guest: well, right now, as the law stands in the wake of citizen's united ruling, there's no requirementr disclosure at all. again, i'm not sure i necessarily agree that to incorporate the n.r.a. would not infringe on someone else's first amendment rights. they felt strongly that they did on theirs. and they felt strongly with the language covering part of the language covering part of the language on this extension. so a group had to be in business for at least 10 years. had to be around for at least 10 years. so they've brought in other advocate groups that also fell into it. so the idea was, dump $10 million into it and then use that to run ads against congressman joe shmoe. i'm not sure that in doing that they -- on the rights of other individuals, but disclosure, as a journalist, disclosure is a good thing. the more, the better. so i think there's a lot of folks in the press who would like to see at leleast some >> we will be going to the national press club to talk about reconstruction and recovery efforts in haiti six months after the earthquake in that country. that will get unde

i think they are very concerned about way it is process can be manipulated under the citizens' united ruling. i think there's legitimate concerns about that. let me give you examples. what if a company -- there was a bill on the floor and the company was opposed to it and they sent their lobbyist in to see the chairman or chairwoman of a committee and said we're opposing this bill and by the way we reserve $2 million of ad time in your district. that's a powerful message and one that would put the fear of god in a lot of congressmembers. we have to value the rights to be heard but protect our political classes and keep the integrity there as much as possible. host: barbra from pennsylvania, you're on the air. caller: thank you for c-span. you do a great job. i am really concerned about this passage through this. i thought it was planning. because -- and especially, the people that say, oh, the government owns this business, and the government's trying to take over this business. do they realize how they open the door for business to own government? and not even disclose it is so wrong. guest

guest: well, right now, as the law stands in the wake of citizen's united ruling, there's no requirement for disclosure at all. again, i'm not sure i necessarily agree that to incorporate the n.r.a. would not infringe on someone else's first amendment rights. they felt strongly that they did on theirs. and they felt strongly with the language covering part of the language covering part of the language on this extension. so a group had to be in business for at least 10 years. had to be around for at least 10 years. so they've brought in other advocate groups that also fell into it. so the idea was, dump $10 million into it and then use that to run ads against congressman joe shmoe. i'm not sure that in doing that they -- on the rights of other individuals, but disclosure, as a journalist, disclosure is a good thing. the more, the better. so i think there's a lot of folks in the press who would like to see at least some way to tell who is funding what kind of ads. host: john press in a han from the politico, please come back. guest: thanks for having me. host: first this campaign 2010 upda

this court has skewed very much to the right particularly with the citizens united ruling and i love the fact that it is snooty to have a harvard degree. they all have a harvard degree. of course she has a harvard degree. >> larry: aren't all the democrats going to vote for her? >> i would hope so. >> larry: are you concerned about dana pointing out this non-paper trail. >> i'm thrilled to pieces to agree with james completely. there shouldn't even be confirmation hearings. it's a new thing just created for television. most of the justices we have had never had confirmation hearings. i disagree with her on a lot of stuff. i don't like how weak she is on freedom of speech and has given speeches about how the government can do work around on freedom of speech. i disagree with her on a lot. it doesn't matter what i think. the president appoints them and they should say okay and put them on the supreme court. there shouldn't be a confirmation hearing where everybody goes on tv and makes their stupid little speeches. put her in. it's fine. it's his choice. >> larry: do you think they're g

guest: well, right now, as the law stands in the wake of citizen's united ruling, there's no requirement for disclosure at all. again, i'm not sure i necessarily agree that to incorporate the n.r.a. would not infringe on someone else's first amendment rights. they felt strongly that they did on theirs. and they felt strongly with the language covering part of the language covering part of the language on this extension. so a group had to be in business for at least 10 years. had to be around for at least 10 years. so they've brought in other advocate groups that also fell into it. so the idea was, dump $10 million into it and then use that to run ads against congressman joe shmoe. i'm not sure that in doing that they -- on the rights of other individuals, but disclosure, as a journalist, disclosure is a good thing. the more, the better. so i think there's a lot of folks in the press who would like to see at leleast some >> good afternoon, everybody. >> good afternoon. >> well, it is great to be back in ohio. strickland said i've been in ohio so much he might start charging me for it. [la

