innings of effort provision remains in place, interstates have the flexibility to reduce those numbers. states have considerable flexible now and going forward in terms of the way that money is spend. it's got nob evaluated against the backdrop of the fact that the states are generally faking advantage of the opportunities of this statute to greatly expand the amount of money that the federal government spends and the amount of money they spend to try to make the lives of their citizens better. >> of course they have to do so by hiring very substantial number of more employees that will be state employees, there will be. >> part of the affordable care act is that it provides for more dream lined ways to get people

into the system, there are going to be costs to set that up. but under the statute, the federal government is going to pay 90% of those costs. the short-term set up costs and all of those things that we have seen, the medium to long-term costs are going to be dramatically lower. >> they can just bail out kwher the government reduces the amount that the senate is going to pay? >> i'm not saying it's going to be an easy choice, mr. chief justice. >> that would be the option, they can leave medicaid if they

decide that isn't working for them. i'm also not saying this would happen. >> we're talking about fiscal realities and whether or not the federal government is going to say we need to lower our contribution and leave it up to the states because we want people to manage the states when they have all these budget cuts. >> that would be true if this medicaid expansion happened or not. >> but you have been emphasizing that the federal government is going to pay 90% of this. the knox fiscal year they can decide that they're going to pay a lot less and you states are still on the hook. you just have to pay more because we're going to pay less. less. >> i agree that it could be a difficult choice in some

circumstances, but that is not to say it's coercion as a legal matter or even as a practical matter and i think it would depend on what the circumstances were. >> i'm trying to go back to that because justice kennedy asked you whether there's, i think he said, it's coercion if no one can be politically accountable. i'm not sure how that could be practically political attemptable. because almost every gift, if the terms are attractive, it would be an unattractive political alternative to turn it down.

>> i guess my point is this has two -- if somebody really likes something like medicaid, they're not going to let you drop it, is that correct? >> the capacity of the citizens of the state, and that's what i want to get back to the point, that's why i think this is want to think about this as coercion, because this is a program that works effectively for the citizens of this state and the state governments think that and that is why it's expanded the way it's expanded because it's providing an essential service for millions of needy citizens in these states, providing access to health care that they would not otherwise have. >> you mentioned the dole case, what was the threat in that case, raise your drinking age to 21 or what? or lose a percentage of your

highway fund. >> how much? >> 7%. that's a pretty small number. i agree with your honor that it's different. i'm not saying 248d be an easy choice. >> they made the choice in the stimulus bill, didn't they? >> some governors rejected the steamy plus bill. and some of their congressional or legislative processes overturned them. >> that's right. >> in other words they supported it. the percentages were smaller, but it's always the preference of the voters as to what they want. >> what was the threat in the stimulus bill? what would the state lose? >> that answer i don't know. >> would anything be taken away?

or would it just lose the opportunity to get the money? >> i don't know the answer to that. but if i may just say in conclusion that i would like to take a half a step back here. the provisions that we have talked about this afternoon, and the provisions we talked about yesterday, we have been talking about them in terms of their effect as measures that solve problems in the marketplace that has resulted in millions of americans not having health care because they can't afford insurance. there is an important connection, a profound connection between that problem and liberty. i do think it's important that we not lose sight of that.

i can multiply example after example after example in a very fundment way, this medicaid expansion as well as the provisions we discussed yesterday secure the blessings of liberty. and i think that that is important that the court is considering those issues that that be kept in mind.

congress struggled with the issue of how to deal with this profound problem of 40 million people without health care for many years. it made a judgment. lots of people thought, the best complex of options to handle this problem. maybe they were right, maybe they weren't. but this is something about which the people of the united states can deliberate and they vote. and if they think it needs to be changed, they can change it. and i would suggest to the court with profound respect for the court's obligation to ensure that the federal government remains a government of enumerated powers that this is not a case in any of its aspects that calls that into question. that this is a judgment of policy, of democratically

accountable branches that this government made. and i would urge this court to respect that judgment and ask that the affordable care act in its entirety be upheld. thank you. >> thank you, general. mr. clement, you have five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, may it please the court, just a few points in rebuttal. first we have talked about the hallmark of coercion, your money or your life of somebody with a gun. i would respectfully suggest that it's coercive if i they your money or your life and i have discretion as to whether or not i will shoot the gun, i don't think that eliminates the coercion. i also don't think this is a discretion the secretary would ever be able to exercise. over the years, congress has had different approaches in expanding medicare. in 1992, it makes the decision

