including me today. mr. chairman, mr. ranking member and members of the subcommittee, my name is ben affleck. i'm founder of the eastern congo initiative. it is the only u.s.-based grant-making and advocacy program entirely focused on working with and for the people of the eastern congo an area that carries the unwanted area of being the deadliest and most volatile region of the country and one of the deadliest in the world. . it has led to over 1,000 rapes being committed every month. international rescue committee estimates 5.4 million people have lost their lives in the conflict since 1998 with many under the age of five. not all were killed in combat but from the ravages, malaria and pneumonia, malnutrition and

diarrhea. the efforts help protect the most vulnerable among the population, child soldiers, survivors of sexual violence. e.c.i. works with community-based groups focused on education, economic activity, legal reform. i thank you for your attention to congo and holding this important hearing. i request to submit a complete written statement for the record. today's hearing occurs on the 100 anniversary of an important day and it is important to call attention to the suffering of women and girls in eastern congo and the strength they exhibit in the face of ongoing atrocities. i recognize cindy mccain and joined e.c.i. as a founding member. we just returned from eastern congo where we saw the tragedy

and triumph of the congolese people. there are many reasons, most of them rooted in the strength and fortitude of their people to be hopeful about congo's future. i want to share with you this story of a woman who ex emapply files the potential of the people to transform themselves and their society. she was captured by rebel soldiers at the age of 14 and held as a sex slave for over two years. she was raped every day by her captors until she found her freedom through the thick jungle in the second largest rain forest. she discovered she was pregnant, child of one of her rapists. let africa live took her in and provided her with job counseling and while caring for her new daughter, she started a small business and earned enough

income to return to school. she is now 22 years old and third year of studying law and advocates for the rights of women. since my first visit to congo, i witnessed efforts to improve governance, promote economic growth and reduce conflict. the record over these last five years is not promising. congo risks heading into another deeper spiral of violence that could lead to more fighting and suffering risk destabilizing african countries. in 2006, millions voted for the first time in a free and fair democratic election. the congolese people elected the president and the united states played a very important role. starting in 2007, the u.s. along with others in the west, drew back involvement. instead of continuing a high

level of engagement to consolidate a new democracy, congo was treated as it was a well-functioning state which the united states could safely withdrawn. the notion was dispelled when rebels waged a new battle in congo that brought death, displacement and destruction. our government has a long history of involvement in the congo from our shameful role and three decades support of a dictator. in 2000, the united states helped bring the end of fighting forces and provided key elections and the past few years, secretary of state hillary clinton visited the region and we have escalated our efforts in eastern congo.

it has provided humanitarian assistance to the congo. this commitment has paid dividends in congo. but with conflict persisting and elections coming up, we must develop a strategy and full youly engage in this issue. with national elections only eight months away on november 27, the u.s. is not focused on congress. even with events last week on the president's home. the united states government can and should play an active role to ensure that the november elections are free and fair. electoral outcome could perpetrate violence and division. last time the government collapsed, armies came across africa and five million people

died. five million people have died since 1998 because of the conflict in eastern congo. we must learn from history and do our part to see this never happens again. in this time of heightend concern over federal spending some suggest that pros tert demands we turn a blind eye. i believe nothing can be more misguided. it would be penny wise and pound foolish to allow congo to fall into a state of crisis. if congo were to collapse again, the united states would respond generously with humanitarian assistance and would try to save lives, but we have to do better. we must avert humanitarian investment. it requires fostering elections and prevent a disaster that would require hundreds of

millions of dollars. i suggest the united states find a way to do more. come november, we must be able to look ourselves in the eye and say that we did what our principles demanded. we helped democracy emerge in a place where tragedy was the alternative. in november of 2010, the eastern congo initiative released a white paper. here it is, strengthening the united states foreign policy. they do titles differently in d.c. it encourages steps that the united states should take to steps. i included a more detailed steps in the written testimony. one, u.s. government must do more to support a strategy to protect civilians, women, girls, boys and men from the onslaught of violence.

two, u.s. government must do more to support the 2011 november elections which we heard about today. in addition, the u.s. should support election monitoring by credible international organizations. to ensure the united states steps up to the challenges and appoint a special envoy. the appointment should occur as soon as possible to coordinate the response to the challenges in the congo. the treatment of conflict of materials and the army are serious concerns and deserves a comprehensive approach. this is an ambitious agenda but can be accomplished. in december of 2005, then senator obama introduced a bill. this had a bipartisan list of

senators including then senator hillary clinton. on december 6, 2006, it was passed by the house on voice vote. in 2006, president bush signed the bill into law. the majority of our rgses are found in this very law and need to be implemented. thank you, mr. chairman, for your support on this important legislation. we placed special emphasis on the upcoming elections and appointment in the state department. special vizzer would serve as an important accountability and coordinating function. maybe most relevant in these tough economic times, this appointment would ensure efficiencies are found across multiple investments and diplomatic efforts. we strongly believe if we continue to place congo on the back burner of is policy, it will come back to haunt us. the federal budget may be a zero-sum game but our morality

and our compassion for our fellow human beings is not. recognizing one tragedy need not diminish understanding and empathy for another. our basic humanity, our sense of compassion is not a fixed number. it expands with our vision. it can grow with our purpose. but our moral compass is fixed. our sunrise, our east as a nation, even when we have failed has always pointed us towards what's right. now, not what is easy or cheap, but what we can live with and how we can sleep with ourselves at night. the values we hold true are priceless to us. they are the soul of our nation and rooted in our constitution, our bill of rights, our declaration of independence. we believe being free from the tyranny of violence. we believe in life and liberty and we believe that basic human rights are not just something to

be worked toward, but a fundamental right to be demanded for all mankind. these ideas make us who we are. they make us great. but if our foreign policy does not reflect these i'd yeels, it undermines them. i have seen the determination of the promise of the congolese people. i hope you consider visiting to learn and see what i have and any of you are welcome to come with me. the congolese people want to live their lives in peace, earn a decent living and raise their families. they want a voice in their country's governance. i will never give in that say congo is hopeless or complex. the people deserve a better tomorrow and the eastern congo initiative will ensure that it does. it is in the interest to support the people to move toward democracy and respect for human rights and move away from the multiple crises and horrors of

the last 15 years. thank you very much. it is an honor to be here and i'm happy to expand on these points. >> thank you for your eloquent and passionate statement and i hope the white house and the capitol is listening to your strong appeal. congo cannot be on the back burner of u.s. foreign policy. as mr. payne and i have made clear, every member of our panel, we want that special envoy yesterday. and so your appeal today could be a pivotting point for the administration to say now do it. time is running out. i would like go to our next witness. >> mr. chairman, i would like to submit my written statement for the record and i will briefly summarize. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you for calling this very important hearing today and giving catholic relief services

the opportunity to testify. i would like to thank the ranking member, mr. payne, mr. smith, i know how passionate you are for advocating against violence in the congo. mr. payne, i know your interests in the region has led you to travel to congo. let me thank mr. mcdermott for his role as one of the original authors of the congo conflict minerals provisions that recently became law. this provision will help to curb sexual violence in the congo. this morning, close to 180,000 women marched in the streets advocating for their own rights. today being their day, international women's day. they march behind a banner that stated we can stop violence and they have slogans that included

two key demands, the first being impunity for rapists must ceased and women must be included in all the political processes. as the sexual and gender-based violence adviser for catholic relief services, i focused my efforts on the congo because of the shear magnitude of the problem there. i have worked for and with some of the women who marched this morning. in eastern congo, today is a cry for women to no longer than used as a battleground and it is a call for us to make greater efforts to help them. the organization that has been working since 1961 partners with the local catholic church. the church has an extensive network throughout the most remote areas of the country.

it allows us to reach the most isolated of rape survivors. also, in the absence of an effective and functioning government administration, the catholic church has provided most of the basic services such as health care and education for decades. it has gained the trust of the population. in eastern congo, i have repeatedly come across rape survivors who have worked many miles to seek support at the nearest parish. the fear of stigma 'tisation coupled with the trust in the church drives them to seek assistance. we have implemented numerous activities. we have provided access to life-changing surgeries, psycho-social training and training for survivors, income-generating and

entrepreneurial skills for rape survivors, community training to mobilize transitional justice leaders and most recently an innovative community-based early warning and protection project in three provinces. the funding does come from a variety of sources but the majority of them come from the united states government. this partnership between the united states government, c.r.s. and the church in congo extends the reach and magnifies the impact of u.s. government assistance into remote areas with needy vulnerable populations that could not be reached otherwise. it is critically important that the u.s. government maintain and expand the support for the essential responses i have just described as well as preserving and strengthening its partnership with the church and other faith-based organizations. if the d.r.c. is to have a future, the hundreds of

thousands of women who have been raped must continue to be able to access these services. and even within the context of scarce resources, the u.s. should combat the conditions that foster rape as a weapon of war. i would like to make these recommendations. one, u.s. must use its leverage as a donor and partner to press the congo government to fulfill its security mandate, uphold human rights and protect civilians. the congolese government has requested more military support such as the training of more battalions. the u.s. government has to link the support to measurable changes in key areas. two, the u.s. should condition its assistance on progress against impunity and survivor access to justice. as long as ranking military

officers who condone and perpetrate rape roam free or as long as civilians accused of rape can continue to pay the equivalent of $5 to get a free out of jail card, sexual violence will persist. three, the u.s. government urges the -- the u.s. government should urge the congolese government to include women in the political processes. they should be respected and included and prepared for elections. indeed, violence against women is symptomatic. women have been consistently excluded from previous peace processes and continue to be sidelined from political power. one of the women who led in the march this morning is the director of the office for women's issues. when i telephoned her yesterday to tell her about this hearing,