guest: well, right now, as the law stands in the wake of citizen's united ruling, there's no requirement for disclosure at all. again, i'm not sure i necessarily agree that to incorporate the n.r.a. would not infringe on someone else's first amendment rights. they felt strongly that they did on theirs. and they felt strongly with the language covering part of the language covering part of the language on this extension. so a group had to be in business for at least 10 years. had to be around for at least 10 years. so they've brought in other advocate groups that also fell into it. so the idea was, dump $10 million into it and then use that to run ads against congressman joe shmoe. i'm not sure that in doing that they -- on the rights of other individuals, but disclosure, as a journalist, disclosure is a good thing. the more, the better. so i think there's a lot of folks in the press who would like to see at leleast some >> tomorrow on "washington journal," are retired general -- a bat and retired general talks about the response of the gulf coast oil spill -- a retired general talks abou

they've been frustrated by rulings, particularly the recent citizens united campaign finance ruling that struck down part of the campaign finance reform law. they've been frustrated when the court strikes down laws such as the violence against womens's act, the brady background gun check act. they feel that the curt ignores congressional findings , and it is the roberts court in particular that they feel is the conservatives on the roberts court who they believe have been very activist , particularly recently. >> woodruff: marcia coyle, the marshall law journal, thank you for today and your work over the past three days. >> it's been fun. >> woodruff: it has. >> thanks, judy. >> brown: now, back to the gulf for a look at how scientists are tracking the oil spill's impact. the government announced today it's working with university labs to deploy advanced sensor technology to study what's happening in the water. one of those centers is based in st. petersburg, florida. newshour correspondent tom bearden reports on the work of researchers there. >> reporter: the "weather bird ii" may not b

i do wish this bill would come under a rule, an open rule, it's hard to believe but as a freshman in this united states congress i will likely go through my entire freshman congress, the 111th congress, having never experienced, even once, an open rule on the floor of the house of representatives. that's a shame. that's a shame. there should be a way for the mechanism where this bill is brought under a rule, open rule, where members on both sides of the aisle, can offer amendments and we can vote on those amendments. unfortunately that's not going to happen. we should not necessarily pass the bill that does not have tough enforcement mechanisms. we can and do much better than this. this body must make tough choices to eliminate wasteful government spending. it should not pass legislation. with great titles, a-plus on the titles given these bills. they are good. who is going to vote against efficiency, effectiveness, and performance. but it doesn't necessarily respect what's in the bill. my colleague, eric schock from illinois, offered a great amendment which was shot down which would put a sunse

in the wake of the supreme court's ruling in citizens united, corporations now have a first amendment right to spend millions or even billions of dollars of shareholder money to defeat or support candidates for public or political office. while this ruling is now united states law, the disclose act takes the appropriate step of mandating that corporations tell their shareholders how they're using the money. after all, investors in a company have a right to know how their company is using their money. but the underlying bill fails to ensure that these corporate disclosures are made clearly and understandably or that they are printed in such a way that allows shareholders to see them. mr. speaker, congress has insisted upon disclosure requirements for corporations before, and anyone who receives a credit card offer knows that this is what we get, tiny, unreadable text in five-point font. even if you could read it, which you can't without a mag any fine glass, you would have to have degrees in law to define it. my amendment very simply imposes and adds the words clear and conspicuous as

states, you should have to pay by the united states rules and let's just level the playing field. it is not a fair world out there. we cannot compete fairly in the international community with foreign countries. and we lose. look at our u.s. fishery. here's a great example. the pacific fishery was on the verge of collapse because we allowed foreign ships to come into our waters, fish, and they overfished it. in 1976 the u.s. congress decided that was a mistake. they decided to reexert jurisdiction to limit the amount of fish that foreign vessels could take. and not only use foreign catching boats, they used foreign processing boats that anchored off our coast or floated off our coast and then impord it into our country even though it was our fish. once we extended that, we have a safer fishing fleet, because before those fishermen were not doing a good job of remaining in business. we have a vibrant fishery. the fishery is no longer being raped and pill ladged by foreign fishermen. it's being magged effectively by americans and american fish

