody in yemen on trim charges -- terrorism

charges and we are looking to see if there are additional in custody. [inaudible question] >> extradition -- >> i guess that indicates that they have been charged -- >> not to my knowledge. i don't know, but not to my knowledge. >> have any americans been released in recent days in yemen that were associated with any terrorism charges? >> how far do you want to go back? have people been detained, questioned and released on a variety of issues? the answer is question yes. but i wouldn't tie that flow -- >> to these three. are they associated with the arrests of these three individuals that you are speaking of? >> try me again, sir. >> i'm asking if any americans

have been released around the same time that these three individuals were arrested? >> i can't go back and say the last time an american citizen was detained, questioned and released. [inaudible question] >> when you say within recently, what is your definition? >> let me get to the more specific. there was some reporting that there had been a fresh group of individuals arrest odd a terrorism charge. we are unaware of a new wave of arrests in recent days in yemen. >> those were part of a broader context and seems there are westerners detained on terrorism charges and there was reporting that they were americans. >> i'm saying that there are

three americans we are aware of that there are currently in yemeni custody. we are still seeking information as to whether there have been new arrests. we are not aware of any new arrests of americans. >> are you aware -- >> would not necessarily be a reason for we at the state department to know there have been arrests of citizens of other countries. we are cooperating intensively with yemen on counterterrorism matters. and we have a mutual concern of al qaeda on the arabian peninsula. but we remain in contact with yemen and if we ascertain any additional information, we'll let you know. >> i'm still a little confused. the three americans you are

aware of were not arrested recently. >> correct. since the first of the year. we have had consular access to all three. >> to those three that were not arrested recently. now in regards to the group, the reporting you referred to of arrests of a large group of people from various nations. in your talking to the post, what's the reaction to that story? >> what story? >> the story of the arrests of a large group of people involving as many as 12 americans? >> this is what i want to get at. the reporting yesterday suggested that we were aware of a new arrest of 12 americans on terrorism-related charges. we're not aware of a new arrest of any american citizen on

terrorism-related charges. there are a number of people in custody, 12, a good number. if we probably counted them up it would be higher than 12 who have been arrested on a wide range of charges. one has been arrested for murder. three have been arrested on terrorism-related charges. i'm trying to -- i want to tamp down the idea that there is a fresh batch of 12 americans arrested in yemen on terrorism charges. we are still talking to yemen. we are asking them to clarify if we have any additional americans in custody on terrorism charges. at the present time, there have been no arrests of american citizens to our knowledge. >> did they share the nature of these charges with you? >> in that respect, you know, our post is doing what our posts

in any capital do. they look after the welfare of american citizens and have had consular access to them and making sure that their rights are fully protected. so we are familiar with the charges against them and making sure that they have full rights and going forward. >> are these three arrested in a crackdown of yemen -- apparently they are connect todd language schools and failed to show up to the schools. you had talked to them about cracking down on these people that were suspect and you didn't know there whereabouts. is this connected with that? >> the three in custody have been in custody since the first

of the year. i won't detail what they were -- >> why did it take until today for you to correct the misimpression you left with us yesterday that there were 12 american citizens in custody as a result of recent arrests? >> i understand that was an impression that was left from yesterday's briefing and i communicated with post this morning and i'm clarifying it for you. >> we take our reputations for getting things right very seriously and quoted you on the record. i have the transcipts. i don't think there is a whole lot of ambiguity and if there is an error, it's your obligation to make that known immediately and not wait 24 hours to fix something. >> i take that responsibility seriously as well and i'm fixing it at the first opportunity. but i wasn't responsible for the

reporting. >> you said -- i'll read you the transcript if you want. >> i never said that the 12 people in custody were all on terrorism-related charges. i never said that. i specifically avoided that question. >> you said there were 12 americans in custody. fair to say there are 12 americans in custody and three of them are terrorism-related charges, right? >> yes. >> as many as 20 -- >> the number goes up and down. the number may have fluctuated over the past 24 hours. the reporting was focusing on the prospect of 12 new arrests based on terrorism charges. i want to make sure that i put that in proper context. >> there was a video identified as a missing nuclear scientist

who said he had been abducted and taken to the united states and claimed that saudi intelligence cooperated with the american intelligence in his abduction and the video was recorded on april 6 in arizona. have you seen this -- >> in light of some of that coverage yesterday, a number of people reviewed that video and we are unable to attest to its authenticity. >> are you denying that the u.s. and saudis concluded to kidnap that individual? >> as to whether that particular video depicts a specific individual. >> did the u.s. and saudis collude to kidnap a nuclear scientist. >> we are not in the habit -- >> in this administration.

>> there is a history of the u.s. kidnapping people and taking them to various -- are you saying -- >> i will be as specific as i can. if the question is, have we kidnapped an iranian scientist, the answer is no. >> that -- asylum in that case? >> asylum requires that the individual may proffer to the united states, those are also confidential. >> you said you haven't kidnapped any iranian. what do you make of iran's claim that this man was kidnapped? is that simply false? >> as to the circumstances of that individual's -- as i understand it based on media

reports and nothing else, that individual made a pilgrimmage to saudi arabia and that was the last that the iranians were aware of him. i can tell you that the united states kidnap him from saudi arabia, the answer is no. >> or from anywhere else. i want to get this right. >> i just made a categorical statement. >> you made a calt gore call statement with regard to saudi arabia. >> based on the media reporting, this individual was in saudi arabia and the question is, did the united states kidnap him from saudi arabia, the answer is no. >> the question is, did the u.s. kidnap him at all? >> no. [inaudible question] >> i'm not going to comment further. i personally don't know where he is. >> talks in geneva and security

in the caucuses and assist secretary gordon is there and met with the assistant foreign deputy. and secretary, the secretary met with the president of american chamber of commerce in russia. presumably they discussed economics and trade. do you have something on that? >> i'm not equipped to answer either one of those. we'll take both those questions. >> iran sanctions in the security council, can you confirm on the record there is pretty much a clear shot at a vote tomorrow with no veto and that u.s. has a view on it or is on board with it? >> we expect that there will be a vote in the u.n. security council tomorrow. >> can i follow up on that? >> you may. ahmadinejad is on the record as

well saying that isn't going to work. you're forcing this issue. in fact, he is specifically quoted saying that the u.s. government and its allies are mistaken if they can brandish the stick and sit down and talk with us. such a thing will not happen. is this going to work at the end of the day, even if you get this all passed, no vetoes, where is this going? >> well, no one has kidnapped the diplomatic corps of the government of iran. we did have what we thought was an encouraging meeting with an iranian diplomat on october 1 of last year. and there has been no direct follow-up since then. we have been encouraging through a variety of means the united states, the e.u., other countries to have a direct

conversation about iran's nuclear program and encourage iran to answer the questions that the international community has and to meet its obligation under u.n. security council resolutions. it is iran that is unwilling to follow up on that conversation from last october 1 and iran will understand that there are consequences for its failure to come forward. >> ahmadinejad says -- if you continue to sanction them, iran will pull out any hope of having these p-5 plus one talks. there are six parties, whatever, will pull out of the talks. now turkey, the prime minister is trying to convince

ahmadinejad not to abandon the talks whatsoever. do you think turkey has a role to play here? >> of course turkey has a role to play. turkey as a direct neighbor of iran will be among the first countries to feel whatever the effects of international action are. turkey itself has been very clear it does not desire to have a nuclear iran right next door. we are all committed to diplomacy. as united states has indicated very strongly, we do not see that iran is going to change course based on words alone. we are going to vote for the u.n. security council resolution tomorrow. other members will have the opportunity to vote as well. and we hope that that will be a strong, compelling, direct international message to iran that it has to change course. as to what iran does in light of tomorrow's vote, that will be up to iran. >> let me follow up, please.