she was ecstatic, because she knows the political leverage that the united states government has with the congo. she drafted a declaration alongside her counterparts in the communities and urged me to make these recommendations. ultimately, in order to eradicate violence in the d.r.c., we need to stop the wider, more generalized conflict. the united states government needs to engage diplomatically. the united states government can lead the process that will end the fighting in the political atmosphere. the magnitude of the never-ending humanitarian crisis and the potential for the situation to get even worse demands a proportionate response. at this critical juncture with elections coming, the united states government must rise to the task as it did in sudan and as long as violence persists,

the u.s. must continue to support the life saving partnerships. >> thank you for the absolutely encouraging news about the 180,000 women marching. that is just incredible. and hopefully in a small way this hearing and the follow-up we will do, this is all ongoing, but i think this is an important venue to say now is the time for the administration to do much more and that goes for us as well. thank you for that wonderful news. >> thank you for your ongoing commitment to congo and human rights throughout africa. i would like to ask my testimony be submitted to the record. i would like to set aside my written testimony and say a few things about this unique moment that congo is facing. while women were marching in congo this morning, 180,000, two

of my colleagues are in goma and talked with one of the leading women's rights advocates in the country. some of you know just teen and secretary clinton met when she was in congo in 2009. and for this hearing, just teen wanted to say the following, the link between conflict minerals and mass rape here in congo is crystal clear. the first and foremost is to set up a system to regulate the minerals trade. and the upcoming elections, she said, is the critical window to push the government of congo on this issue, since it will try harder to plead the population before the vote. i was in congo twice in the last six months and i would concur with her assessment that this is an unparalleled moment of

opportunity to make real changes in congo. the election is the primary internal factor, no question. but the u.s. congress' legislation is the primary external factor and has created a moment full of uncertainties and anchingseyites and huge opportunities in the question. before we get to these opportunities, i wanted to make one commercial timeout on why we focus on the economics of congo's war. we believe the conflict there is more than conflict minerals, but let's look at the broader agenda and how it is compromised by the mafia-like economy. everyone wants to reform the military, however the officer corps is the primary beneficiary of mining in the country. the president stays in power by allowing the officers to make as much money they can and creating the rule of law throughout the earn third of the country.

number two, everyone wants to reform the justice system. over the beneficiaries in government of this conflict minerals trade do not want a strong, efficient government. the rule of law will subvert this economy and the money now going into their pockets will go into the treasury and that is unacceptable to this mafia. the third, everyone wants to stop the militias, however they sustain themselves through minerals profits and they often trade increasingly with the military itself. fourth, everyone wants clean election. however, who in power would give up this grave train. you are losing your out. they can't take that chance and and they'll fix it. everyone sports peace agreements. however, even the peace deals in congo can make matters worse if we don't deal with this. 1.5 million people have been displaced since the president

have signed peace agreements a year and-a-half ago. that is a tragic record. back to the people of congo. we went there over thanksgiving and met an extraordinary woman named marie. she is a rape survivor twice over and founded a women's organization to help other women who survived sexual crime. we asked her what she recommends and she said the following, please stop this bloody business. you are fueling conflict. families are being torn apart. women are being raped. armed groups are profitting from the mines. companies should stop doing this and do ethical business. well, the good news is because of the congressional legislation, because of your legislation, every one of you championed this, companies have to start trying doing these ethical businesses and they are

moving beyond what the legislation is requiring them to do. but they need help from the united states government and the key as it has been on so many critical issues, the key is the united states congress . two critical processes are coming to fruition now that this subcommittee and the wider congress can influence. first, the securities and exchange commission is going to issue very soon implementing regulations for your conflict minerals legislation. we need to ensure that these regulations have serious teeth and do not delay the implementation of the bill. we have a letter that we are releasing today from the congolese civil society organizations and can't count on a delay. strong regulations will send a major single to the actors in the supply chain that undermine good governance that they have to clean up their act. second major opportunity we have

now is that the minerals legislation requires the executive branch to develop a strategy for dealing with conflict minerals and ending the violence. the branch hasn't been required by congress to end this thing. we wanted to deal with the symptoms. the bill says how are you going to end it. that strategy was due over a month ago but still being debated in the administration. you can have influence over what the obama administration comes out with. this is a huge opportunity for the united states to make a critical difference in the congo. we think secretary clinton should lead inputting together a stake holder's meeting that involve the governments, the companies that matter, the united states and the european union all together to launch a process that would result in an international certification system to end the conflict minerals trade in central

africa. and we need a senior envoy to spearhead this and all the other efforts that my fellow panelists that you have spoken about and written to the administration about so passionately in the country and throughout the region. u.s. leadership has helped do this with diamonds. wife done it with forestry and fisheries and a number of other products where when the united states helped lead in bringing the companies and governments in question together, standards were changed and this positively has impacted the lives of millions and mill yoons of people. now it's congo's turn. if we act on the deadly minerals trade, it's not a magic wand but a catalyst and a dominoe that will help topple greed and militarization that kills and rapes people in congo at a higher rate than any other region in the world. >> thank you for your passion and insites and counsel.

as previously discussed and agreed, i would ask unanimous consent to welcome miss cindy mccain to participate as a witness on this panel even though we have not witnessed it. >> i would like to thank you and the committee members for taking your time and hearing what we have to say with regard to such a critical issue that's facing our world. i come to congo, having my first trip there in 1994, during the genocide. and my history with congo is dicey at best, but what i have learned through these years is what is most important is organizations just like this, particularly organizations like e.c.i. that go in and take us not only a strong look at what's going on, but become active in a

community-based level. these n.g.o.'s, organizations like this are most important for what we are doing, but we can't do it alone. we are here today to ask all of you and i know all of you in this room right now have been to congo and taken an active interest in congo -- please come -- but we are depending on your voice to spread the word. we are going to lose a generation of women and children in congo unless we do something now. i'm only a humanitarian relief worker. that's the only thing i have ever done and only thing i know with regard to this region and i know what's right and we can't leave behind these women and children. we rely on you with great hope that you will lead this charge and not forget about these wonderful human beings and a rich culture that has so much to

offer. i leave it to the experts to tell you what is most important but ask those people who are on the ground to not -- to help you and let them know that you are behind them and let the women and children know that they are not forgotten. i want to thank ben affleck for allowing me to be part of this today and allowing me to be part of e.c.i. we are a strange political bedfellows. we are the odd couple, but that's the beauty of this, because this transcends political parties. thank you so much for what you are doing. thank you for listening to what they have to say and thank you on behalf of many n.g.o. workers that are on the ground that need your help. >> thanks go to you and the other witnesses for leading so well and by putting yourselves into these humanitarian efforts.

mr. aleck, i know you have -- mr. aleck, could you provide insights into the n.g.o.'s and hospitals you have supported? >> not very many hospitals in that part of the country. they are congolese-run. sometimes we support grassroots organizations that don't have that level of infrastructure and high level education, but these people are a congolese-run hospital and started out small. doing physician tulea repair -- fifth eula repair. and what they are providing and who is doing the work. and one of the few that has attracted a decent amount of attention and provide top level -- emergency care. i visited them -- soldiers

recovering from gunshot wounds. he had his walt in his pocket and the bullet had gone into his pocket hit the wallet and saved his life. but it was -- they were on the front lines of the war and front lines of building the peace. yb what people would do without this hospital there. we are working with them and others are as well. and they are pretty exceptional. the other hospital are doing exceptional work. one of the doctors is doing 10 fistula surgeries a day and it still goes on but he doesn't have to do all the training. but they trained other doctors. those two organizations are spectacular. there are many others we are working with. we are trying to recalibrate

people's perceptions and who is doing what. in our experience, people are solving their problems. that is what is so inspiring to me. both hospitals are emblem attic. >> in your testimony and there is a strong appeal for the special envoy and you actually point out that the former chairman of this subcommittee years back had his capability diminished and resources cut and influenced at a time when he has been ill recently, but even when he had the position. it seems to me the message we need to send to the white house

and name that special envoy and properly resource that individual. if any of you would like to speak to that issue. we don't have a point person who can in a rapid way with the ear of the president and secretary of state, a phone call away, this window of opportunity, as one of you said in your testimony could quickly evaporate. mr. payne and i were talking about this in between testimonies. $5 million extended so far. last time was about $80 million. when the administration testifies there is a $350 million gap, that may do this election unless quick corrective action is taken and special envoy would have the ability to say, you know, we are going to make this happen. >> i will give a quick answer. there is a lots going on.

we have heard other people what the u.s. government is doing. big part of this is about synthesizing, taking these strands and many work in the private sector. you could have people doing stuff but not knowing what the other hand is doing, we have a lot of waste. we have resources being dedicated because they aren't working cohesively. somebody is to be doing elections and there are people who are working with regional governments, but without somebody sort of taking the lead and being able to do that shuttle diplomacy where they move across those folks, it just really isn't going to be successful. we are underutilizing what we are deploying in effect. >> just a footnote.