pages, as i recall, the name knack for triumphant oratory, and the same respect for the rules and traditions of the unitedstates senate. but he soon became a fixture a d a mentor to new senators as well. i suspect that over the next few days many senators will take the floor with a constitution in theirockets, as i am, senator, they received from crob robert . byrd. here is my cop copy. i've carried this with me every day of my life for the last quarter of a century, given to me by m colleague in this chamber. along, i might add, with a stern but kind electric touche about senate -- bu -- with a stern but kind lecture about senate protocol. in the past quarter after strirks i've occupied some prime real estate on the floor of the united states senate. this desk right next to me today, the won with these flowers and black cape, is the one sat in by senator byrd for years. he have been awed business his commitment to preserving the senate's place in our legislative system. in many ways robert byrd's story is one of constancy, of preservation, and of tradition. you could he define his life by longevity, i su

united states. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. filner, and the gentleman from indiana, mr. buyer, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. filner: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. filner: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on house resolution 1446. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. filner: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to join the city of tracy, california, in celebrating its 100th anniversary of its incorporation. the resolution sponsor is mr. mcnerney from california. and i would yield to him to explain the bill. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. chairman. madam speaker, i rise to honor the residents of the city of tracy on the 100th anniversary of the city's incorporation for their century of dedicated service to the united states. i ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting t

united states. that's not who we are, that's not the way it is. . we must dwevend the rule of law. if -- we must defend the raleigh of law. if we are going to allow it to come from the american people. and from the president of the united states who taught constitutional law at the stellar university of chicago school of law to think that that's the case, that he doesn't understand any better and thinks he can get awwy with it, no, we can read our history and our constitution and we have access, coupled with the people wwo have enough self-confidence to be in a full threated way to defend our freedom. that's who wer mr. speaker. that's who we must remain. that's the character that we must maintain and we cannot allow ourselves to be diminished to define ourselves within this government that don't understand our values as a nation or our constttution. mr. speaker, your timing is great. i couldn't have picked a better moment to yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition. mr. king: i move the hou

clarity of intellect, of conscience, of commitment to the constitution of the united states of america. and as well to the rules of the united states senate. he was a passionate and advocate for people, for principle, for the constitution and for our country. senator byrd, we will miss you, but we will remember fondly your contributions and be forever thankful that we had the opportunity to serve with you. some of you remember my dog, charlotte. my dog, charlotte, was with me for 15 1/2 years. some of you recall for 10 of those years charlotte came to work with me every day. charlotte was an english springer spaniel. i planted a tree in my yard, it's a dogwood tree, and there is a stone and a bronze plaque for charlotte. charlotte was one of the loves of my life. i lived alone with her for 10 1/2 years after judy passed away. the first call i got the day after charlotte passed was from robert c. byrd saying how sorry he was that i had lost charlotte. that was an indication of his humanity, of his caring for others. yes, he was a great man, but he was a man who understood the pain, the aspirations and the hopes

ges, as i recall, the name knack for triumphant oratory, and the same respect for the rules and traditions of the unitedtates senate. but he soon became a fixture a d a mentor to new senators as well. i suspect that over the next few days many senators will take the floor with a constitution in theirockets, as i am, senator, they received from crob robert . byrd. here is my cop copy. i've carried this with me every day of my life for the last quarter of a century, given to me by m colleague in this chamber. along, i might add, with a stern but kind electric touche about senate -- bu -- with a stern but kind lecture about senate protocol. in the past quarter after strirks i've occupied some prime real estate on the floor of the united states senate. this desk right next to me today, the won with these flowers and black cape, is the one sat in by senator byrd for years. he have been awed business his commitment to preserving the senate's place in our legislative system. in many ways robert byrd's story is one of constancy, of preservation, and of tradition. you could he define his life by longevity, i sup

rules and agree to h.res. 1429. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1429, resolution celebrating the symbol of the united states flag and supporting the goals and ideals of flag day. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california, ms. watson, and the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. watson: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. watson: madam speaker, i now yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. watson: h.res. 1429 celebrates our most enduring symbol, the american flag. with this resolution this chamber expresses its support for the annual recognition of flag day. the gentleman from ohio, representative robert latta, introdoused h.res. 1429 on june 9, 2010. it was referred to the committee on oversight and government reform which waived consideration of the bill to expedite its consideration on