will you support turkey's concerted mediation efforts? >> as we said all long, we have two tracks, we have not ever closed the door to further international engagement. we would like -- >> i'm talking about turkey. >> i understand that. is the diplomatic track still available? of course. but at the same time, we are going to apply greater pressure on iran to make clear that it's failure to meet its obligations does have consequences. >> ahmadinejad says sanctions mean confrontation. >> this is iran's choice. this is not about the united states singling out iran, this is about iran as a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty that has a nuclear program and has failed over a number of years to

satisfy the international community that that program is civilian and peaceful in nature. iran wants to portray itself as the victim here. iran is not the victim. iran is an actor in this play and it's iran that has failed to come forward and meet its international obligations. we are saying that failure has consequences. we aren't closing the door to any step beyond the sanctions vote tomorrow. if iran after the vote tomorrow is willing to come forward and answer the international community's questions, engage within the iaea, that would be a welcomed step. if iran fails to engage, we'll take light of iran's response. tomorrow there is going to to be a vote and every country is going to have to stand up and say, this is what we think of the current situation and we expect to have a successful vote that makes clear there are consequences to iran for its

failure to meet its international obligations. >> doesn't it put the brakes on the sanctions process when you talked about turkey being a very effective neighbor and yet in conjunction with brazil, they are fighting like cats and dogs to create mediation and create a different track. wouldn't it be wise to say, ok, let's pump the brakes on the sanctions and let turkey and brazil try their mediation track and see what happens because the sanctions regime clearly seems to be in the eyes of iran to be counterproductive. >> first of all, october, november, december, january, february, march, april, may, june, for nine months iran has had the opportunity to engage

the international community following up on the meeting of october 1. it has failed to do so. no one has prevented iran from picking up the phone, calling the e.u. or iaea and coming forward, only recently when they understood that a sanctions resolution was clearly going to be put on the table, did they even bother to respond formally on the proposal that they had in their hands from october 1. so the rett sense is not about the international community but about iran and its failure to engage significancely. in terms of mediation, we aren't ruling out mediation, but this isn't an either/or situation. these two tracks run in parallel. we would like to see iran engage constructively and we believe putting additional pressure on iran is the right step to take at this time.

>> u.s. security council did announce the vote tomorrow as well in new york. can you tell us anything more now about what is in it specifically, what are some of the terms of the sanctions will be? >> i'm not going to get into the resolution or sanctions. they will be voted on tomorrow and some details will become available. >> there is reporting out that the annexes designate one individual. can you confirm that? >> i'm not going to talk about that. >> you said -- inaudible -- can you tell us how much went to gaza? >> of the $400 million, roughly $45 million has gone to gaza for humanitarian assistance and $35

million to support the u.n. a total of $80 million. >> does that aid go to gaza? >> the aid goes tore -- which one? the refugee assistance? on the $45 million, it goes to the palestinian authority and specific n.g.o.'s working on aid projects in gaza. >> can i follow up on that? what about the $900 billion figure that was given out by the president? the rest of this aid coming and when -- >> i have to be careful about -- there's aid to palestinians, including gaza and the west bank and there is a narrow slice of that that is focused on gaza.

the 2009 pledges have allowed the united states to exceed its $900 million pledge made at the conference. that goes to the palestinians primarily through the palestinian authority. but there is a slice of aid to the palestinians that does go to gaza. >> ultimately, i think the question is, any of this aid getting on the ground? you have the humanitarian situation which the secretary herself spoke of. >> and the short answer is yes, through the u.n., this aid does get to the people of gaza. we have particular projects that are under way in gaza and we continue to evaluate about how we can expand our own assistance. but clearly channel it so it gets to the people of gaza

without benefiting hamas. >> can i ask you something more theoretical. i know that you know and the secretary and everyone said that the situation in gaza is unsustainable. but do you really have a handle on the situation in gaza considering no u.s. diplomats are allowed in the territories? do you really understand what the situation is on the ground or just know that it's bad? >> well, we have diplomats there. >> in gaza? >> not in gaza, but that's why we rely on, among others, tony blair. we are deeply involved and engaged with the u.n. they have people on the ground in gaza. yes, you're right. do we have american diplomats in gaza? no, we do not. do we understand the situation in gaza? we clearly do. more importantly as the secretary has indicated in virtually every conversation we

have with a middle east leader, the situation of gaza comes up, we share the concern about the humanitarian situation in gaza. we want to see aid extended to the people of gaza. we are committed to that, we are working through and working on ideas on how to extend the aid and make sure that their interests are protected. >> as you work through a new paradigm for gaza, is it something you should consider that u.s. diplomats should have a presence on the ground there? >> i think we would welcome the opportunity to have a presence in gaza, but that is not possible under the current situation. >> there have been senators that -- >> i understand that. on a case-by-case basis, americans have gone there. jimmy carter is one. but in order to have diplomats on the ground engaged with

authorities in gaza, we need to have a different political situation in gaza. >> if diplomats wanted to gaza, what is preventing them from doing it? >> we will engage with any political group that is willing to meet our basic red lines for playing a constructive role in the region. those red lines are clear. hamas has made clear they have no intention at the present time of agreeing to those. as a result, we do not have political relationship with hamas. yes? >> you said yesterday -- does that mean you expect a statement ? >> just to clarify to be sure that you didn't mishear me, the south korean government has sent

a letter to the president of the security council. we do expect the matter to come up within the council in the next couple of weeks. we would expect to have you know, per the south korean request an appropriate response from the u.n. security council, but what that specific response is, well -- will be part of the upcoming debate. >> [inaudible question] >> secretary clinton calling for the free trade agreement -- >> passage -- >> passage of the u.s. free trade agreement and appointment of special envoy to burma immediately as well as an increased east asia bureau funding here. have you seen the leteror do you intend to respond?

>> we'll respond to it. i'm not aware that we've seen the letter yet. >> i would like to come back to gaza. about the turkish american that was shot, do you have any further information whether there are investigations under way, what the u.s. knows about this, et cetera? >> no change from what i said before. >> none? so you don't know about the circumstances of the shooting? >> as we said, we are ascertaining facts. we want to have not only our concern about our citizens, but everyone who was killed and injured on the ships and want a full understanding what happened. and we are talking to israel and others about how to best accomplish that. >> there is the i.d.f. investigation, which we all found out about last night,

which, again, seems to close the door on the notion of international participation. are you concerned that that the notion of international participation is not going to happen in terms of this? >> i think we understand that the international participation investigating these matters will be important to the credibility that everybody wants to see as we understand fully what happened last week. >> are you go to go have u.s. monitors? >> we are discussing with israel and others the perspective nature of international participation in the investigation. and, you know, we are sharing different ideas on how to best accomplish that and that conversation is ongoing. >> related to that, germany and italy said today that they

believe that the cortet should be involved in the investigation to help its credibility. do you like that idea? >> there are a variety of ways to accomplish this. i don't think we have centered on any particular way at this point. [inaudible question] >> we got to work backwards. we want to see an impartial, credible, prompt, thorough investigation and we are talking about the best way to get from here to there. we recognize that international participation, which lends itself to countries and entities being able to vouch for the results of the investigation, that will be an essential element to putting this tragedy behind us and hopefully creating additional thrust and momentum to get us to our ultimate

destination, which is an agreement that ends the conflict once and for all. >> the ambassador has been all over the air waves saying everything is going to be internal. there is nothing impartial about an internal investigation. >> we are in consultation with the israelis and others. >> is there a possibility of an international investigation? >> yes. in the beginning of the briefing there is a signed agreement about military cooperation 15 years after they finished the brutal war. could you comment that and iran as a result of the strong engagement of this administration. >> i'll take that question. i'm not familiar with that agreement. it sounds like it is a

constructive step. >> the state department not willing to share more information on violation of 1874, which some people have said -- >> that is something that we watch very carefully. we are talking to burma, reminding burma about its international obligations under 1874 and other resolutions. as to the nature of our conversations, senator webb, many conversations with him about burma. a country that he recognizes is of significance. and i'm sure that we will continue our conversations with senator webb and others about the best way forward. >> is the appointment a consideration? is this a viable option for you? >> i'll take that question.