my work at the white house and state department, i found it to be frustrating because so many issues and countries were stovepiped and kept in their categories. and in central africa, you have cross border issues and have multiple issues that bring equities in from all different kinds of the u.s. government. you need someone to break through this stovepiping and can't be a deputy assistant secretary of state that gets dual-hatted to do something else besides their regular job with the beeper going off. you have to have someone whose full-time job is focused and someone with influence, someone who can pick up the phone and say secretary clinton, it's time for you to do something now and someone can move the system and move the needle away from the

ineshsha that pervades government. but the system is tilted towards the status quo and be able to move that needle towards action. that's what you need a special envoy for and we should collectively and the legislative branch press the executive branch to do this as soon as possible. we know president obama moved on the special envoy in sudan because of george clooney helped move it. maybe because of ben. >> i don't think it has much to do with me, but we asked people and if we had the support of some, we would go a long way. if you could help us out. this could be a collective effort and i know we can get there. >> in your testimony, you reference c.r.s. project that

aims to mobilize local leaders through training, leaders, military and police officials who then become leaders. can you tell us how successful that program has been. and secondly, the issue of micro credit financing is huge in africa and dollar for dollar, i can't think of a better of helping to empower women especially because most of those grants or loans, i should say go to women. and with a small amount of money, someone can not only get gainfully employed, but they end up hiring four, five, six people in many cases. for those women who have been sexually abused and traumatized. do you find that micro credit financing and job skills help them to mend not only help

provide for themselves and perhaps their families but as part of the healing process? >> thank you, chairman. with regards to our project with the catholic church, we train justice leaders. the program is critical and very effective because we have to step back and look at the context. we are talking about a country there is no rule of law and the justice system is in shambles, but there is nothing but traditional leadership in justice. so the fact of the matter is, we are working in communities where the view of justice still is embedded in cultural ideas that are attached to the stigma, how to overcome the stigma and reduce stigma. what i mean by that is a girl that is perhaps as young as 14

years old, in order to avoid that stigma, she is forced to marry her rapeist and that is the traditional justice system. we have been working with hundreds of traditional justice leaders in order to work with them on making their policies, shall we say, more gender sensitive and more sensitive to the needs and protection of the women and girls. that's on the first point. and with regards to the micro credit financing, absolutely, absolutely critical. and i'm glad that you noted that it is part of the healing process. through our savings and lending schemes, we have had rape survivors who have been ostracized from their communities and lost their bread winners once their husbands abandoned them.

and one particular case i'm thinking about right now, she was actually -- the equivalent of u.s. $600 to build her own house. this is a woman who would have been living in the street quite literally after having been ostracized by her community. those programs work so much on the self-esteem. and the self-esteem after rape is being so critical to be able to move on and remake one's life even in the face of having been ostracized. these programs are critical and i strongly suggest they continue to be supported and i thank the u.s. government for the support we have received from these programs thus far. >> the only thing i would add to that, you are exactly right, micro financing is in my opinion, key to this. so are free and fair elections

and unless we can do both, we are never going to have a society of women that will have any sort of rights at all. that's the only thing i would add to that. >> let me thank all of you for your testimony and i think that the interest of all of you in this issue really assists us in congress to try to highlight the problems without people like all of our four witnesses. and the work that catholic relief services doe. we would probably have a difficult time filling the room, probably only have a third of it covered. i think people don't realize the importance of people in your

categories that you can bring attention to issues. and i think it's important, once we get the attention, we know what to do. congressman smith and others, you do help us highlight the problems and i thank you all for your interests in these issues. it's very clear that we definitely need to have a special envoy. i recall maybe, john, you remember when we went with president clinton to africa and during our time there, we had a meeting of the great lakes region because so much is interrelated. uganda was arguing and rwanda was looking at what was happening in zimbabwe.

it is so interrelated, a special envoy should not only deal with the problems of the congo, but to be able to coordinate. as a matter of fact, uganda was a recipient of a terrorist attack, because uganda was assisting in somalia with their troops to protect the government of the transitional federal government and you had troops there. the situation would be much worse. it's all connected at the world cup game, uganda suffered the loss of 20 some of their citizens by a bomb as ep people were watching the world cup because troops of uganda were helping in somalia.

it's all connected and it would make a lot of sense that we do have enenvoy and to have the surrounding countries there involved. and the fact that so many -- the tragedy of the congo with the king and how the country was devastated and once they decided to move forward, the conspiracy of the west to come together and have the murder, i'm glad we can't forget the past. if we know the past, we know what positions we are in. congo with the leadership and those who were emerging at that time could have had a total difference on the way the congo is today.

but by us propping up the dictator for decades and decades, we are trying to get democracy moving and trying to get this whole question of rape which should be despised by society, but it's something that people slug their shoulders and say -- shrug their shoulders. so i commend you for your efforts. i know, mrs. walsh, you work with child soldiers. and i know that perhaps some of the abusers who are involved in rape now are probably child soldiers before. i wonder what your organization is doing as it relates to child

soldiers in the d.r.c. >> toll illustrate what we are doing with child soldiers, i could speak of a program we had in partnership with others. we were supporting centers through which demobilized children were transported to after being demobilized, providing a trauma healing therapy and working with them to prepare them for re-integration back into society. the problem is that clearly these kinds of services aren't enough. the number of children that were needing the services in a few years ago was much, much greater than the level of funding that

we had. >> mr. aleck, maybe you and the other witness could deal with the question, what do you see us needing on the ground in order to make these elections work? >> first of all, i want to go back to an earlier question and the difference between stablization and organization, the idea being it's going to expand the mandate for stablization among other things. and there is an american doing a fine job and there are people that are optimistic. now that entity plays a real role in elections. as you know, you were there. they played an instrumental part in the elections last time. what i hear from people in this environment say the second election is always harder.

fewer people want to pay attention to. it could cement democracy or could unwind. we need to have monitors, internationally credited monitors. we are hoping the carter center will help. i think i.r.i. is going to come in. but we need a fully committed effort and frankly we need to maintain that piece of stability. you mentioned a few to more fully address that. yes, because when they cut a deal there is a defacto leader that creates attention and has to be managed because you arrest him and may create problems and go back to the war you had

before and it's tricky. right after we flew out, the airport was the scene of a huge shooting. they had brought in a bunch of gold and big police chase. this is a guy acting with impunity and instability. and the efforts to go after fdlr on the flip side to get to your question, the further break between those guys who were on his side during the war, it got stopped a bit because they knew there were enough civilian casualties and come back and kill a lot of them and damp down enthusiasm. these thorny issues need to be solved as well as the other

practical electoral stuff. so you have a a lot of people. and it needs increased diplomatic involvement and engagement to help to continue to and place where the u.s. has done a lot of good work. state department who was over there several years ago and working closely and such, that we need to continue to push that towards peace because any of these guys if the situations flair up, it could trigger instability. >> that was more than than you wanted to hear. you are pretty up on this stuff. very impressive. >> only thing i would add that, that was a great answer.

it actually highlights the diplomatic effort that you just spoke of that is part and parcel and say what you need as in other countries, you create these unified coordination members of the committeisms, call them donor, diplomatic coordinateors. they then craft multi lateral carrots and sticks related to benchmarks and throy them early -- deploy them early off. and if the world does nothing but put out a press release saying, slap on the wrist, they will go ahead because of the reasons we talked about for so long. the gravy train will be lost if you lose the election. we need that multi lateral unified voice of the governments that have influence to develop

the carrots a sticks, create the watchdog actions that will blow whistles when there are problems and do it early enough, create this thing early enough so you aren't saying, wait a minute, there is something wrong here and we will watch and see how it unfolds. we'll know months in advance if it will be a credible election and if it isn't, we will say no and it's up to the congolese government to develop their own calculation about whether or not they want to reform i it. that is one of the elements of many that we need to be engaged in to try to make a difference here. >> my time has expired. i won't ask you about elections. i will just want to say -- elections are so important. i want to remind the chairman

that we have the problem where the president lost the elections and decided i'm not going to leave. this is unbelievable with everyone saying, hey you, saying you lost, you should step out. i think we have to keep the pressure to step down and if we could move that legislation forward to have the congress or record with the rest of the world saying get out because if he stays in, it's going to be a bad example for all of these other elections. there are about a dozen elections coming up in africa this year. and if you lose and stay and you say well, i'm not leaving, then we are going to be in a world of trouble in thecks elections coming up, including the congo. thank you all for your testimony. >> mr. fortenberry. >> question for you, mr. aleck

and mrs. mccain, i'm curious, how did you choose the eastern congo as a focus of your passion? those of us who sit on this committee and others where global human rights is a concern and deep interest and essential, the insults to humanity in so many place is throughout the world can almost be exhausting. i'm curious, how did you choose this particular area? >> i came to it, i won't go into my own personal journey, but for me, i was reading. i was looking at some other stuff, trying to cast around looking at advocacy and it pales in comparison with the millions of deaths in eastern congo and i was shocked and ashamed, how

could i have not known this. i read the newspaper and i had no idea. so i thought maybe this is a place i could at least show up. and i started studying and learning. it took a couple of years, i didn't want to be a celebrity person that doesn't know what they are talking about and doesn't know what he is talking about. >> that is very well received. >> so i did a lot of studying. and i met with a lot of really learned experts, john among them. and when i -- foremost among them. when i got to a place where i wanted to build an organization because i identified with the best people who were doing the best work, who had skin in the game, who lived in the community, knew people, the militia, children, there were child soldiers and go and

address them and bargain. well, give me her. while that was happening, they found a place for the child to live in the village. and i thought, gosh, this is what happens in your community and you are dealing with it. and i got struck and i wanted to help empower those folks because they had no money. we started raising money and i also thought nothing changes without advocacy and people making up their minds and to sit here and address you, it's a real thrill for me. and then i wanted to surround myself with smart, thoughtful philanthropists and everybody who knows something about this knows how long cindy mccain. since 1994. that is a big deal and doing a lot of work. i gave her a call and hoped she wouldn't think it was a prank call.