damages cut to $2.5 billion and june of 2008 the united states squort got involved ruleing the civil damages would be limitted to $507 million. let's start wh that final figure of the supreme court ruling. what did that meanor the 32,000 defendants andhe plaintiffs in the case. how much did they get in the end? >> the total amount that the plaintiffs got was about $1.3 billion. that included $500 million worth of interest. because it took them 21 years to wage this war against the exxon corporation. and it was a long and costly war. we spent over $200 million in time and $30 million in cash. over 2 is years and i think exxon probably spent north of $100 million litigateing the matter. the conclusions i come away with are if you litigate with a big oil company, they can spend enough money to make you bleed through the years. and the second conclusion is justice is a long ways away. we've lost upwards of 20% of our clients. they are dead. and many othersives are in dis aay, and this money would have helped to put them back in play. and the money would have provided them withense of jus

united states army. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. ortiz, and the gentleman from hawaii, mr. djou, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. ortiz: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume and ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ortiz: madam speaker, i rise in support of house concurrent resolution 286, and it is my honor to stand here today and recognize the army for its 235th birthday. since 1775, the united states army has prepared to fight and win our nation's wars. and has provided us with some of the greatest moments in our nation's history. you know, as a poor child growing up in texas, i never knew what existed outside of my neighborhood. however, when i joined the army and left south texas, the world soon opened to me. when i arrived in paris, france , as a military policeman fresh out of basic training and advanced mi

united states. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 405. the nays are six. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to house resolution 1359 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 13 69, resolution recognizing the significance of national caribbean american heritage month. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. so many as are in favor s

. >> you appear to rule out the number of options within the european union in dealing with israel. what exactly is the unitedeuropean union to maximize diplomatic pressure to end the blockade on the gaza strip? >> i am not conscious of ruling anything out. i must stress there is an enormous amount of pressure. i had dinner with many of the european ministers in sarajevo last night and i saw many more of them this morning. they are all expressing themselves in very similar ways and tactically to the government of israel. there is no doubt about the intensity of feeling from the european union. clearly, we will want to discuss as a body what more we can do with that. most importantly, we want to discuss what we can to working with the united states to try to give new momentum to the middle east peace process as a whole. it is right up there on the agenda and in the minds of european foreign ministers and there will be a great deal of pressure. >> i have been to the cost districtwide. -- i have been to the gaza strip twice. this operation seems exactly like what israel wants, a black out on information. we do n

working together to enforce th law, establish the rule of law, i sulsay re-establish the rule of law in the unit statesnd build a greater -- grter country than are day, mr. speaker. it was a refreshing thing for me to hear those wordsome out ofhe moh my good fiend, congressman tom tanc and to share se ti on that microphone with sheriff joe arpaio o maricopa county of arizona who has a national repatiofor enforcing immigration law, for tablishing and building tent city, when sheriff j asked me if i had been to visit, and actually, i had, and he sent a guide to take me to tent city last year, present me with a ir of his autographed ng underwear, when he found out i have that in myffice in safekeeping, i was his good iend. that city wasuilt because thjue orded more prison space, and the options were to turn people loose, spend millions of dollars to build more fcilities, or build a tencity. ey did what th needed to do to enforce the law, especially in tt climate. i was also able to share a mrophone of russell pierce who is author of immigration's -- ofrizo's immigration law a tspend urs probing his

damages cut to $2.5 billion and june of 2008 the united states squort got involved ruleing the civil damages would be limitte $507 million. let's start with that final figure of the supreme court ruling. what did that mean for t 32,000 defendants and the plaintiffs in the case. how much did they get in the end? >> the total amount that t plaintiffs got was about $1.3 billion. that included $500 million worth of interest. because it took them 21 years to wa this war against the exxon corporation. and it was aong and costly war. we spent over $200 million in time and $30 million in cash. over 2 is years and i think exxon probably spent north of $100 million litigateing the matter. the conclusions i come away with are if you litige with a big oil company, they can spend enough money to make you bleed through the years. and the second conclusion is justice is a long ways away. we've lost upwards of 20% of our clients. they are dead. and many others lives are in dis array, and this money would have helped to put th back in play. and the money would have provided them with a sense of justi