>> peace talks with the condition that this will end in violence. how do you view the situation there in kashmir? >> we recognize that this is a very, very important issue between india and pakistan and as the dialogue between india and pakistan continues to expand, including at the leader level, that we would hope that india and pakistan can make progress in understanding this issue and moving forward just as they did a few years ago. >> there are reports in mexico that a u.s. border patrol guard accidentally shot a 14-year-old mexican boy yesterday in juarez.

do you have anything on that? >> i don't. it may well be since it's a border guard that d.h.s. is a better source. >> joran van der sloot was arrested and -- murdering up this woman and opening up questions as to whether he will be charged in the natalee holea way murder. and there are reports that the authorities have been made aware of where ms. holloway's body is. >> we'll take that question as well. i'm not aware. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> we are waiting for the house to return now for votes on two bills that were debated earlier. the first bill is go to go concern a land transfer for a native american tribe living in a flood zone and the other measure honors the achievements of marine conserveationist jacques cousteau. live here financial safety and soundness of the f.h.a. mortgage insurance program and providing for considerations of motions to suspend the rules. . the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. votes will be taken in the following order.

h.r. 1061. by the yeas and nays. and h.res. 518, by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote and the remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1061 as amended which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1061, a bill to transfer certain land to the united states to be held in trust for the indian tribe to place land into trust for the indian tribe and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended? members will record their votes by electronic device. this this is a 15-minute vote.

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

.

the speaker pro tempore: 2/3, the rules are success pended and the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the bill. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 518, honoring the life of jacques-yves cousteau. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and gee to the resolution as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this

vote the yeas are 354rks the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a communation. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-a of rules 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives i have the honor to transmate filled envelope received from the white house and said to conin a message from the president whereby he submitted a copy of nats filed earlier with a federal register continuing the emergency with respect to western balks for declared an executive order, 13219 of june 26, 2001 with best wishes i am, signed scerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the message. the clerk: to the congress of the unitd states.

sections 202-d of the national emergency act provided for the automatic termination of a national emergency lab prior to the anniversary day of the -- ate of its proclamation, the president transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the register the enclosed notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond june 26, 2010. the crisis constituted by the actions of the persons engaged in or assisting, sponsoring or supporting extremist violence in macedonia and elsewhere in the western balkans region or, two, acts obstructing implementation of the security council resolution 1244 of june 10, 1999, in kosovo or the framework agreement of 2001 in macedonia that led to the declaration of a

national emergency on june 26, 2001, an executive order 13219 and to amend that ordeand expect sieve order 13304, may 28, 2003, has not been resolved. the act of extremist violence and obstructionist activity outlined in the order as amend ready hostile to u.s. interests and pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. for these reasons i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to the western balkans and maintain and enforce sanctions to respond to this threat. signed, barack obama, the white house, june 8, 2010. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house a communication.

the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representate it's, madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the house of representatives, i have the honor to transmit a filled enelope from the white house and said to contain a message from the president whereby he submits a a notice filed earlier with the federal register continuing the emergency with respect to bell ruse first declared an executive order, of june 16, 2006. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. sections 202-d of the national emergency act provide for the automatic termination of a national emergency left prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes and the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect yonleds the anniversary date.

in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency and related measures blocking the property of certain persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in bela ruse continue effect beyond june 16, 2010. despite the relief of internationally recognized political prisoners in the fall of 2008, and our continuing efforts to press for further reforms related to democracy, human rights and the rule of law in bell russ, serious challenges remain. the actions and policies of certain members of the government and persons to undermine their democratic processes or institutions, to commit human rights abuses related to political repression and to engage in public corruption pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary fret to the national security -- threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. for this reason, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared to deal with

this threat and the related measures blocking the property of certain persons. signed, barack obama, the white house, june 8, 2010. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: tomp mr. speaker, ryes i today to congratulate charles cole memorial hospital for winning a 2010 achievement award from the hospital and health system association of pennsylvania. charles cole memorial was among 17 winners chosen from a poll of 134 entries. through their incredibly successful efforts to solidify their connection to the community, their leaders and staff showed the importance of transparency and accessibility in the health care field. the hospital achieved five

community benefit advisory committees as outlets for the community to become involved in the planning, operation and governance. committees met several times both regionally and part of the organization and coue to serve as integral team members and community correspondents for the hospital staff. they were compared to the baseline data taken before the establishment of these advisory committees showed improvement in every major field, including the image of the hospital, visibility in community and quality of care. the hospital will continue this great program and as a person who has spent many years in the health care field, i understand the importance of this effort and hope to see the hospital continue to succeed in the future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> rise to address the house for one minute, ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to

commend the fort ben baptist eagles on their texas association of private and parochial school's softball title. the eagles beat, they won 1-0 behind senior racialle fox's 10 strikeouts. -- rachel fox's 10 strikeouts. the coach coached her team four years to the championship. mr. olson: the eagles have exemplified those traits in spades. the fort ben baptist eagles have proven role models for their school and community. through hard work and dedication, they have achieved the goals they set for themselves at the beginning of the season. mr. speaker, i congratulate the fort ben baptist eagles on their back to back championship titles of the i thank them for representing their community and their school with pride. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. carter of texas for today, ms. kilpatrick of michigan for today and the balance of the week, ms. richardson of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request ares granted. -- requests are granted. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any specialereders heretofore entered into, the following persons may be permitted to address this house, revise and extends their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. burton for today, june 9, 10 and 11, myself, mr. poe, for today, june 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15, mr. jones for today, june 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15, mr. moran for today, july 9, 10, 14 and 15, mr. latta for june 9 and ms.

ros-lehtinen for june 10. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein ex cranious material. mr. connolly: ms. woolsey of california, mr. weiner of new york, ms. kaptur of ohio and mr. defazio of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and you understand a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. representative burton of indiana. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i request permission to take mr. burton's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the new supreme court pick has never been a judge.

she's never seen a courtroom from the bench. she's never had a judge's responsibility. she has never instructed a jury. she's ner ruled on a pount of law, any point of law. she has not decided even one constitutional issue. she's never tried a criminal case. she's never tried a civil case. she's never even tried a traffic case. we don't know whether or not she believes the constitution is the foundation of american law or whether she thinks, like many, the constitution constantly changes based upon the personal opinions of supreme court justices. but either way, she has never had to make a constitutional call in a court of law in the heat of a trial. she's never admitted evidence or ruled out evidence or ruled on a chain of custody regarding evidence. she's never made even one decision regarding any rule of evidence. she's never ruled on the

exclusionary rule, the miranda doctrine, an unlawful search and seizure allegation, a due process claim, an equal protection violation or any constitutional issue. she's never enpaneled a jury, she's never instructed a jury on reasonable doubt or sentenced a person to the pen trenchry. she's never had to decide whether a witness was telling the truth or not. as a judge, she's never heard a plaintiff, a defendant, a victim or a child testify as a witness. she's never made that all-important decision of deciding whether or not a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime. she's never held the gavel in a courtroom and she's never made any decision in the heat of a trial. she's never ruled on a life and death issue. elena kagen has never made a judgment call from the bench, not a single one. but as a supreme court justice, she'd be second-guessing trial

judges and trial lawyers who had been through the mud and blood and tears of an actual trial in an actual court of law. how can she possibly be qualified to fill the post of a sueme court justice? . being a judge would be an exercise to the new supreme court nominee. she's read about being a judge in books, i suppose. she might have even played pretend in her college classroom, but she's never been a judge. she's never made a judicial decision and her first one should not be as a member of the united states supreme court. she has never determined justice, not a single time. yet, she wants to be a supreme court justice. besides never beina judge, she's never even been a trial lawyer. she never questioned a witness, argued a case to a jury or tried

a case to any jury anywhere in the united states. she has no courtroom trial experience as a judge or as a lawyer. real world experience makes a difference. reading books about something and actually doing it are two completely different things. people's lives and livelihoods are at stake. courtroom experience is fundamental to being a judge on the supreme court. as anyone who has been through the court system can testify, a courtroom is a whole different world. putting elena kagan on the united states supreme court is like putting someone in charge of a brain surgery unit that has never done an operation. she may be qualified for the classroom but certainly not qualified for the courtroom. she should stay in a school house since she has never been in trial at the courthouse and we cannot put the constitution in the hands of someone who has