are your your time and passion is very genuine and give continuity to this effort and i'm grateful. ms. mccain? >> other than to say everything is always a personal journey and my story is no different. i won't go into it, but what i will say for my own personal well-being, africa has haunted me in a good way. it has kept me coming back, because i see such hope there. i see such possiblebilities and i know that -- pockets and i know with the help of others around the world we can make a difference. it is a personal journey for me as well, but has kept me coming back and i love it there. and i wouldn't want to be any place else. >> thank you for your time and passion on it. >> you had made a correlation

between the pervasiveness of a culture of rape and the conflict regarding minerals. it's unclear to me what that direct correlation is. if you could spend 20 seconds on attacking that. >> it says 40 here. >> i have another question, though. >> we didn't need a laugh line before talking about this because it is serious. what is our assessment, these armed groups on the ground, including the government army, there are militias from the congo and the army, they have used rape as a weapon to -- >> i don't think this point is very clear and i appreciate you saying there is a correlation there. >> to use rape as a tactical war in order to intimidate local communities to go along with the kind of mafia economy we are

talking about all day today. they use amputations to terrorize and people use what works. if there is no consequence and impunity reins, than why not this. i think you are wanting to say something in there. . >> it's a displacement mechanism. it moves people out of the areas where the mines are. >> these tactics create an environment where it seems like anything goes.

what i've seen is if you have armed groups saying they're going to ogo after this area, we attack them then it becomes a herable reality. >> you called it a culture of rape, i don't know if that's the right description. >> the vast majority of congress lease are absolutely -- of congolese are devastated by what's happened. >> thank you for your last comment about that. let me just start by thanking all of you for the work you do and in particular, mr. afleck, for using your celebrity in this manner. it's extremely powerful and it is, as the chairman and ranking member said, one of the reasons this issue has received so much attention, and the same to you, ms. mccain. i want to reference some comments that mr. pender grart

-- pender graft, you described the deadly trade and the mafia economy you described it well but i wanted to know, what about the political leadership? is it there? there's an election getting ready to happen in november. is there legitimate -- we talked about the elections being legitimate, maybe they will be, maybe they won't, but my question is, is there legitimate political leadership to be elected? >> just in 30 seconds, we have this country which for 125 or 150 years has been pillaged by the international community for -- going back to the turn of the century, the last century, ivory and rubber to help our jewelry industry and auto industry and then uranium from the congo was critical in atomic bombs and now cell phones, laptops and all the other things we use every day. what happens is, you create a

system where, a political system that basically is designed to maximize private gain and crater the public sector because the public sector, the rule of law, would undermine this. so you have internal collaborators with this international system but it's a system that benefits us. we've got cheap phones an cheap computers. we had nuclear weapons that worked. we had piano keys and all the rest at the turn of the semplery from ivory. this is going on for so long, it's hard to say suddenly, oh, we're going to turn this around with one election tavepls system in which the termites have absolutely devastated the political foundation of the country and that -- until you address that economic foundation, i don't think -- it's just changing chairs on the deck of the titanic would be the electoral process.

it's important to invest in but you've got to do the political and economic at the same time to make air force bases a difference. >> i want to ask another question too. the question is the united states african command or africom has been focusing on unit cohesion conditions and it's controversial. my question is should the u.s. expand on this project to address other security needs? and i guess just in reference to what you were saying before, you know, i remember 20, 30, years ago, there were liberation movements in various countries, we can talk about how all those turned out but there were independence and liberation movements. i don't think you have described one in the congo. >> if you want to say anything after i'm done, i know you have something to say about this.

the military form issue i think, e.c.i. if you look at the project and others that have worked on this, military reform, security sector reform is at the top of the list of what we need to invest in. when you spend time with the congolese leadership, who do they respect? the united states. so when the u.s. says we're going to train a battalion, people are bumping each other out of line to be 35r9 of this. the united states has influence and leverage on this. here's one if we work more aggressively, this is why we need a special envoy, we don't have enough diplomatic firepower with the existing system to do this kind of full-time work. we need to get the donors together that do military training, the countries that have influence with the congolese government, we work together with them about

systemic reform. i want to highlight one elm of the security sector, military justice. we have a comparative advantage there. they respect us on this front. you've got to get at the impunity issue. getting at the impunity issue, it may be as much or maybe more important than in the broader society. you start to see convictions for rapes and other kinds of crimes in congo of military officers or soldiers who are involved in this kind of stuff. that sends a signal. these are the building blocks to a state. i think the africom for all the controversy on other fronts can play a major role in the congo in helping to build that particular block of the larger foundation. >> thank you. >> i think the relevance of africom there has to do with, think work together and train

guys, but we are better at it than they are. i met guys who are doing this work, they really know what they're doing, they're just -- very few units. it needs to happen. i hate to have all these answers come with caveat, but really that has to be accompanied by some reform of the units they go back to. particularly, a huge, huge problem is soldiers don't get paid. a legacy of the mbutu era, you went and lived off the people. you want to get paid, take and -- take what you can take. you've got a gun. there's a little bit of that left. not a little bit, a lot. i visited soldier camps, they're little better than refugee camps and soldiers are responsible for many, many of the rapes in the country. it's unimaginable to us. our militaries go elsewhere and

secure our freedoms, this is a horrible inversion of that. if you just took the division out of there, that's not practical politicality hi, but what is practical is train troops on one side and take over a little more and get people paid. if they make $40 a month, being a soldier, at least it's enough to buy what you need, where you're not compelled to go out they walk 800 miles, it's like ancient rome. >> mr. mcdermott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like you to respond to the need for pepfar money being influided -- included for the congo particularly in term of

maternal-infant transmission of aids and the fact that pepfar does not affect the congo. that's one thing i'd like. the second thing is, i think you get a little more humble as you go along in this business and you realize that passing a bill isn't everything that it's cut out to be. you can have champagne and have a good time and clap your hands and be happy. it really is writing the rules and regulations where it really happens. and that's going on right now. i would like for john to talk about what the committee can do you put this up as an action item. what the committee should be looking for in the writing of those rules and regulations as to whether they are good rules and regulations or whether they're slippery? i've been doing this listening enough to know you can't hardly write a law that somebody can't figure out a way to get around. so what i'm really looking for is the best set of rules and regulations we can have to make

this law work and what things we as a committee should be looking at, or we as a congress should be looking at. >> congressman mcdermott, i'm sorry, i can't answer that question as i don't work in aids relief and i'm not familiar with that kind of programming. >> i don't know the specific answer on pepfar but i think between us, between our staffs we can get back with you. >> i know it's a problem in africa, i know where they're getting their drugs. >> they are short on drugs, and particularly -- [inaudible] anyway, there are shortages. pepfar is a great program and eimplementation is good but it's important to get access to

those drugs, we can furnish the committee on that. >> i was asking a softball. the more tough question is the regulations. >> i think the top two i would say for the regulations, they're getting bombarded right now because the industry lost that battle on the hill and they're mad and they're coming back with lots of lobbyists to try to push the -- press the s.e.c. to water this thing down. like you said. so keep the cork in the champagne, we're not done yet, you're absolutely right. number one, i think there need to be stiff fins for companies that -- fines for companies that don't comply with the intent of the law that don't open up the books to demonstrate their supply chains are indeed free of conflict and if they're not, they're at least acknowledging, yes, we got it from there, and now, consumer can make the choices. if you try to hide it,

circumvent it, then let's see serious fines. secondly, i think then is the question of when this all should come into effect. i think one of the big things you're seeing lobbyists push for now is a significant delay in implementation. we have yet -- we haven't yet seen the state department make its own recommendations in this regard, i talk to the senior -- talked to a senior member of the administration who said they were not going to advocate for a delay. i hope his opinion is the u.s. government's opinion. right now, they're hearing from a lot of industry sources that they can't comply with all this, although other companies with, particularly within the electronics industry, they've been working on this for a couple of year, partly as a response to the legislation and partly because some of them want to do the right thing an they've shown clearly they can do what is required to do with respect to the law.

illustratively, apple, a year and a half ago, apple was not much of a contributor to the electronics industry association and its efforts to try to clean up its supply chain. their argument which if you talked to them was, we have in idea where this stuff is coming from, how can we be expected to know? it's a war down there and where it comes from is not something we can control. a week ago, now we've had the legislation, we've had mr. jobs actually get personally engaged and his wife, of course, and a week ago apple put out its, whatever report that it does and it was the most robust reporting of any company on where their materials are coming from, right down knot smelters, the processors. this is something, again, the lobbyists said a year ago even that were working for apple said it was impossible. this is what the legislation is

going to be able to do. it's going to urge people to do the right thing when they're -- when they've said for quite a long time they can't. they actually can so the question is how fast will they have to do it? instead of a delay of a year or two years or whatever they're asking for, we'd like to see the timely implementation of the regulations to come into force very quickly after the s.e.c. makes its rulings. >> keep making the publicity to keep it up above the radar. thank you. >> thank you, just to add one note, catholic resources, usccb did asked for the strongest rules possible. we hope for the timely implementation as well. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. mcdermott. mr. pena?