trying to say that the law, that the rule of law, provides a set of boundaries in which people can make decisions with confidence, and in the defense of the united states of america, we need for the executive branch to have a set of rules that they can -- in which they can operate confidently. if we can't operate confidently, what does it give to our enemy? it says to the enemy, it suggests to them we are morally ambiguous, it says to them we don't know how we're operating anddwhat we can do. it impairs our ability to defend freedom. the defense of freedom requires the rule of law. and the rule of law is one of the greatest supporters of freedom because it helps people know what they are free do to the co-and what they are not free to do. we move to the case now before the court and the court of appeals has again, as it had in the four previous cases, sustained the position of the department of justice. and so the question in this case is whether individuals 3 in bagram as unlawful enemy combatants are eligible for habeas corpus treatment and the court at the district court level ruled they were, based on the bumadin case said virtually anyone,

before coming to the united states, i was working on a draft to change the rules and procedures, to create an oversight committee in parament. we do not have that. india has it, the indian parliament. i cannot remember the name. it is accounts and oversight committee. their job is to oversee all accounts and all performances by government or non-government organizations. the parliament should play a role. the international organizations and there are some international ngos that need to be made examples. the government should realize it is not just them but the international community is serious about fixing its own problems also. >> a question over here. >> here in the u.s., overlooking at to afghanistan through a national lands in terms of the lack of leadership from the national government? should we look at success stories that a occurring on a local and provincial level and trying to emphasize we're leadership is being provided by afghans at those levels, and how can we do that? >> we sometimes talk about negative thing so ch that we forget there're achievements. the country has achie

speaker, the supreme court's decision in the citizens united case fundamentally alters the political landscape as a result of the court's ruling all organizations, corporations, and unions are free to take unlimited corporate money and make unlimited political expenditures. this could allow corporations to simply take over the political system. according to a report late last year by common cause, the average amount spent for winning a house seat in the 2008 cycle was $1.4 million. during the same cycle exxonmobil recorded $80 billion in profits. if exxonmobil chose to use just 1% of their profits op political activity, it would be more -- on political activity, it would be more than all 435 winning congressional candidates spent in that election cycle. that's just 1% of the profits of one corporation. according to the supreme court, we cannot limit what corporations can say or what they can spend, but we can require them to disclose what they are doing to the american public. i'll read you what the court said in its decision. i quote. the first amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholde

i also say it's a mixture of the world's largest drug market, the united states, next to a country which has a weak rule of law, in that case, mexico, that has really created this problem. i think it rings true to mexicans. it shows they're not the only fwhonz this. but it's good politics and good policy because he does need the united states to really invest in prevention and treatment of addictions. he needs the u.s. to do more on money laundering and arms trafficking, as well as as well as a lot more intelligence cooperation, share information-- that's happening. the ability to track the traffickers as they move across the border. >> thank you both very much. >> woodruff: finally tonight, a return to the stage and a chance to mentor a new generation. jeffrey brown looks at a dancing phenomenon. >> brown: almost 30 years after appear in "sophisticate ladies" maurice hines is still at it. ♪ if it ain't got that swing ♪ >> brown: at 66, the man who gained fame tapping away with his brother, gregory, remains a marvel-- dancing, creating the choreography, and taking audiences through a review of the life

the symbol of the united states flag and supporting the goals and adeals of flag day. -- ideals of flag day. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules understand agree to the resolution. members will record their vote by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 418. the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to s.j.res. 32, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of t

the third is what happens when it is the united states under attack. what are the rulesor that and how we go through that to mitigate or defeat that threat? those were the three conditions. we talked about each in a different case. as you think about each one of those, we will have different standing rules of engagement what we don't have is the precision and the standing rules of engagement that we need. we're working through those with the u.s. policy and up through the deputy committees. >> i think we have harry and the gentleman and brown. -- in brown. >> good morning, sir. many of us in this room have worked on situational awareness for many years,, i brishell pictures. during your comments, you mentioned it situational awareness is an area that needs to be improved. i wonder if you could briefly describe some of where we are now with situational awareness and where it is you would like to see improved in the future. >> in a nutshell, the harder part, and i can give an analogy, i will use the national training center. in the national training center, one of the thin

united states. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 419. the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion from the gentleman from california, mr. filner, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4307 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4307, a bill to name the department of veterans affairs community based outpatient clinic in new mexico as alejandroruiz