never had to use it in the trial of a real case in a real court of law. elena kagan, unqualified justice. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey of california. mr. wiener of new york. mr. jones of north carolina. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. moran of kansas. fro what reason does the gentleman rise? >> permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. herger: mr. speaker, i rise to israel's right to self-defense and express my outrage over the knee-jerk, international condemnation of our strong ally following the recent flotilla incident. the activists ignored warning from israeli forces to turn away from gaza and disregarded

invitations to offload supplies elsewhere. worst of raleigh, they placed israeli forces in grave dangerer by brutally attacking them. many countries immediately condemned israel. their reaction sharply contrasts with their failure to denounce the hostile behavior of iran and north korea. i applaud the obama administration for avoiding this double standard. the united states must always stand against the unfair treatment of an important ally. the speaker pro tempore: mr. defazio of oregon. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. bishop: i appreciate the opportunity to talk about the 10

amendment and some of the efforts that members of this house are doing to try to emfies the -- emphasize the importance of that amendment to the constitution. for the people who are allowed to work in this chamber or who come in to visit, there are historical references that they can see. up around the top of the wall over here, there are the cameos of the great icons of the world, law giver. moses, only one who has a full face and looking directly at the speaker. everyone else has a side view and only two americans in this great law givers in the history of the world, george mason and thomas jefferson on either side, some great language from webster telling us to use our resources to develop this country. i thought it was ironic that jefferson and mason were the two great law-givers in the united

states. neither one of them signed the constitution. jefferson wasn't present at the time. and george mason spent the entire time at the constitutional convention and at the end of that time, still refused to affix his signature to the document itself. as i was teaching school, i insisted every one of my kids had to say why mason didn't sign the document and it was because the document did not have a bill of rights. i was always hoping one of my students would always ask what i think is a significant question which is why did mason did not sign but why washington, franklin, mad ison, hamilton, wilson, why did they not go along with mason and add a bill of rights intohe base document. it was certainly not because these founding fathers did not believe in the idea of individual liberty, but they had another method, another mechanism that they thought more

specific than actually listing down what our rights are and are not. it was the structure of government. though not specifically named in the document, it becomes the essential element of the constitution and the purpose of that structure was to ensure that individual liberties would be maintained and personal dignity and personal freedoms would be benefited and would grow in this country. so the founding fathers when they built our system of government, they divided power horizontally between the three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial, with the goal and purpose of balancing those three so that individual liberty would be protected and indeed, the problem is, if ever those three branches, horizontally are out of balance, one branch of government has far more ability to control the outcome of policy than the other, it is individual people who are hurt, it is their rights that are put in jeopardy.

they thought it was going to be very easy for those three branches of government to maintain that special balance, because each one would have a vested interest in maintaining their particular role within the system. but often forgotten, especially in public school classes about government, is that in addition to that horizontal balance of power, equally important to the founding fathers was a vertical balance of power between the national government and the states. once again, the purpose of that balance was supposed to be to protect individual liberty. and again, it's that balance is off kilter, then again, individuals are harmed. the question always was, would the federal government, national government, be sufficnt to try and maintain itself and govern itself to create and maintain that balance. in the federalist papers, obviously people like hamilton and madison and jay, they envisioned that this was part of

their argument as to why the constitution should be adopted. madison said the powers delegated by this proposed constitution are few and defined. those which are to remain in the state government are numerous and indefinite. and why? because powers reserved to the states will extend to all the objects which concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people. in federalist 32, hamilton said the thing when he simply said that any attempt on the part of the national government to abridge any state power would be a violent assumption of power and wanted by any article or clause of the constitution. indeed, when hamilton was arguing on whether to add a bill of rights to the constitution itself, he asked the question, why should we prohibit that which cannot be done? the assumption was there would be limitations on what the federal government can do, not

so on the states. now the final one from federalist 51 by madison said that the dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on government, but experience has taught mankind the auxillary precaution. the 10th amendment to the constitution, this concept of separating power horizontally between the three branches of government and vertically between the two levels of government is one of auxillary precaution that we needed to have. scalia in an opinion said the constitution is brilliant and it's to divide powers among different levels and different branches of government to resist the temptation of consolidating power as a similar policeic solution to the emergency of the day. i want to emphasize very clearly, this is not the same thing as states' rights.

states' rights as we traditionally use that term was an idea about power designed by jefferson and madison when they were talking about the virginia and kentucky resolution and calhoun about null fix and jefferson davis when he was trying to fight the civil war when a lot of evils were perpetrated. states' rights is about power. federalism and the 10th amendment is about balancing power between branches of government, between the federal -- national government and state governments and the balance, not control, the balance is there to protect individuals. because it is so easy for the federal government to ignore it or forget it, we have formed a 10th amendment task force. the goal of that task force is to try and re-emphasize the significance of federalism and

to disburse power from washington to restore that constitutional balance of power through the liberty enhancing elements of federalism. five goals. one is to educate congress and the public about federalism. two, develop proposals to disburse power to regions, states, local governments and private institutions and families and individuals. three, to elevate federalism as a core focus of our leadership in congress. four, to monitor threats to federal -- 10th amendment principles and federalism. five, build and foster a constituency. we are trying to make people aware the importance of federalism, the importance of the 10th amendment and how it imcts their life and find ways to empower states so they can stand up to the national government and re-establish the balance that was always intended to be there, because once again, if that balance is out of kilter, then all of a sudden

individuals are harmed. people are harmed. it affects their daily lives. if i could interrupt at this point, i would like to introduce one of the members of the founders of this 10th amendment task force to talk a little bit about how the importance of the 10th amendment, the importance of federalism is in restoring personal liberties and making sure that government does not have the heavy hand that hurts and harms people, which is the intention of the founding fathers. i would yield to the gentleman from texas for as much time as he wishes to consume at this point. mr. neugebauer: i thank the gentleman and he brings up some excellent points and i'm a proud member of the 10th amendment task force because one of the things we have to do in order to restore order in this country is get back to some of the principles that our founders

intended. they didn't intend for government to be the answer to every issue in this country. one of the things i think back on a few years ago in my congressional district, right after or not too long after we had the katrina incident in new orleans, we had a major fire in an area called cross plains, texas. and i went down there the next day and the people in that region had already brought clothes to the church to the people that had lost everything in the fire. people thought they were going out and helping them, people that lost their homes, people in the community had provided temporary housing and within a short period of time the people in that community met their own needs. and i got an interesting phone call from a member of the media and that person said, well, what is the government doing for the people in cross plains today? and i said, well, you know, the

good news is we didn't need the government in cross plains today because the people responded to that. and i think what we've gotten away from, as the gentleman points out, we have kind of turned the whole concept of what the founders thought about this country upside down. they never intended for the government to be the solution. in fact the best solutions happen when you keep the government closest to the people. . so what we're going to try to do is analyze things we've already done and as legislation is brought to this floor, we're going to try to remind our colleagues of the principle of federalism and is this the right place for this particular piece of legislation to be originated or should this be left to the people? because every time the federal government puts a new law in place individuals' liberties and freedoms are eroded. now, one of the thix that we've been talking about -- one of the things we've been talking about in this body for a number of

months now is these record deficits in our country. it wasn't many years ago that this country, you know, had a budget of $100 billion, back in, i think, 1962. this year the president of the united states brought a budget to this floor that spent over $3.7 trillion, and by the way, it's $3.7 trillion and we don't have $3.7 trillion. we're going to borrow 42 cents for every $1 we're going to spent -- spend. one of the reasons that we are running these record deficits is we have all of this money being funneled in to the federal system and then we have all of these people up here in washington trying to figure out how to spend the taxpayers' dollars and then those moneys go down to the states and the states try to figure out how to distribute those dollars and then the states pass them out maybe to the local communities. here's what happens. here is a $1 bill that the