>> i want to say that we do have to make sure they don't change what was interesting years ago, i was able to encourage congressman tancredo who was working in sudan to get a bill passed in the house that capital market sanctions were put in. in other words if you were doing business with it, you had to come out of wall street and we passed it in the house. that's where it ended. when a lobbyist ran over to the senate, even had the hat of every top -- mr. tan cray doe, who was great on sudan -- tancredo, we didn't have champagne when it passed, but we were very happy but it died by virtue of a lob gist say -- lobbyist say, you can't do that. hopefully we're able to push this through. i have comments from the

international crisis group that would like to add their statement for the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> i'll conclude by again thanking you, i would like to ask, mr. pender grast, you may want to speak to this, the l.r.a. strategy, how well is it being implemented? and anybody else who wants to touch on this. >> i should have mentioned it in my testimony. it's an overall element of security and stability in central africa. we battled internally within our organizations and the groups that care about the l.r.a. we've put out this report card and i was trying to give the administration d's and fmbing's and everybody is like, no, no, that'll demoralize everyone. i feel like there is one major thing that has to be done. the elephant is swinging its tail around the living room. you have to create a focused military strategy toop rehend or whatever the leadership of

the resistance army. as long as joseph coney continues to run around, we've presented him with a very, very fair peace proposal, which he didn't bostonner to show up to not sign. so there's a military option that needs to be exercised. what has happened now over the last three years is a broader counterinsurgency strategy, where millions and millions of dollars and thousands of ewe began dan troops are running around central africa attacking l.r.a. units, and those are conscripted child soldiers. i don't think that kind of broad counterinsurgetcy strategy has any chance of working. we need to target the leadership, use our technical assets, which are superior to anyone's in the world, we robustly support a commando unit to be able to close and act on a hot lead and take these guys out. hopefully we'll apprehend them and there'll be a great trial and the inch c.c. will have a

major success. if not, let's do what we have to do to bring an end to this tragedy because attacks in the congo are getting worse, not better. we've seen an attack every week in the congo, these are remote areas, every now and then a report trickles in and makes a little column in a newspaper here in the united states. we're not even looking at this anymore. we have to look at this and say, what's going to end this. >> i think you make a good point. absolutely i've seen people, seen the evidence of this stuff and people who are after it, there are good people involved in trying to pursue some of the goals that john is talking about you do hear every month or two, 400 people got killed in such and such. oftentimes it takes two or three days or a week to come through. i think it's equally important to maintain focus on the fdlr.

they are the people who committed the genocide in rue ru wanda, fled to zaire, -- in rwanda, fled to zaire. it wasn't like people weren't raping one another in zaire, that's where people from rwanda were going to party and dance. these people who got pushed into that place committed these barbaric crimes and allowed that to be -- it got con tangesfer dangerous and they messed up the social fab lick. these -- fabric. they're a big part of who is committing the rapes and they're the ones we need to support the effort to do that despite some pushback. i think it's important to remember they've committed a lot of crimes and are part of the army, that -- they've said,

peace first, justice second. but fdlr, there's no question about. that part of the country will not be safe until that militia is dealt with as well as the l.r.a.. >> thank you. one final statement or question. there's no doubt that senator danforth, had he not initiated the work with regards to the comprehensive peace agreement in the congo, there probably would not have been a comprehensive peace agreement. in sudan. and in like matter in northern ireland, had it not been for senator mitchell, it's unlikely that a peace agreement would have been hammered out there between two disparate parties that were at each other's throats for decades. one last appeal when ambassador yam moto said he will take it

under advisement with regards to the special envoy, i didn't get a very strong sense of affirmation there if you could, all of you, make one final appeal to the administration because time is running and the fear is if we don't have someone who can cobble together all the disparate elements here and really push hard this may be opportunity lost. >> i just would like to re-emphasize it's the key thing if we're going to see success in the d. reform c. and it's vital and finally, i would like to commend you ms. mccain for when you said you've been involved since 1994, to continue, to be way ahead of the curve, i commend you for that and for your continued interest. thank you. >> thank you very much. i haven't heard any good arguments against it.

we have been talking about it and no one can tell me it's a bad idea. it's one appointment by the federal government that could save 100,000 lives or 500,000 lives or who knows how many? i don't know washington, i'm in the an expert. i hear it's a tough place because you've got turf battleles -- battles and bureaucracy and fortunately that's your business, not mine. i am encouraged by you and continue to work for this. i know that ambassador yamamoto would give us his support and others would give us their support, it would give is support to go to the secretary or president obama. >> you might ask -- you've been probably asking why we should have it, maybe you should turn

the question around and ask, why not? see if they can come up with an answer. >> chairman you started off speaking about the leches and i think my final appeal would regard increasing women's political participation. as i said before, we're at a critical juncture and we're not seeing women represented. in fact, not only are they being sidelined but they're being cast out of the process. to give you an example, after enduring sustained pressure by their male counterparts, three female mayors in south kebu, the equivalent of mayors, but a grouping of cities, quite a high administrative position, were forced out of office. the bishop of the area had gone to them and encouraged them to carry out their political mandate and represent women and

girls' needs and finally in november they were fired. it's unacceptable. and if women do not represent themselves and their needs, their health, their education needs, then who will? we're not seeing others in the d.r.c. represent their needs. that would be my final appeal. thank you. >> i think we need to understand that the system is like, we've got this, we've got this under control. the system doesn't like aberrations they don't like things like special envoys and other exceptions to the rule. that's just the way institutions work and the state department is no different than any institution. my understanding is, and this is what i fear and what i think, i'm glad we got our last chance to say, i want to impart this to you, is my fear is that they're going to give this position, they're going to create the title of it and then

give it to a deputy assistant secretary of state. that's going to be our point person, our lead person, again, no human being has enough time to be a deputy assistant secretary of state of any regional bureau in the state department and be special envoy to one of the most complicated countries in the world, definitely the most complicated i've been in in 25 years. secondly, i think that position needs juice. you need influence, gravitas, somebody who can make the system respond to different ideas, new ideas, to doing things in a way that are actually going to get results and bring an tend something rather than manage symptoms that person needs to report to the secretary of state as opposed to being just only in a regional bureau. ic these are the keys to success and if we don't have them, it's going to be another spoke in a wheel of failure. >> thank you.

ms. mccain? >> i would like to thank all of you again for paying attention to this issue, for listening to us. for allowing us to tell you our thoughts and where we think the most important parts lie. and most importantly, in championing this issue from here. we'll be following you and we're going to watch and we really enyourge -- encourage you to continue in such a whole hearted way. as a mother and the only thing i can say is that as a mother, doing nothing is unacceptable there. 10 thank you. >> thank you. the last word goes to ms. mccain. thank you so very much. truly inspiring panel, truly inspiring individuals. the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the u.s. hoss gaveling back in miami -- house gaveling back in momentarily to vote. those votes momentarily at 6:30

eastern. tomorrow, both the house and senate meet at 11:00 eastern in the house chamber for a joint meeting with australia's prime minister. later in the week -- we'll have that live for you tomorrow at 11:00 on c-span. later in the week, the house will take up two measures to end federal mortgage assistance programs and later this week, the president issued a veto threat against the bill. in the senate, a change to patents. also this week, the chamber is working out the continuing resolution, as a matter of fact, it's just reported that senate leaders have reached an adwreement to vote on a house-passed bill, h r. 1, a bill passed a couple of weeks ago, to fund the federal government at $57.5 billion below current spending. all after that happening tomorrow, debate begins at

about noon eastern, live coverage of the senate is on c-span2. >> with c-span's "congressional chronicle," you can follow every word from the house and senate floor online. track daily timelines, read transcripts and find information. c-span do.org/congress. -- c-span.org/congress. >> coming up, texas congressman blake tharne that will -- farne that will will talk about how the house and senate come to a compromise on the budget. tomorrow on "washington journal ," president obama's announcement to resume military trials for detainees at gahn

taun me bay plus, of course, your phone calls and emails. all of that gets under way tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern, washington journal here on c-span. the u.s. house is gaveling in momentarily, coming in for a couple of votes on bill december baited earlier today, bills designating dentists and veterinarians in emergency situations. live coverage of the house, next, here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: process will resime to suspend the rules. votes will be taken in the following order. h.r. 570 and h.r. 525, each case by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. unfinished business is the vote

on the motion of the the gentleman from texas to pass t objection, the bill is

passed an without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the -- on the table. members kindly take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order.

will members please vacate the well. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution.

caller: house resolution 149, resolution electing a member to a certain standing committee to the house of representatives. >> mr. speaker, i -- i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered read and be printed in the resolution tissued in record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is afreed to and the resolution is laid on the table. will the house please come to order. will members and staff please vacate the well.

for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: i send to the desk two privilege red ports from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report. caller: report to accompany house resolution 150, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 830, to rescind the unobligated funds for the f.h.a. refinance program and to terminate the program. report to accompany house resolution 151. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 836 to rescind the unobligated funds for the emergency mortgage relief program and to terminate the program. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.

the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. hanna of new york for today and mr. reichert for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the requests are granted.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair wilber stain -- beristain -- will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. in my home state of new hampshire, i have had the pleasure of talking to many constituents over the course of the last several days who have express thared great concern relative to the rising gas prices, not just in new hampshire but across the country. just today, gas prices are now at $3.45 a gallon, minimum. this and many congresses have failed its obligation and responsibility to have an approach to solving the energy cries a-- crisis and energy challenges before us. mr. gun ta: i call on this bod -- mr. guinta: i call on this body and the president of the united states to come together so we can look the american people in the eye, my constituents in new hampshire, and give them hope for a true reduction, not just in gas prices but to have long-term sustainability and viability from our own country in how we have our oil and other opportunities to reduce

our energy, our foreign -- our dependence on foreign oil. this is something that is critical not just today and in the coming weeks but it's been critical for our nation's infrastructure wells as well as our economy and i gep hope that body acts swiftly and promptly. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman is recognized for 60 minutes as designee of the majority leader. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. speaker.