united states and clomia. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california, ms. watson, and the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. watson: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise aad extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlewoman from california. ms. watson: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. watson: madam speaker, last month colombia held the first round of their presidential elections.%% in an outcome that spur prized many observers, the -- that surprised many observers, the green party and the national unity party both failed to receive an outright majority of the vote. a runoff was required this past sunday. over 13 million colombians participated in the second r

damages cut to $2.5 billion and june of 2008 the united states squort got involved ruleing the civil damages would be limitted to $507 million. let's start with that final figure of the supreme court ruling. what did that mean for the 32,000 defendants and the plaintiffs in the case. how much did they get in the end? >> the total amount that the plaintiffs got was about $1.3 billion. that included $500 million worth of interest. because it took them 21 years to wage this war against the exxon corporation. and it was a long and costly war. we spent over $200 million in time and $30 million in cash. over 2 is years and i think exxon probably spent north of $100 million litigateing the matter. the conclusions i come away with are if you litigate with a big oil company, they can spend enough money to make you bleed through the years. and the second conclusion is justice is a long ways away. we've lost upwards of 20% of our clients. they are dead. and many others lives are in dis array, and this money would have helped to put them back in play. and the money would have provided them with

why we have not completed it, the harmonization of our rules -- it will be awfully important. united states, having completed this work, we open the next week, can offer some leadership to the world in what needs to be done to harmonize the efforts we have talked about this evening and recently. i think it will strengthen the hand of our president going to toronto to make that case. we believe with a passion in this bill. we hope will occur next week. we can make the case where follow -- fellow parliamentarians, union leaders, and others. they could embrace the principles at least of what we have done. adding it levant's the stability and predictability, as well as a kind of wealth creation and job creation that we desperately need. >> first of all, there articles today in the newspaper -- there were articles in the paper saying we would be debating. europeans seek blil -- bailouts. they want to tax their institutions to pay for their recovery. this is what we did today. the british -- the conservative, british government has just beat up to the punch -- be as by the punch -- the us

rules and agree to the bl h.r. 5278. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5278, a bill to desiate the facility of the united states postal service located at 405 west second street in dixon, illinois, as the president ronlt w. reagan post office building. -- -- the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady from california, ms. chu, and the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. chu: mr. speak, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. chu: mr. speaker, i now yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. chu: mr. speaker, on behalf of the house committee on oversight and government reform, it is my great privilege as a member of the california delegation to rise in support of h.r. 5278. this measure designates the united states postal building located at 4051 second street in dixon, illinois, as the president ronald w. reagan post of

rule of law. the message being sent a strong and clear. we are unitedn a strong partnership to combat a threat to both countries. also in africa, the u.s. is troubled by the government of peron the's decision to expel a human rights researcher from the country. she and other police accredited organizations and the run they must be afforded the ability to engage, operate and report freely on conditions within the country. the government should reconsider its decision to expel the researcher and allow the researcher to return to continue her work for human rights watch. just before taking your questions, a couple questions pending from mr. de's briefing. we have been granted access five times in cuba to the detainee. we continue to ask that he be released immediately on humanitarian grounds and he be allowed to return to his family. our next round of russian adoption talks are scheduled for june 14 through 16 here in washington. we are still awaiting final confrontation from russia on those dates. finally, regarding georgia's municipal elections from the

rules later. the president of the united states can say, i guarantee that this policy will be able to you when obamacare is implemented. not one. he promised america that if you like your health insurance policy you get to keep it. he promised that over and over again. there was no guiding light. there was no promise. except a broken one. and i began to wonder, there's a website out there, a whole list of all the broken obama promises. it goes on and on and on. i wonder if he doesn't have a czar that's charged with keeping track of all the obama promises and making sure he can break every single one of them in his first term. he's got a great start. but i know the american people don't see a guarantee in a promise from the president anymore. if you like your health insurance policy you get to keep it, i promise. so what? your promise means nothing. what we know today is there isn't a single policy in america that anybody believes they get to keep and the other side of the implementation of obama care. -- obamacare. the list i've gone through, the banks, fannie, freddie, student loans, chrysler all of th