taxpayers pay in taxes. now, what happens is, after washington washes this money, this massive federalism, then we have the $1 that actually gets back to the intended purpose. it's a shrunk $1. and one of the things we can do if we really want to be serious about, oning government being more efficient, is -- about, one, the government being more efficient, is getting the government out of businesses so this $1 is the $1 that gets to the people. as i close, and yield back to the gentleman, i think about the days when i was on the city council in lubbock, texas. and it was so discouraging to me where we would be sitting in council meetings and we would be sitting with staff and one swoo have an innovative idea of better ways to serve our citizenfully lubbock, texas. but -- citizenry in lubbock,

texas. but we'd also hear from staffers that there was a federal regulation that we'd have to check on or i'm not sure that that is in keeping with a certain regulations that would keep lubbock from getting certain kinds of funding because it was stifling creativity in our local communities. and so as the gentleman points out, the founders were very sincere about not making -- not letting the federal government have very many powers because they knew where the best work happens -- to keep innovation and liberty and freedom in place was to limit the powers of our federal government. some way along the line we lost our way and one of the reasons that i joined the 10th amendment task force was to see if we can restore the spirit of the constitution back to this body. and with that i yield back to the gentleman and i thank him for his time. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman from texas for going

over some specific examples of what this means to individuals. mr. speaker, i hate to admit this, i'm an old school teacher, i taught history. so when i read about what the founding fathers intended and how they tried to structure this government, i find that fascinatingism also recognize, unfortunately, for most people, when you talk about federalism or the 10th amendment, their eyes will glaze over. all they remember from those concepts is probably some essay they had to write in high school and something they didn't enjoy then and probably don't want to think about now. but the bottom line is, the founding fathers actually foresaw or day. they recognized that the solutions we need for the crisis of this day, that impacts real people today, is the concept of federalism. that balance, that balance which, unfortunately, has been out of balance for quite some time, is that solution and indeed the salvation of our future. as you can obviously tell, i'm

old. which is something that bolingter -- bothers me. however, i also recognize that the world is different. when i was a kid television was a whole lot easier. there were only three commanls and one pbs station -- channels and one pbs station, the dial only had 13 options on it and i had to go up to the tv and change the dial so i didn't change channels that often -- often. but when i go back this evening to my apartment, i will have a television set that gives me the option of 161 channels. ok? it's true, i still watch the same five all the time anyway. but i do have 161 options in front of me. no longer do we have simply a telephone that's on the wall with the telephone company telling me what to do. i can go into a store and find all sorts of plans on how to communicate with other people in television today. there are 14 kinds of wheat

thins, there are 16 different varieties of pringle potato chipping. there are 160 different kinds of campbell's soup. even if i want vanilla i can still go to a store that oftens me 31 opportunities to pick something else. the entire right of everyone today in the business world is one that deals with giving people choices and options. whether it's telephone plans or kinds of cereal to buy, i have all sorts of options and choices in front of me. the business world has recognized that if they want business from me, they have to give me choice and option. everywhere in our life today we get choices and options. when i was a kid and i heard a song i liked i had to go to the store and buy the entire vinyl record. and then put it on and hope i could drop the needle in the correct groove without destroying the record. i don't need to do that anymore. today my kids have give be me an ipod which means if i hear a song i like, all i now have to

do is call up one of my kids and say, come over and put it on my ipod because i don't know how to work the stupid thing. but i still have a choice. even in the new world symphony i like, i like the third and first movement and not the second, so no longer do i have to sit through 15 minutes of stuff i don't like from going from the first to the third, i took it out. those are options. everybody is in america today has choices or options given to them until it comes to deeming -- dealing with the government, especially with the federal government. once again, all of a sudden now you come back to washington and you find out that washington still believes in one size fits all mentality, programs and mandates. this is the only area where that's found. and the question should be asking -- the question you should be asking is why? it's very simple. that's our purpose of being the federal government. if you need to have something

occurring in this country where everyone is doing the exact same thing at the exact same time in the exact same way, the federal government, the national government here in washington, is the only one that can orestrate and mandate that. so if we have to be in lock step, this is the level to go. this is the place to accomplish that task. but if indeed maybe something different is needed and creativity and options are important, it's not going to happen from washington. never has, and i don't think it ever will in the near future. if indeed you want something different, then you have to empower state and local governments to accomplish that task. if you want to create -- if you want creativity, you'll allow states and local governments to fit situations to their particular needs and demographs. like my state of utah is unique than the other states. we have more kids than any other state as a percentage of our population. we have more small businesses

than other states as a percentage of our population. and we have a higher percentage of our small businesses with no insurance that they offer their employees than any other state in the nation. if you want to have some kind of health care program, for example, that fits the needs of utah, with their high student population, their high small business population, you're going to have to have a program that's going to be vastly different from a state on the east coast. that doesn't happen here in washington. it will happen if you empower states to come up with the new idea. if you want efficiency, you empower states. if you want justice, so that circumstances to a local level that are mitigating circumstances can be taken into effect, it can only happen if you empower states and local governments to do that. one of supreme court minority decisions talked about the

states as the landtory -- laboratory of democracy which simply meant, if you want people toxplore creative ideas, allow them to do so. if states are the ones who are exploring those creative ideas and they do something well, it can be replicated by everyone else. and maybe molded to fit the demographics of everyone else. but if a state makes a mistake and it is wrong, only that state is negatively impacted. when washington makes a mistake, everyone is impacted negatively and it is very difficult to try and get out of that particular situation. that's what the founding fathers were talking about. that idea of trying to get people choices and options can be accomplished if one truly believes ined idea of balance between a national government -- believes in the idea of balance between the national government states, so they can be innovative, so they can come up with new approaches and ideaed and when we in washington try to

set mandates down to tell states how they will do things, we take away the creativity. and unfortunately we also take away efficiency and we take away choices and options from people. that's what federalism means. it's not an essay to write in high school, it's about how people can live their lives, to make choices for themselves. it's very important. with that, i'd like to take a break here and yield some time or as much time as he may consume as well to another great representative from the state of texas, who also is one of the participants with this task force, who recognizes the significant importance of allowing people choices in their lives and that does not come when the federal government sets its one-size-fits-all agenda on top of people. i yield to the gentleman from texas. for as much time as he may consume. >> i thank the gentleman from utah for yielding and for hosting this night's hour to

talk about the 10th amendment and federalism. the probably been read into the record 11 gozz times but i want to read -- dozen times but i want to read a quote from jamse madison into the record that sets the tone for what i want to talk about. james madison said, the powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. mr. conaway: those that are to remain in the state governments are indefinite. the former will be exercised on external objects such as war, peace negotiation and commerce and the states will extend to all of the objects in which the ordinary course of affairs concerns the lives, libblets and properties of the people. mr. speaker, i argue that therein lies much of the problems we face today as a federal government. since 1995 this congress and the various administrative agencyings across thivast federal government have issued some 60,000 new rules and

regulations from everything from regulating the size of the holes in swiss cheese to the colors for surgical sutures. and i would argue that the size of a hole in swiss cheese probably should be defined by the folks in wisconsin where they do a lot of choose. but a federal law that delves into that detail, into the, as madison would have referred to it, as the ordinary course of affairs that concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, that's a government that's overreached. part of our problem is we send people to congress who are at their core can-do people. solution people. folks who want to solve issues. and our focus here is on every single problem. while our constitution, though, says that we really are limited by the powers granted in the constitution to this government, as to those problems which we ought to take up. clearly national defense,

cleerble homeland security, post office roads is a phrase that's used but most of what we deal with every single day here in congress is beyond those limb -- limited powers. but because we are solutions-or yenlted kind of folks, that our nature to -- solutions-oriented kind of folks, losing sight of the fact that the constitution says, that's not a real thing for us to be doing. let me re-emphasize that last sentence. the powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people. mr. speaker, that's an awful lot of the area of lives that committees like education and work force or labor, many of the committees up here deal in the ordinary course of affairs of the lives of people. part of the ranker that we see across this country related to the federal government is a sense of powerlessness byhe