i'm honored to represent the people of indiana's third district and i'm proud to serve as co-share of -- co-chair of the constitution caucus here in congress. the hottest fires make the strongest steel. after seeing washington assail the constitution, americans went to the polls and demanded a return tour first principals -- principles. swult, the membership of this caucus has more than doubled. we began this congress by reading the constitution here on this floor. we have come here this evening in that same spirit. i rise today to continue a conversation that used to fill the halls of this great building. there was a time in our nation's past when members of congress openly and passionately debated the interpretation of the constitution. we are here tonight to renew that discussion. when we were sworn in, each of us took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. this means we are required to interpret and apply it to our

daily work. i am sure we all take that oath very seriously. however, i'm also sure that without vigilance, we slip out of tune with the principles enshrined in that founding document. today we have an an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to those principles to limited government and individual economy. in the coming months, my colleagues and i will come again to the floor to discuss federalism, checks and balances and enumerated powers. today, however, we ought to begin by asking ourselves a very simple question. what is so wonderful about the constitution? after all, i believe the last election was a mandate to return to its wisdom and guidance. we ought to at least begin by asking why it should hold such prominence in our hearts. why, for example, did abraham lincoln declare so forcefully, don't inter-- don't interfere with anything in the constitution. that must be maintained because

it is the safeguard of our liberties. it enshrines the principles of limited government and that's the surest guardian of human dignity. the constitution gave form and shape to the thoughts put forth in the declaration of independence. the declaration was the promise, the constitution is the fulfillment. i cannot overemphasize the truly revolutionary nature of our war for independence. for the first time in human history, when a group of people overthrew an oppressive regime, they began by espousing a vigorous philosophy, that all men are created equal and endowed by their createors with certain inalienable rights. even as lives, fortune, and sacred honor hung in the balance, these men began with a summary of human nature. america was found on the idea that humans have a specific character.

we are wired a certain way. our founding fathers understood two basic and profound truths about human nature. first, we are not perfect. we err. we will never reach perfection. to believe that man is perfectible is to engage in fanciful speculation. second, in spite of our fallen natures, we are dig fied and equal. we each possess reason and the ability too determine our own lives. as james madison, the father of the constitution, eloquently stated, what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. if men were angels, no government would be necessary. if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. how, then, can imperfect beings govern in a way that respects human dignity? the answer is found in limited government. again, james madison said this -- you must first enable the

government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to -- and in the next place oblige it to control itself. limited government justly defends the dignity of the individual to specific and checked powers. do not confuse limited for weak. government ought to be strong in those areas where strength is required and specifically enumerated. in all other areas, the government must defer to the judgments of free men and women. in our republic the dignity of the individual sit zepp is paramount. it would be arrogant to believe that a few elite candy certain a few hundred million souls here in america. i fear with ballooning government and near unstoppable deficits being run every year, we are dangerously close to abandoning the principles that brought us here safely thus far. as regulations infringe on nearly every aspect of daily life, human dignity is in

danger. those of us here this evening are ready to work against this tide to return our government toits proper role of defending individual freedoms. i am eager to continue this conversation in the coming months because there is much work to be done. mr. speaker, i would now like to yield to the gentleman from new jersey, the original founder of this caucus, mr. garrett. i yield him such time as he may consume. mr. garrett: i thank the gentleman from indiana for being here tonight as we talk about the constitution. and who was it that said that the constitution, it may not be perfect, but it's better than what we have now. as we talk about kicking off tonight's special order, a series here in the 112th congress, i'm pleased to be here with my colleague from indiana and my colleague also from behind me, mr. bishop from utah, to talk about these most important issues, the foundation of the constitution.

back at the very beginning, when -- this was back in 2004, 2005, really, you know, there really were not that many americans talking about the proper role of the constitution and the limitations that it does place both on the size and also on the scope of the federal government. but as the years went by, over the last several years at least, interest in the constitution has grown as new government programs have widdled away basically at the protections in the constitution that guarantee to us, guarantee to us the certain liberties to the people and the authorities of the state it's. -- states. we will continue to highlight until congress' recent course is reversed. this body has drifted -- drifted away from the principles of limited government enshrined in this constitution. this document this finely-crafted stuff in it, the

guidelines and limitations that we see in it, the powers of government it was written to impose, does not have the same personal meaning and importance to americans, it seems, it had during the times of the federalists and antifederalist debates. is that because it is a different time and now we're in a different age where we have long since forgotten what it's like to live under the tyrannical rule? maybe. but because, mr. speaker, because that or perhaps otherwise it could also be because we don't simply cherish and study the constitution like our forefathers once did. so, we come to the floor tonight , through these constitution hours, if will you, and we hope to by them increase the knowledge not only of this body but also of the american public as well. and we do so taking a look at the intricacies and nuances of this, the constitution. i think we also have to shed

some light on the circumstances and the times that inspired the foundition -- founding fathers to write our country's founding document. so tonight we specifically want to spend some time talking about limited government and its role in protectioning -- protecting human dignity. liberty to all, president lincoln once wrote, back in 1861, is the summation of the declaration of independence and he said further, the principles which have proved an apple of gold to awful us. yet these mere assertions that have principle for him was not enough. as lincoln later pointed out, for liberty to have real meaning, it must be enshrined and it must be enshrined in law. so the constitution, as he put it, is the picture of silver, subsequently framed around and then he went on to say that the picture was made not to conceal or to destroy the apple but

rather to what? to adorn and to preserve it, he went on. so this, lincoln said, drawing upon the book of proverbs, is a word fitly spoken. so to understand america you must understand our founding principles. to understand the constitution and why government should be limited you must then thereof understand also the declaration of independence. so, the structure of the constitution follows the principles and the arguments of that, the declaration, where it says, of course, all men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. this great statement that we're hopefully all familiar with, at the outset of the declaration, a truly revolutionary claim at the time, is then what? is followed by a list of complaints lodged against the king at that time, king george iii. and to spend a moment or two to go into this in a little more detail, and to delve down into

it, these then can be divided into there's categories. corresponding with the legislative, executive and judicial functions of government. so, stem back for a moment. the list takes over half of the declaration. and the complaints there specify exactly where their king had failed. and so, too, why government, by consent, is therefore necessary. nowings he refused to enact necessary laws, they said, harmful ones took their places, they said, judges entirely dependent upon the king's will were rendered mere pup itses at the time and -- pep ets at the time and when the king did act he flooded american shores with soldiers and bureaucrats. the complaints there were specific. the king suspended representative houses, proposing with many firmnesses invasion on the rights of the people, it wrote. it went on to say, he object strucked the administration of

justice. how? by refusing his assent of laws by establishing judiciary powers. went on to say, he was also guilty of what? imposing taxes on us without our consent. and also suspending our very own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with powers to thank legislate for us in all cases what soffer. he yet another complaint, he quote, erected a multitude of new offices and thereby sent hither swarms of officers to harass the people and eat out their substances. so, when all powers taken from the hands of people and accumulated in the hands of a single person or a single head, if you will, it breathes -- breed as similar power grab by who else? the bureaucrats. who have no job but to consume the productivity and resources of the people. of the pop us will. so the -- populous.

so the overweaning government today is guilty of the same offenses of liberty as back then as well. americans who are desperately trying to figure out and file their own income taxes right now, returns, know this all too well, i think. so the declaration anticipates what we have here, the necessity of separation of powers and justice society -- just society. so its message is clear, no single person or political force can rightfully possess all the powers of the one government. only the divine, only the divine, who is named in the declaration of independence as the authors of the laws of nature, also named as the creator, also named as the supreme judge of the entire world. and finally also named as divine providence. only is the divine justly exerts complete power. but in the hands of a human being, such power is, as it's

stated there, absolute despotism . our founding fathers did not believe that human beings could be perfected. we were not divine. we were capable of both good and evil. james madison later wrote in defense of the constitution, quote, as there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of sir come spex and distressed so, there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and of confidence, end quote. so to assume that man's goodness will always direct his actions is to ignore reality. people therefore are imperfect. and cannot be perfected. and so no edict of government will change that fundamental fact. to step back again, what then is the role of government? calling government the greatest

of all reflections of human nature, james madison said, that the government must start, where? well, with the understanding that men are not angels, as the gentleman from indiana stated before. and as he said, were they perfect or an gelic, no government would be necessary. jefferson, madison's friend, implicitly argued the same thing in the decklation. so today when we speak of -- declaration. so today when we speak of the government, we often think of an impersonal force, somehow out there and above everything, above human nature, if you will. but what is government? government is composed of what you see here. composed of human beings, all of which are, what? imperfect. and so to be in the public sector or be elected to office does not automatically by any means transfer a human being into that angel and so for that

very same reason, that very same reason, that human beings are not perfect, government therefore must be limited. and its duties therefore must be delineated. going back to what president lincoln once said, he further elaborated on the importance of human dignity, which is a discussion tonight, back in 1861. where he said a couple of things and i'll close on this. without the constitution and the union we cannot have attained the result but even these are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. there's something back of these, intertwining itself more closely about the human heart. and what is that? that's something -- that something is the principle of liberty to all. the principle that clears the path for all and gives hope to all and by consequence,

enterprise and industry to all. so, over the course of this 112th congress, this caucus and my colleagues, and hopefully both sides of the aisle will continue to sponsor these discussions, these constitution hours, if you will, to expand upon our understanding of these core principles of limited government enshrined in our constitution. and so, mr. speaker, and so the gentleman from indiana, i appreciate this opportunity to speak tonight on this very important topic and i yield back to the gentleman from indiana. mr. stutzman: thank you. it's my pleasure to yield now to fellow co-chair of the constitutional caucus, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. i yield him such time as he may consume. mr. bishop: thank you. i thank the gentleman from indiana, mr. chairman, it's a pleasure for me to -- mr. speaker, i'm sorry, it's a pleasure for me to be here and be part of this significant

issue. you know, in the constitution it says that certain things are self-evident and what are the things that were self-evident in the declaration of independence? i got to get the words right, don't i? in the declaration of independence there are things that are self-evident and what was self-evident is that all men are created equal. in a political sense. and because of that, because all men are equal, the creator has given us all certain inalienable rights and then it goes on to say, the next step in that process is once you have those inalienable rights, it is the purpose of government to secure those rights. that's what we're talking about here. within the concept of our country, which was written and established in the brilliant pros of thomas jefferson, every individual has an innate, almost divine worth, within them. which signifies that they all have certain rights that are there from the creator. in england those rights were