1996, to enhance united states diplomatic efforts with respect to iran by expanding economic sanctions against iran. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and adopt the conference report. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 408, the nays are eight. one recorded as present. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the conference report is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 3962, an act to provide a physician payment update to provide penks -- pension funding relief and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to house re

rules of engagement. that is something that clear, our troopers in some cases, some units have concerns about and, therefore, they are my concerns. but by and large, i think this is more about executing nauert then it is about redesign. -- executing now than it is about redesign. this is of enormous significance. this has beennder development for months. it capitalizes on the national peace jirga that was held with nearly 15,000 participants in kabul several weeks ago. i think it codifies all of the processes that we have been waiting for to integrate thhse elements of the insurgency war reconcilable, an important element of any counterinsurgency -- who are reconcilable, an important element of any counterinsurgency effort. and it deals with those who are irreconcilable. and we will seek to empower and secure villages and valleys with local security initiatives. this is something also that president karzai and i discussed on the way over here this morning. it is the next big focus that he told me about that he and his national security adviser discussedesterday, so that you have a fully comprehensive approa

speaker, the supreme court's decision in the citizens united case fundamentally alters the political landscape as a result of the court's ruling all organizations, corporations, and unions are free to take unlimited corporate money and make unlimited political expenditures. this could allow corporations to simply take over the political system. according to a report late last year by common cause, the average amount spent for winning a house seat in the 2008 cycle was $1.4 million. during the same cycle exxonmobil recorded $80 billion in profits. if exxonmobil chose to use just 1% of their profits op political activity, it would be more -- on political activity, it would be more than all 435 winning congressional candidates spent in that election cycle. that's just 1% of the profits of one corporation. according to the supreme court, we cannot limit what corporations can say or what they can spend, but we can require them to disclose what they are doing to the american public. i'll read you what the court said in its decision. i quote. the first amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholde

speaker, the supreme court's decision in the citizens united case fundamentally alters the political landscape as a result of the court's ruling all organizations, corporations, and unions are free to take unlimited corporate money and make unlimited political expenditures. this could allow corporations to simply take over the political system. according to a report late last year by common cause, the average amount spent for winning a house seat in the 2008 cycle was $1.4 million. during the same cycle exxonmobil recorded $80 billion in profits. if exxonmobil chose to use just 1% of their profits op political activity, it would be more -- on political activity, it would be more than all 435 winning congressional candidates spent in that election cycle. that's just 1% of the profits of one corporation. according to the supreme court, we cannot limit what corporations can say or what they can spend, but we can require them to disclose what they are doing to the american public. i'll read you what the court said in its decision. i quote. the first amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholde

these new rules that benefit very little and is part of the problem that brought us the situation in the first place. host: democratic line, california. caller: the problem going on in the united states in terms of financial companies is a raid on the treasury of the corporation by the board members, higher executives where everybody pays each other and the stockholder end up holding the liabilities for the cup -- corporation and the remaining dividends or asset appreciation. i would like to read something from the clean water act regarding the oil spill? host: i am going to stop you there, unfortunately. i want to stick with the topic of financial regulation. we spent the first hour and a half on the oil spill. guest: a new oil was going to be a big topic today. that is a big point in terms of the quantity on the situation. is it to close of a relationship with the region too close -- too close of a relationship with the executives there? is it inappropriate that stockholders be in a position -- they should be able to look at these things. as an investor getting the best return on my investment. today we will look at corporate governance. it is an area that we have not spent

it is impossible to spend the money twice unless you are in the united states congress and you ignored the rules of financial budgeting. if we did this in a private sector, we would all be in jail. this is fraud and the american taxpayer, that is clear and simple. that is all i'm going said. and this is a responsible way to address this issue? i guess that is why we are 13 trillion dollars worth of debt and we're doubling in five years in tripling in the next 10 years. this is not responsible. this is profligate and not even honest. it is misleading, saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite, spending money twice, by allied it -- violating a law that we wrote -- not all little sense of a law, no beer you can get the attorney general to say, on obligated funds were never listed in the language of what goes back to pay down the debt. it did the money that comes in. well, you can get an attorney to parse the words that way, but everyone understood, beginning with the president down to that person on main street to pay the bill on the interest on the nose that the chinese told, that we want to