good folks back home over issues that really ought to be dealt with back home. this raise that we're seeing is driven by an overreaching federal government, decisions that are best made at the local level and controlled by those people are being usurped and taken care of by the 435 people here in washington and the 100 senators on the other side and much of that frustration at being out of control is as a result of this congress taking over jobs and areas that are much better left to counties and cities and states as the founding fathers had intended. if we would quit delving into their personal lives and ordinary course of affairs, much of the conflict that is out there would disappear and would be focused on the local level where the decisions are made best as to the solution that best fits those local folks. . i get asked often, what can

we do to address the growing size of this federal government? one of the ways i ask them to help is do a better job of venting your requests to me and your federal government for help. make sure that whatever you are asking us to do that there is a nexus to the constitution, a link in the constitution that delegates the powers of this federal government to even deal with the particular problem that you are bringing to us. i would argue that much of our overspending is driven by good-hearted people who lost sight and come up here and asked for help from this federal government, not realizing the strings that are going to be attached to the federal laws when the solution would have been better dealt with at the

local level. federalism as my colleague from utah has just stated, it's not a left or right issue or democratic or republican issue. there are good things to be had by both sides. both sides of the aisle should be able to embrace this concept so that the states do most of the heavy lifting and the counties and cities and local governments do the work that deals with the issues confronting their people. so this shouldn't be a particularly partisan effort as we move forward. my friend mentioned earlier about the idea that the states should be the laboratories for experiments with how government addresses a particular program. two examples that i can think of off the top of my head, one is the health care experiment going on in massachusetts. they have been at it for three, four years.

it may not be able to push that to the scale of the united states and people of massachusetts are struggling with how to pay for health care under the universal plans they put in place, where everybody was mandated to have insurance. doesn't look like it's working, so why would you want to take that policy and extend it across the united states. i don't think you would. an area where it has worked and i'll brag on texas, six years ago, texas put a tort reform program that limited the punitive damages on medical malpractice suits. we have had a six-year experiment involving 25 million people in texas and it has worked. the rates are lower. the citizens are getting the care they need. when a hospital or a hospital or physician makes a mistake, the economic damages putting that person back to whole, that gets done.

but the punitive damages which sometimes are just defined -- defies logic is no longer on the table. as the president called for in his health care speech to test medical malpractice reform around the country. we had a six-year test working with the state of texas working on tort reform that really works. so to the extent that this would be needed at the federal level to deal with the vast medical programs that we have in place could be replicated on a much larger scale because we had a big enough test through the state that it makes sense. let me finish off by saying because they lived 230-plus years ago, we give them short shift as to how intelligent they are.

we think we have all the great ideas and we don't need to look back in history to see and understand what they had in mind. quoting madison again, the powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. that means if you got a plan that doesn't fit under one of those powers, then the federal government really at the end of the day should not pass laws that deal with that. we should have the backbone to say that's a really tough problem. it's important to people, but it's not the federal government's responsibility to address that. you need to work with your own system back home to address that issue. that's one of the hardest things. we hate to tell constituents that's not something the federal government should be dealing with, and that should be the answer to many of the questions we get and many of the requests we get from back home that these aren't federal issues. those which remain, quoting madison, those which remain in

the state governments are numerous and indefinite. the former will be exercised principally on external objects likear,. the powers reserved to the states will extend to the objects in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people. i would argue that all of us uld learn a better appreciation of how limited this federal government should be if we were to go back and look at our founding fathers' comments and read the consitution. it is a requirement of my staff and i have introduced legislation that would encourage members of congress and their staffs to read the constitution once year. we all have the pocket versions and when's the last time we read the constitution? it's 2,500 words or so. not like trying to get through

"war and peace." you can read it and understand and know what your federal government should be doing and everything is left to the states. with that, i yield back. i appreciate the time from my colleague from utah. mr. bishop: i appreciate you giving us once again some perspective and some specific examples. one more time, if you're dealing with the difference between whether washington comes up with a program or dealing with whether a state has the ability of coming up with a program, it's one more time if the state does it, the efficiency of that program is far superior. let me give you a couple of examples of what we have done this year in this congress. we passed a bill in the house -- i don't think it has gone to the senate yet, dealing with school construction, allowing the federal government to assist states with school construction. on the surface, it sounds like a nice idea. utah has an equalization program, which means already

districts that don't have a need and have extra money for construction will have some of that money taken away and given to districts where there is a greater need. as i asked the sponsor of that bill how will this federal aid affect equalization, the answer was simply, they didn't know. no one had thought about that kind of a concept. and as the bill was developed to make sure the aid went out to what we thought as congress would be equitable, aid went out to title 1 schools only under the assumption that if you were a title 1 school, you had poorer kids and you would need more assistance. the bottom line is, any money that would flow to the ste of utah would go to districts that didn't need the aid in construction. the districts that did need the aid in construction or that benefit, didn't get anything. and that system unfortunately was replicated in other states where districts that did not

need extra federal help in school construction would have gotten extra federal help. it simply means that we don't necessarily know all of the variances that a state and local government does and therefore we make different decisions. when i was speaker of the house in utah i was always upset with the federal government with putting more restrictions on me as a state legislator. there was one year in which the federal government insisted that we buy a new computer system. this was back in the era when computers were big and bulky. we didn't want it, but we did not have any option. if we wanted to have carl perkins funds which goes to technical education, we had to buy a new computer system out of state funds. we couldn't traffer money. the bottom line is we did not spend as much on kids for technical education that year because instead we had to take our funds and spend it on a

computer systemhat we didn't want, that we didn't need, and we also never used. simply because it was a federal mandate. that's what you lose in this process. utah has some great registration rolls until the federal government insisted that every voter had to be mandated. instead of going through our election rolls, our voter rolls every four years as we were doing to make sure they were current we cannot do it until 10 years have passed. consequently, if you look at the number of people who are registered in the state of utah and the number of kids we have, the numbers don't add up. our voter rolls are in worst shape because the federal government insisted the state had to do it a particular way in every state whether it made sense or not and the state had to pay for it at the same time. we had a bill before us a few weeks ago in which we tried to mandate physical education.

there is nothing wrong with physical education in public schools. nothing wrong with emphasizing it. there is nothing wrong with kids needing it. what is wrong is that congress is not a school board and school boards should be making those kinds of decisions. one of the things that we have to realize is that words in the course of history change their meaning. we use the word awful, awful back then did not mean something that was bad, awful meant something that was good and inspired awe. if you talked about a natural man, a natural man was somebody back then who was a reasonable individual. if you also talked about the verb to discover. discover back then did not mean to find something you don't know about. it meant to reveal something about what you do know to someone else. words have different meanings.

one of the phrases that's in the constitution, both in the first article as well as the preamble is the phrase general welfare. that's one of the phrases that means different things. today, we have the tendency to mean that welfare. when they wrote that phrase, they emphasized the first word of general which meant that the federal government was supposed to do things that impacted the general welfare with emphasis on the word general, doing those things which impacted everybody in this country, not a particular person. that's why madison and monroe vetoed a road project because it only helped and benefited people in the area of that road and therefore was not general welfare. well, we have changed that concept as time has gone on, not necessarily for the better. i was giving a speech once on this very floor which i talked about how they meant general welfare to be and how it was a

restricting concept and not an expansive concept. and i got a call a from one of the c-span viewers the next day saying i appreciated the speech, it was very nice, but she said there were certain programs the program did that she liked. i said, ma'am, you have missed the very point i and the founding fathers were taking. they said you don't have to have all these programs. what they said is, not every program has to be designed and administered and funded through washington. that those programs are opportunities and can be done as long as equally as well-being done by a state and local government as they are here. look, through all my life, my party has talked about trying to reduce the size and scope of government. it was pointed out that the deficit we had in 1962 was $100 million, our deficit today, $3.5 trillion.