established in law starts with the magna carta and then building on so that at the time of our country's founding everyone knew what the rights of englishmen were. our revolutionary war was not about taxes being too high, it was not as some revisionist, historians will say about impressment of colonials into the british navy, it was about the rights of englishmen, which were being denied, british subjects living in america at the time. that's what they argued about. that's what in philadelphia they were talking about, the denial of those individual rights which are basic to all people because we all have that spark of divinity and we have those inalienable rights. that's why as part of the debate was established, there was an exchange in which benjamin franklin took part in which he was talking with another person that said how there are more important things in life than simply having our rights protected. the fact is we are british

citizens to which franklin then said, to be called a british citizen without given the rights of a british citizen is like calling an objection a bull. he is -- ox a bull. he is grateful for the honor but would rather have restored what is rightfully his. that's the key element to which we are talking here. with that the constitution was written as a for thefication of those individual rights and freedoms. and it is the purpose of limited government to protect those individual liberties. the constitution created limited government, the purpose of which was to protect our individual liberties. now, as i try and talk to my students to try and sometimes define the terms individual liberties because it becomes somewhat vegas in the minds of people -- vague in the minds of people. i look at them as the concept that individuals have choices in their personal lives. it is not the role of government to pick winners and losers in

society, whether that be socially or economically, that is our rights as individuals. it is the right to have choices in my life. you know, i look at the world in which we are and it seems like all the time i am given choices and options, even when i don't want them. i can pick a cell phone plan from a myriad of options that are there. if i want a breakfast cereal there's a whole row of choices that are there. even if i want pringles potato chipping there are 16 kinds of varieties for me. the entrepreneurial world has understood that people in america want choices and option, that's their liberty. it is only government, especially here in washington, that seems to see that one size fits all and mandates so that the government chooses winners and losers rather than allowing that for individual, it is only us that seems to have not learn what had is yearning within the soul of all americans, that they understood when they wrote the declaration of independence and

then formalized the constitution of the united states. i wish to quote someone here, i don't know who actually wrote this, but it's brilliant, so i'm going to say i said it. in the first 150 years of this country, under the constitution, we can sum up in the following way. in the early years, measures to expand government's power beyond those enumerated in the constitution rarely gout of of congress because they rarery got out of that branch. members of congress debated whether they had the power to do what was being proposed. they didn't assume they had the power and leave it to the courts to check them. congress took the constitution and the limits it imposed on congressional action seriously. then when constitutionally dubious bills did get out of congress, presidents vetoed them, not simply on policy but on constitutional grounds.

indeed, the first six presidents thought the veto was supposed to be used only for constitutional purposes. finally, when that failed this courts stepped in. in short, the system of checks and balances worked because the constitution was taken seriously by a substantial number of those sworn to uphold it. we seem to have forgotten that in the last 60, 07, maybe even 100 years. if i can give a religious reference, sometime, the children of israel, as we read in the old testament, wanted a king, so they could be likened to all other nations. they went to the prophet, who tried to dissuade them, but no, they wanted a king and indeed they had a king. the first kings did a great things, built a great nation, built a temple but ultimately the kings brought a mill -- became a millstone around the

neck of theds the people and brought them to destruction. we have a change that took place almost 100 years ago where people decided to change what the federal government was designed to do. it is not that they did not understand the constitution. they understood it perfectly, they just didn't like it. it prohibited us from doing marvelous things. we have now run through almost two generations, three generations of individuals under a system of government in which we look not to limit what government does, protect individual liberties, but to try to make sure that government does those marvelous things and we have come to a period of time where economically and socially, we are now in a period of distress simply because we forgot the original foundation of this country, the purpose of the constitution, the joy and brilliance of limited government, whose sole purpose should be to protect individual liberties, not for government to do marvelous things. if we restore ourselves to that

purpose and reinvigorate the concepts for which this country was established, which i do believe to be the concepts of federalism and limited government here, then we have a chance of restoring this country and solving our problems. if not, we face very dark and difficult times indeed. for the first 150 years they understood that. they acted that way. we can do the same thing again. we have the same spark of divinity within us we had -- they had back then. we can do it, we should do it. i thank you for the opportunity to be here, i know you have other speakers who will go on to this particular issue far more eloquently than i and i yield back to the gentleman from indiana. mr. stutzman: next, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from south carolina, district 3, jeff duncan. i yield as much time as he may consume. mr. duncan: as a new congressman back in january, i was never prouder than when i

took this floor to take part in reading the united states constitution. that day, i brought with me to the podium a copy of the constitution that i carry in my pocket every day. ronald reagan in his farewell address to the american in january of 1989 said this -- ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government and with three little words, we the people. we tell the government what to do, president reagan stated. it does not tell us. a simple phrase, we the people, put down by our founding fathers who defined self-government, self-government, those words ring true. i think daily about that government that they formed. a limited government. one with powers for each branch that are clearly spelled out in this document, clearly defined and you know, we're a long way

from the limited government and the limited and enumerated power they strived to corral. i'm concerned we don't read and study the united states constitution enough in our public schools like we used to when i grew up. i'm worried that we the people don't know or remember why our founding fathers divided power into three separate branches of government. why they define the powers of each and why they were inclined to spell out our liberties in a bill of rights. you know, they formed this government that's lasted well over 200 years. but after they formed that government, they decided that they better spell out the liberties. in fact, they had to do that in order to have the states ratify this great document. everywhere i travel around my beloved palmetto state and around this country, i ask folks, what are your first amendment rights? and almost to a person, they

mostly answered freedom of speech. but you know, let me remind you here today that the first thing our founding fathers addressed was your freedom of religion. in fact, the first sentence in the first amendment in the united states constitution says this. it says, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of realnor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. they do that before they address your freedom of speech, before they address your freedom of the press, before they address your right to peacefully assemble or your right to petition this government for redress of grievances. folks, i remind you that our freedoms are slowly being eroded in this country and i believe that we as americans need to get back to doing what we did in that first week in this united states congress. and that's take this document out. read it. understand what our founding fathers were trying to do when they said we the people will

govern ourselves. i yield back. thank you. mr. stutzman: thank you. very eloquently said. i would like to touch on a couple of things that mr. duncan mentioned, mr. speaker. as we did have the great opportunity to read the constitution on the house floor , i found it not only to be something that should be a lesson for all of us but one that will remind each american, the great document that we have that governs our land. i'd like to read a couple of statements some of our founding fathers made that i believe are so important for each one of us to remember today. i'd like to start with george washington who is my political hero. one of the great men that not only was so willing to sacrifice and was willing to serve his great country for --

he could have been king if he was wanting to, but instead knew that limited power was going to be the real answer to america's new constitution and to its new government. i'd like to read this the power -- george washington, quote, the power under the constitution will always be in the people. it is entrusted for certain defined purposes and for certain limited period to representatives of their own choosing and whenever it is executed contrary to their interests or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can and undoubtedly will be recalled. end quote. mr. washington was referring to elections. i think that what is not only solidified our government for years and years has been that it is the people's government. this is the government, the people have the ability to recall those who are elected to

go to their respective capital, with it's in the state goths or here in washington, d.c., and if their wishes are not received by the people, the people can recall them back to their states and elect someone new. i would like to read another statement by thomas jefferson, quote, on every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted. recollect the spirit manifested in the debates. instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. thomas jefferson, our third president, was one of the great men who was part of building our great democracy and our republic here in the great country of the united states. i would also like to refer a little bit to my time, having the opportunity to serve in the

indiana state legislature and knowing that thomas jefferson was a federalist and believed in states' rights. one of the things i have seen in my short time in washington is that the states have so much flexibility, so much more ability to serve the people as well as our local governments and that is one of the reasons i believe the constitution was formed is to protect that local control. as we've seen time and time again there is more influence by our federal government in reaching further and further into our communities with more mandates, more legislation that continues to take away our freedoms. and having the opportunity to serve in the state legislateture in indiana, i would also share that we can see how each state has different needs. the constitution addresses that by limiting the powers of the federal government. we're see manager and more

waste of tax dollars. one that i believe the american people are tired of and want to see washington fix its problems, just like the american people do every day in tightening their own belts. we've tightened ourselves in our small family farming operation back in indiana. we do that with our family budget. people are asking across the country if we can do it, why can't washington? and we're seeing overlap of federal and state government and local government and i believe that if we would get back to the constitutional role the constitutional role that the federal government is given and focus on the priorities that are -- that our founding fathers gave to us and the constitution as a government, then we will be more effective, we will serve the people who have elected us to serve and instead of infringing upon the responsibilities and the rights of those in our states that we

will have a more efficient government and we will also have a government that is closer to the people and one i believe serves best when government is close to the people, it will serve and respond to the needs of them. i believe at this time, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, thank you for being here, looking forward to your comments. mr. conaway: i thank you for yielding. i appreciate being here to participate in the constitution caucus' comments on the constitution. we labor under the -- sometimes -- all times misguided idea that we're the smartest people that walk the face of the earth and no new ideas are created except through us. sometimes it's helpful to look back at some of the things folk who have gone before us have said and to help us reflect on those and see how they apply to today's circumstances.