if we are trying to say that the rule of law provides a set of boundaries in which people can make decisions with confidence and in the defense of the united states of america come we need for the objective branch to have a set of rules in which they cannot operate confidently. if we cannot operate constantly, what does it give to our enemy? it says that we are morally ambiguous and that we don't know how we're operating and what we can do. the defense of freedom requires the rule of law, and the rule of what is one of the greatest supporters of freedom. we move to the last case which is the case now before the courts. the court of appeals has again sustained the position of the department of justice so the question is whether individuals held in von brunn -- in bagram are eligible for habeus corpus treatment. it was ruled that they were. virtually anybody anywhere would be subject to the reach of the court's jurisdiction. the judgment has been reversed. interesting part of this is that with the solicitor general of the united states being nominated for membership in the court, it is unlikely that she would be able to sit on this case. fur

speaker, the supreme court's decision in the citizens united case fundamentally alters the political landscape as a result of the court's ruling all organizations, corporations, and unions are free to take unlimited corporate money and make unlimited political expenditures. this could allow corporations to simply take over the political system. according to a report late ast year by common cause, the average amount spent for winning a house seat in the 2008 cycle was $1.4 million. during the same cycle exxonmobil recorded $80 billion in profits. if exxonmobil chose to use just 1% of heir profits op political activity, it would be more -- on political activity, it would be more than all 435 winning congressional candidates spent in that election cycle. that's just 1% of the profits of one corporation. according to the supreme court, we cannot limit what corporations can say or what they can spend, but we can require them to disclosehat they are doing to the american public. i'll read you what the court said in its decision. i quote. the first amendment protects political spch and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to

rules and agree to the bill, h.r. 5395. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5395 a, a bill to designate the facility of the unitedstates postal service llcated at 151 north maitland avenue in maitland, florida, as the paula hawkins post office building. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, and the gentleman from california, mr. bilbray, -- the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, sorry about the substitute, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ppms. norton: mr. speaker, i yid myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: recognized. ms. norton: mr. speaker, on behalf of the committee on government oversight and reform i'm pleased to present h.r. 5395 for consideration. this measure designates the facility of the united states postal service

and then the third is what happens when it's the united states that's under attack? what are the rules for that and how do we go through the threat conditions and stuff to mitigate or defeat that threat? those were the three conditions when we talk about each one in a different case. and as you think about those, each one of those are going to have different standing rules of engagement. and now, what we don't have is the precision in those standing rules of engagement yet that we need, and we're working through those with u.s. policy and up to the deputy's committees with the administration. >> i think we had harry, and then the gentleman in brown. >> good morning, sir. many of us in this room have worked on situational awareness for many years, common operational pictures and such. and during your comments, you mentioned that situational awareness is an area that definitely needs to be improved. i wonder if you could just briefly describe perhaps where we are now with situational awareness, and the areas that you'd like to see improved in the future. >> well, i think in a nutshell, t

that is, if you are awre of for exple the rules for testimony, e secretary of teasury want to go up and testified before the congress of the united statbecause he is invited to do so we ca open hi mouth without getting approval from the statement from the office of management andbudget. the statute specifically prohibits anyone from having prior review or approval of any testimony or statement by the direct of the office of financial esearch, so you have here an office tt will collect data that you have never seen before, conduct research you have never seen before, who has a standi that is independent. he is able to et his budget or shis able to set her budget, raise the budgetary funds from assessme on the large reporting firms and then report eir best assessment of whether they are looking backwards, sussing previous problems and providing the best judgment on why or forecasting going forward what problems are emerging a what ris needed to be responded to. the way we describe e fi of final resourcin the tradition of a biblical profit, speaking truth to power and everytng about the office is structured to reinforce the speaking

the united states fronts ethiopia to invade every time, the u.s. reinforces the rules in somalia. my question is why our somali pirates considered outside the bounds of international law when they are dumping nuclear waste in their waters? what about an international bodies such as the united nations? israel is considered to be acting in self-defense when it hijacks and kidnaps humanitarian ships. why is the u.s. backing israel and not somalia in the united nations? guest: you have wrapped several issues into one question. clearly you are passionate. first, let me point out that the united states does not fund ethiopia to invade and disrupt somalia. in fact the united states has taken great pains to support the transitional federal government of somalia in an effort to bring a stable government to that country. we are trying very much to help the somalis govern somalia. as far as the united states being the police on the scene to prevent the misuse, dumping, or you illegal fishing, the united states is working in concert with the international community to try to curb that activity