we have failed somewhere. in the history of this country, both republicans and democrats, the growth of government in washington has continued. not -- i mean the best thing i can say, one party has had a fuller growth pattern than the other party, but that's the best you can say. growth has happened. it is almost as if leaders in washington, regardless of party, are unable to stop the size and expansion and growth of the federal government. reality is our current system is rigged in favor of government growth. the incentives, the bureaucracy, power structure and institutions of washington have evolved to help the federal government to acquire more power and influence, not less. what we need to do is look at the change and approach and that's what the founding fathers were talking about. not a goal, but our approach. what the founding fathers were talking about is not simply cutting government, it was disbursing government. so different levels of government could do different

kinds of programs and not everything has to come through washington. that's one of the things we are talking about with the 10th amendment caucus, is how can we find ways to disburse government programs back to local governments where they can be done more creatively, more efficiently and understanding local circumstances? whether it be p.e. programs, school construction or technical education or voting registration rolls or roads or anything else. now that's what the founding fathers intended. that the program be implemented at the state level and the money remain at those state and local levels, which is why, as mr. quay said this is not a program -- conaway said this is not a program for liberals and conservatives. what you do is make sure that the government that is closer that the people run it so it is a much more effecte and

efficient government program. if you are a conservative who daunts limited government in some ways, fine, you can do that as well. you both get what you want. federalism and 10th amendment are respected here in washington as true principles of the way we govern ourselves anhow we deduct ourselves in the future. that is the goal of what should be here. the goal of importance. that's the importance of the 10th amendment. it should allow people to get what they want, which is better government, more efficient government, better and more efficient programs. i recognize that we have a couple of others who have joined us here. i'm appreciatetive of the gentlelady from north carolina, representative foxx is here and i yield to her as much time as she wishes to consume on this topic as well. . ms. foxx: i thank the gentleman from utah for being in charge of this special order tonight. and bringing to the american people what i think is one of

the most critical issues facing us in this country and that is the issue of federalism and the need for us to adhere to the 10th amendment of the constitution of the united states. too few people really understand the role othe federal government in our country. we've gotten away from the teaching of the constitution, we've gotten away from the teaching of the role of government in our country. people have this notion that they have this right and that right and if you press them to tell you whether they've read the constitution or not, most of them will tell you they have not. and they really do not understand, again, what the roles of our respective governments are.

in the last week while we had a little bit of time away from washington and i managed to squeeze out some quiet time, i had the chance to read a joseph ellis book called american creation which talks about the triumphs and the tragedies of the beginning of our country. and it's really important that we understand that there were a lot of conflicts that came about in the founding of the united states. it wasn't as smooth a thing as many of us think that it was. but one thing that was very clear to all of the founders was the issue of federalism. the idea of the united states of america was a radical idea to begin with, never been had people believed that they had freedoms and that they had

inalienable rights given to them by god. so it was a totally radical idea. but add to that the idea that you shouldn't have a federal government that would control everything from washington and it was absolutely radical. and we owe a great deal to george washington, our first president, for not trying to be a king and understanding that we needed to send power, delegate power, let power be held at the state and local levels. we can see the unhealthyness of the growing role of the federal government fairly easy in numbers and i'm going to quote a couple of numbers for you. since 1995 alone the federal government has issued nearly 60,000 new rules governing

everything from the size of the holes in swiss cheese to what colors are allowed for surgical stitches. federal spending surpassed $100 billion only in 1962 for the first time. that was a huge amount of money in 1962 and back then people were saying, $1 million here, $1 million there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. in 2010 the federal spending will surpass $3.5 trillion. i think there are very few people in the country who really believe that the best way to do things is to have them done by the federal government. i'm a very, very strong 10th amendment person, as are my colleagues here, and i'm really pleased to be a part of the 10th amendment task force.

and perhaps my colleagues went over these earlier, but i'm going to mention them very quickly, what our mission is and what our goals are. our mission is to disperse power from washington and restore the constitutional balance of power through liberty-enhancing federalism. and we have five goals. educate congress and the public about federalism, you might wonder why congress needs to be educated but many members of congress really don't understand the september of federalism. number two, -- concept of federalism, number two, disperse power through local communities, three, elevate federalism as a core republican focus, four, monitor threats to the 10th amendment principles and, five, help build and forest ar federalist constituency -- foster a federalist

constituency. so we know what it is we need to be doing. we have worked as a constitutional caucus in the past to do our best to educate people. but focusing on the 10th amendment is very, ry important and again i'm very pleased to be a part of this. let me say some more about federalism. the term is foreign to many people. but most americans care about the things that federalism brings without even knowing it. federalism brings choice, options, flexibility and freedom. federalism is not a concept of either the right or the left, it is neither a republican nor a democrat idea. decentralization and community empowerment can be a worthy goal of both the left and the right. both sides have something to gain under a federalist revival. and this is not yesterday's states' rights arguments.

it's much bigger than that. this is about better governance. this is about adjusting modern politics to modern life. this is about breaking up big, inefficient, unresponsive government and rirning power to the people -- returning power to the people. as my colleague was using some illustrations a little bit ago about education, as one who was involved with education a great deal before coming to congress, i wholly subscribe to the concepts which he presented. let me give a couple of other things about federalism and then i'm going to turn it back to my colleague from utah, or to my colleague from texas, both of whom are extremely eloquent on this issue. in a nut shell, federalism is the best system because it brgs government closer to the people, it nurtures civic virtue, it protects liberty, it takes advantage of local

information, it stimulates policy innovation and it alleviates political tensions. in other words, federalism was the founders' original formula for freedom and good government. it's time to reinvigorate this freedom-enhancing principle of government. again, i know very few people who believe that we should go to the federal government to solve all of our problems. we should first solve the problems that government needs to solve at the local level, then at the state level and as a last resort go to the federal government. unfortunately, too many people think of the federal government first and that complicates our lives. we have a huge deficit and a huge debt right now because too many people have looked to the federal government to solve problems that could have been solved at the local and state

levels for much less money and in a much more efficient way. i just give one example. the problem that we're having in the gulf right now. that is a problem that does need to be solved by the federal government. but is the federal government prepared to do that? no. why? because the federal government's involved with way too many other things. the federal government should be looking after national security. i think national parks, our interstate highways, maybe the federal aviation administration, but we're doing too much or attempting to do too much at the federal level and not doing those things that we should be doing as well as we should be doing. so, again, i want to thank my colleague from utah for being in charge of this special order tonight and giving us a chance to do all that we can to educate others. i'm virginia foxx from the fifth district of north carolina and

if you'd like more information about this issue, please go to my website or contact me and i'll be more than happy to share information about this because, as jefferson said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and we must help educate our fellow americans on this issue if we want to maintain the wonderful country that we have. and with that i'll yield to the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. mr. bishop: i thank the gentlelady from north carolina for coming down here and helping assist with this. she did a wonderful job in trying to put everything in some kind of perspective. i think what we've talked about tonight is an effort to try and ensure that what the founding fathers did when they wrote the 10th amendment, in the first congress, when that was part of the bill of rights, and indeed what they did in philadelphia is they structured the government the way it was, had a purpose, separating power between the branches of government and

equally important, separating between the national and state, had a specific purpose and it was to ensure that there would always be a balance so tt not one entity had too much power to use that to abuse people. making sure there is a balance is the key element to protecting individual rights and individual liberties. by allowing states to have a primary function we become more eative, we have differing ideas which means if people really want choices and options and a way of making sure that government is efficient and government is what they want in their particular area, you must empower state and local governments to do that. which means you have to take away the power and the authority and the programs from washington which by its very nature can only come up with a one-size-fits-all system. and disperse that power, authority and programs back down to state and local governments where people, once again, can have greater impact, greater

input and those programs can be done to meet the needs of our particular areas. this is a great country because of our size and diversity. but it also means if you want to have a government program that helps people and does not simply blindly put a standard as nelson rockefeller said by the deafening hand of bureaucrats then you need to make sure that we empower state and local governments so they do those programs. general welfare means that state and local governments get a greater role in how government programs are run because they can do it much more effectively and much more efficiently. i have a few minutes remaining, mr. speaker, and i'd like to yield those few minutes to another great legislator from the state of texas, which is led by a lot of good legislators we have here in congress, mr. gohmert would like to talk for a few minutes about the article five in the constitution and i'd -- article 5 in the constitution. i'd like to yield time to him. mr. gohmert: as part of a