a couple of those things, one is from a speech robert kennedy made on the day of affirmation address he did in south africa back in 1966. while much of what he talked about, revolution of youth and the civil rights movement and other things are not germane to what we're talking about tonight there is a section that's particularly relevant to this constitution. -- to this conversation. i would like to read into the record his comments in some of those earlier paragraphs. he started off say, we stand here in the name of freedom. freedom is that wonderful word that conjures up inside of us those kinds of feelings that are unique to certain words. liberty is another word that does that, has that kind of visceral experience inside each one of us, it's different but nonetheless inspiring almost every single time you hear that. kennedy went on to say, at the thoferte western free come and -- freedom and democracy is the

belief that the individual man, the child of god is a touchstone of value and in all societies the -- all societies groups, the state, exist for his benefit. that must be the practice of any western society. the first individual liberty is the freedom of speech. the right to express and communicate ideas and to set one self apart from the forest. to recall governments to do their duties and obligations, above all the, right to afoirm one's membership and allegiance to society, to men with whom we share land, our heritage and our children's future. the humanity of men can be protected and preserved only when government must answer, not just to the wealthy, not just to those of a particular religion or race, but to all people. and even government, by the consent of the governed, as in our constitution, must be limited in its power to act

against its people. so that there be in interference with the right to worship or with the security of the home, no arbitrary impossession of -- imposition of pains of penalties, so that each man may become all he is capable of becoming. these are the sacredritis of western society. senator kennedy got it right, these are the sake receipt rights of western society -- sacred rights of western society and we are in danger of having those rights trampled on by this continued growth in the size of our federal government. if you look at the trajectory that we find ourselves on from the financial standpoint, you can have estimates by think tanks on the left, estimates by think tanks on the right, the c.b.o., the g.a.o., all of these have 75-plus-year projections of the path that we're currently on. if you stack each of those projections on a light table to look through all of them at the same time there's not a whissker difference between the path that

we're on. nobody disagrees that the path that we're on is absolutely unsustainable. i tell my constituents back home, we're very much like the fellow who fell off the 10-story building. as he passed the fifth floor he said, so far so good. so far so good. well, we are that guy. and although our financial wreck is 10, 15, 20 years down the road, we are in a free fall that has an abrupt immediate stop somewhere in our future. we are bright, intelligent, smart individual people. the present company accepted. we ought to be able to look at those projections and take action. we have for five years now, six years, come august, failed to reform social security. when i first joined demong 2005 that was one of the leading issues on our table at that time and yes we got distracted of whether or not part of it should be personally owned and part of it should not, but at the end of the day we had a predicate for why soths security needed to be

-- social security needed to be adjusted. most of us spent that first eight months of 2005 trying to lay out to our constituents exactly what the issues were that are familiar with all of us in this chamber. that lasted until the end of august, 2005, and then katrina, hurricane katrina, happened, and distracted us from the goal of getting it done and we've not touched social security since. we've continued to choose each and every year to not adjust and not renegotiate social security. that choice has a consequence. the consequence is that we're adding about $600 billion of unfunded mandates to the debt of future generations of americans because we choose not to take action. that choice is ours to take. it is our freedoms to take that choice. it's our liberty to take that choice. collectful, both sides of the aisle -- collectively both sides

of the aisle have chosen to not address a fundamental spending issue that, among those that we have to face, i would argue is the least difficult. let me finish with a quote from george washington in his first inaugural address, george washington declared, the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, the destiny of the republican model of government, are finally staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the american people. trust is placed in the people precisely because they are in the worlds of the declaration, equally c.e.o. created and endowed by the creator with certain inalyellen rights twheafment precious gift in our hands though, of us, the 435 of us who get to vote on this house, the 100 on the other side of this building who get to vote, the man or woman who occupies 1600 pentagon avenue, we have the tools of choice in our hands. to do we choose to preserve liberty and freedom for future generations or do we choose to continue as that fellow falling

off the 10-story building said so, far so good, so far so good? i argue that we should not. i argue that let's use our intellect, let's use our will, let's use the intelligence of the american people who made a dramatic statement about what we ought to do. we now need to take those reins of choice in our hands and lead this nation to a sustainable federal government that does not mortgage our grandchildren's future, does not hand off to them an america that is less prosperous with less opportunity for standard of living increases that you and i enjoyed as we stepped into adulthood. if we choose to continue to ignore the problem and stick our head in the stand as the ostrich sometimes does, pretty unflattering position, quite frankly, for any of us, if we choose to do that future generations will simply say, why did they do that? they saw it coming, they understood the consequences, they had within their power the

ability to make it difficult -- different. and we have choicen so -- chosen so far to not do that. we have chosen to sar to expand the -- so far to expand the fraff government. we have chosen to take away from states the rights to conduct those affairs of our individualized that are property left to the states and our local governments or left alone to us as individuals. we have chosen as a nation to empower this federal government year in and year out to take away our freedoms and our liberties. all i can say to that, mr. speaker, is shame ounce. shame on us. if we don't right this ship of state by shrinking the size of this government, limiting what it does in our day to day lives, getting back to the fundamental founding principles that our founding fathers built this country on and that is a limited federal government with limited powers, everything else being reserved to the states and/or local municipalities or not at all and left to the people. mr. speaker, i appreciate the opportunity to express these

comments tonight and i yield back. mr. stutzman: thank you. i'd like to yield again to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. mr. garrett: again, i thank the gentleman from indiana for hosting tonight's special order. in dealing with the constitution and more specifically tonight we spend a little time talking about, as the previous gentleman just did, on limited government and its role in protecting human dignity. the gentleman from texas was just referencing the issue with regard to unsustainable projection and trajectory of spending on the federal level and burden therefore that we place on untold generations that follow after ours. you have to ask then, what sort of respect does this generation have for the humandy anything -- dignity of future generations who encompass their lives with the spector of having limitations on their ability to make fundamental choices for

themselves because of the obligations that have been placed upon them by this generation? earlier i spoke about the divine and i think you need to do so when you're asking the fundamental question, as we're doing tonight, with regard to the issue of human dignity and i was quoting not from myself but from lincoln and also from our founding documents that speak of the divine and name the declaration as the law and nature of the creator, the supreme judge of the world, the divine providence. in all areas of this, as are set forth in documents, talking about in these areas that human dignity comes not from man themselves but from creation by the creator. from the divine. and then it's the imperfect, the man, human beings, who distort that in some way and government, as i said before, being not perfect and not capable of being

perfected, has the obligation to protect human dignity as best it can but obviously does so in an imperfect manner. the gentleman from utah talked about that it's not just over the recent decades that this has occurred but it's over the last generations, probably going back over 100 years, he said. probably at the beginning of, what, the progressive movement, i guess you would say, here in this country, where they began this distortion of the understanding of the constitution and the progressive movement elaborated upon the powers of the federal government to expand in areas that it never was envisioned by our founders, as a matter of fact as i talk about the progressive movement, we have the progressive caucus here on the other side of the aisle, i guess, who speak about these things all the time. but in a much more favorable light than we talk about it from this side of the aisle. so if you go back, 80, 90, 100

years and the progressive movement, it began to imcrimp upon the human being and the rights of man and basically therefore what we're talking about tonight, humandyny -- dignity in some very profound and fundamental ways. what are some of the basic issues that a man is able to decide about himself? what he's able to eat and what is he able to grow to eat, the progressive movement, during the time of roosevelt, that finally said that, you know, the federal government knows better when it comes to what man can eat and what he can grow for himself and put a limitation on an individual farmer as to what he could grow in his own backyard to sustain himself and his family. and they said, no, the federal government said, no, we're going to have the long arm of the federal powers of the federal government reach into that farmer's backyard and dictate to him that no, he cannot grow those particular crops even though he was not selling them

and they were not in the stream of commerce and he was not transporting them across state lines and interstate commerce was not involved whatsoever. but rather the government said that we could, we the federal government here in washington, could constrict him to the very food that he provides for his own family. now, fast fooshed to -- forward to this generation and this past congress, you see the same sort of thing goes here as far as food and all the regulations that entwine in that area that have grown in multitude of regulations over the years and now it's food to water and washington now dictates your very own water use and we're all familiar with that infamous decision with regard to the toilet sthraw in your own house and the water consumption that you have. these are not even things that you can decide among yourselves, the government will step in. how about the lights that you turn on? how are you going to illuminate

your home so you can have a light to read your books in the evening. now the federal government says that is not the proevents of man, that is the proevents -- province of the federal government to dictate as well. so each area, we take one more chip away at individual human dignity as deciding how you can control and live your own life and washington is now the arbiter in those things. and now we rise to the most -- per haps one of the most fundamentals after food and water and light and that's health care. and of course we saw what happened in the last session of congress here where the federal government said that we here, the bureaucrats, the elected officials, the politicians, know better than you as to just what sort of health care you need, what sort of doctor you should see, how often you should go and all the other myriad decisions that were wrapped up into that, how do i take care of my own human body, how do i take care

of my own health decisions and now of course we passed the bill, under our objection, of course, thunderstorm side of the aisle, but with complete support on the other side of the aisle and the white house as well saying, no, washington can now dictate those areas. to a point that we have never seen before in the history of this country -- government, in the history of this country, that the price of citizenship is the purchase of a particular product that the federal government bureaucrats dictate. the price of citizenship, the price of freedom, the prime price of liberty, the price of being an american is now dictated to you by the federal government, bureaucrats here in washington. they will dictate and control your health care, just as they -- the previous progressive era politicians said they will dictate with regard to the food that you grow and water that you use and the lights that you light, now also are in the area of health care as well. so where do we then end up going from all this?

where is the next step? well, as i said before, government is not perfect. man cannot be perfected. so we should not look to the government, as we said before, the angelic beings that are going to give us all the right rules and regulations in this area, we should not look to the government to provide for us in these respective areas but rather that we are individuals made by our creator that have our own worth and our own human dignity and that washington should not take that away from us. so i'll close where i began some time ago, we will look then not to the imperfect bureaucrats nor the imperfect politicians but rather the people who inherently have the power to send us here or return us, people who have the power to create governments or not, and that is the population of this government -- population of this country, the citizens of this country where all power truly emanates from originally.