supplemental discussion from my friend from utah, i would love to have had one of the gentleman's classes in utah. we'd love to have you teach in texas. you are such a good teacher. supplementing the teaching that you have already provided, i'd just like to take people to article 5 of the constitution. it's a great document. i would encourage people to read that as my friends have already mentioned. some have said, would you never want to have an amendment convention because it might be for the people who would come up with crazy amendments that would destroy the country and so you would never want to do that. some have said, these guys that wrote the constitution did such a perfect job, we should never allow an amendment constitution

provided under article 5 because that might mess it up. but then on the other hand, if these guys did such a perfect job in the constitution, then they must have put article 5 in here for a reason. and article 5 simply says that congress, whenever 2/3 of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to the constitution or on the application of the legislatures of 2/3 of the civil states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments which in either case shall be value toid all intents and purposes, a part of this constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4s of the several states or by conventions as one or the other mode of application maybe proposed by the congress. some have said, if you allowed the second part, the part that has never been utilized in the

whole history of the united states, it would be destructive to the country. my point is, if we don't do something radical, and i'm not talking violence, that's completely unnecessary, but something radical from a congressional standpoint, from a national standpoint, we see where this is all going. and just as my friends have been talking about, the excesses and the abuses of our -- are bringing this country to an incredible cliff. . china is aapproaching $1 trillion that it owns of the united states' debt. it makes it tougher to use leverage against china when we owe them that much money. growing up, i had sunday school

lessons about the bible deachings. whoever you borrow money from becomes your master and we have done that because we can't control the spending. so we need something that is a little out of the ordinary to bring this thing in and what better method than the one that the constitution founders, the drafters put in there, approved and the states ratified and that is to say, you know what? it's time for an amendment constitution. we have usurped so much power from the states. and this latest health care deform bill that was passed and signed into law now has the potential to bankrupt states that are hard -- having a hard enough time as it is. well, those states have power.

under our constitution. and as we know up until the 17 tfer -- 17th amendment, woodrow wilson liked the federal government running everything and he would have been proud of the health care bill because it was about the g.r.a., the government running everything, this 17th amendment was an effective way of taking away any check or balances that the states were provided under the constitution. because under the constitution, the state legislatures selected the u.s. senators. most students were never taught that. but the founders felt like there had to be a way that the federal government could be prevented from just usurping all the power from the states and the people, as the 10 st. amendment talks

about and this would be it because you would never send a senator up here if he's go go to add unfunded mandates to your responsibilities in the state and take away your powers at the same time. there were senators that were recalled. so from the day after the health care bill was passed in the house, i have been talking about an article 5 amendment constitution that would allow the states to come together and propose amendments. there are difference of opinions. had a wonderful conversation with former attorney general ed meese. but we have got to do something. and i'm not in favor of repealing the 17th amendment and never been in favor of repealing the 17th amendment but there are ways to rein in the federal government, maybe giving the states ways to veto legislation.

there are a number of things. and as we saw, back when the states were gathering momentum to have an amendment convention, congress got scared so they rushed in and voted to repeal prohibition and then proposed that as a constitutional amendment and it passed. maybe the states need to start that gathering storm and get congress what it needs to do and give states the power they originally had. i appreciate my friend from utah yielding and yield back to my friend from utah. mr. bishop: we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas plrks gohmert, for -- mr. gohmert for 60 minutes. mr. gohmert: there was a good

"wall street journal" article, june 4 and talked about this wonderful news that we heard from washington that last month, the job total increased by 431,000. that is fantastic news. just wonderful. but there's a little problem in it. the u.s. department of labor released statistics saying yes there were 431,000 jobs created last month and that's fantastic and all, but unfortunately, 411,000 of sthem were temporary -- of them were temporary census workers' jobs. it's hard to really feel good about the economy when 431,000 new jobs last month, 411,000 of

them were government jobs. not just government, temporary government jobs. and i've talked to some census workers. we had a job fair in my district in marshall, texas, at east baptist texas university. we had one previously at another university, texas work force commission. they did a great job. we partnered with them at long view and many others. we partnered with angelina college and this one was in marshall. and on one end, any time you throw a party and a lot of people show up, you're thrilled. this will worked out great. but on a very human basis, you know that every one of the people that come seeking jobs vr

broken hearts. most of them have families who need them to get jobs. so many of them, you know long time employee somewhere and we have not done them any favors by the work that's been done here in congress going back to failing to reform freddie mac and fannie mae which put us to the brink of economic collapse. complete failure to do that. and then in september, october of 2008 as a potential meltdown began, many people don't know, but there are more homes sold in september of 2008 than in any month in the last five years before that. but of course, once the secretary of treasury went out and said, unless congress gives

me $700 billion, there will be a total meltdown, but give me $700 billion and i'll pay off my buddies on wall street and i'll get everything good, basically infering -- and i think he legitimately believed if all the people he had worked with and knew so well on wall street maintained their wealth, continued to get rich or richer, didn't go bankrupt, then it surely would be good for the rest of america. little did he know that that was not the indicates. we bailed out folks -- it's interesting, it also says something about the morality in america because there was a time in america that if you got greedy, a little hasty and drove your car off in a ditch and your neighbors helped you get your car out of that ditch, then you felt a little guilty. it was a moral thing.

you had a conscience and you felt guilty because they helped you get your car out of the ditch and they did not contribute to you getting it there. a.i.g., goldman sachs, wall street, some of them at least, they let lay man brothers -- lehman brothers go. they got greedy and ran their car into a ditch and should have been forced to go into bankruptcy like every other entity. america, most of us didn't like the idea. we didn't support it. we were totally against it. but nonetheless, we were forced to get goldman sachs' cart out of the ditch and what has happened since? they got in their cart, motorized it and run the rest of us over. in january of 2009 when we heard

that timothy geithner was going to be appointed to be secretary of treasury, what we heard from folks from the other end of the hall, we need to confirm him because he worked with paulsen on the plan. to me, that meant this guy should not get near. we have had the federal government take over more and more authority, usurp of individuals's monies, their credit, the potential capital out there to create private jobs, just suck it up in washington and mean tile time, federal reserve is printing lots of money. and so we are doing all kinds of good things and it is continuing to drive us toward a cliff and for anybody to stand up and try to make it sound like great news , 431,000 new jobs last month,

that's the most in a number of years, it's fantastic, it's great, and not realize or not be forth coming enough to point out that nearly all those jobs, the vast majority of them were temporary census jobs, it's just not right and not doing right by america. and so in this article, "wall street journal" points out some of the problems. this says because the temporary work force is more productive, the bureau is closing some offices earlier than planned. and so it goes on to talk about the census bureau. really tragic. that's the best we got and best we can offer to america. i yield to my friend from utah.

mr. bishop: i appreciate the gentleman from texas broaching this particular issue. i think it is very clear as some people have asked me, what is the federal government going to do about jobs? it's clear the federal government has two options. one, you can create federal jobs and fund them. the federal government can create an environment that encourages the private sector to create jobs. indeed at the beginning of the great depression in the 1930's, one of the problems that the country had is there are a great many people that had money that did not invest that money. they sat on the money because they were watching what the government would do and had a great deal of anchingsite as -- anxiety as to what the government would do. in some respects, i think we have that same situation today where people with money could

invest and expand the economy but are waiting and watching to see what the policies of this country will be with some level of anxiety as to what that policy would be. if i could put this on a very personal level. i'm doing a history of my family and my faer. my father, who is -- was older when i was born, went two years during the depth of the depression without a permanent job and i sometimes what it would be like to be in that situation. and indeed, in the depths of that depression, he was bailed out by collecting a job that was actually a government job. he got one of the new deal era jobs. and as much as he was grateful for that, he always warned me to be wary of those types of jobs created by the government for he told thgovernment that could create the jobs to give to you create the jobs to give to you is also a government that could