voluntary. sometimes they take the voluntary approach, sometime as in 1984, they take the mandatory approach. if the secretary exercised the discretion to say you know what? it really isn't reasonable for you to -- we'll make it voluntary, we'll make that discretionary, that would essentially be converting a 1984 amendment approach to a 1972 amendment approach. and i don't think that's the kind of discretion that the secretary has, with all due respect. justice aleta, your hypothetical adequately captures your effect that the tax dollars are being taken from this tax base. and the federal government would say oh, by the way, if you don't take the option we're giving you, we're going to have the federal subsidy. if you don't take this offer that we're giving you, your tax dollar also fund the other 49

states and you'll get nothing. but this situation is even more coercive, even than your hypothetic hypothetical. so it's as if there's another program for post secondary education that gave them exactly your option, option, and then they also said, you not only not get these funds, but you lose the post secondary funds as well. it's hard to understand tieing the preexisting participation in the program as anything other than coercive. the solacicitor general -- one the things the expansion does, precisably because the expansion is designed to convert medicate to satisfy the requirement of the minimum essential coverage. things that used to be voluntary, will no longer be voluntary. the perfect example is

prescription coverage. it's a big part of what some states provide voluntarily now. it will no longer be mandatory because the federal government has agreed that prescription -- so that option that the state has is being removed by the expansion itself. >> may i ask one question about your bottom line in this case. it sounds to me like everything you said would be to the effect of if congress continued to do things on a voluntary basis, adding these new eligibles and saying to states, you can have it or not, you can preserve the program as it existed before or you can opt into this. but you're not asking the court as relief to say, that's how we cure the constitutional infirmity. we say this has to be on a voluntary basis. instead you're arguing that this whole medicaid addition, the

whole expansion has to be nullify and the entire health care act. instead of having the easy repair. you say that if we accept your position, everything falls. >> well, justice ginsberg, if we can start with the common ground there's a need for repair because this is a coercion document. then we're into remedy. we do take what you prescribe in the remedy. this is coercive and we get the remedy that you suggest in the alternative. let me just finish by saying that i certainly appreciate what the solicitor general says, when you -- but i would respectfully suggest that it's a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not.

and it's a very strange conception of federalism that says that we can simply give the states an offer that they can't refuse and through the spending power which is premised on the notion that congress can do more because it's voluntary, we can force the states to do whatever we tell them to. this is a direct threat to our federalism. >> thank you mr. clement. mr. needler, mr. carvin and mr. long and mr. favre, the case is submitted. >> that wraps up the last of three days of supreme court oral arguments on the health care law. if you missed any of this, it's you available online at c spa cspan.org, we'll also show it again tonight at 8:00 p.m. on cspan2. on our facebook page, we're asking you what justice is having the most influence on the oral arguments, log on and vote

and leave your thoughts. that's facebook.com/cspan. and you'll hear the congressional speeches and rallies on the health care law as well as documents and links at cspan.org/health care. live sunday on in depth, your questions for author and national review senior richard brookheiser, include right time, right place, america's first dynasty. he'll taking your phone calls, e-mails and tweets on sunday's book tv. here's a look at our schedule on cspan 3. next vice president joe biden visits davenport iowa to talk with supporters about

manufacturing jobs and the middle class and then attorney general eric holder testifies on the president's budget request for 2013. and homeland security secretary janet napolitano tries to urge congress to strengthen government computer and private government contractor -- from attacks. on tomorrow morning's washington journal any, senator jeff bingaman will have a debate. and after that, georgia congressman tom price on the republican 2013 budget proposal which the house will vote on tomorrow. washington journal live thursday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on cspan. from earlier today, remarks from vice president joe biden on manufacturing in the middle

class. he also criticizeded republican presidential candidate mitt romney for supporting tax breaks for companies that create jobs overseas. the vice president spoke at pct engineered systems in davenport, iowa, it's 35 minutes. >> r. good afternoon, it's an honor to be here. my name is chuck park and i'm li p manufacturing jobs are still alive and doing well here in america. [ applause ] for 18 years i worked at quad city dye casting. i made parts for gm and ford vehicles, but when the rekregsz hit, the company went under in 2009. i was laid off just like a lot

of other people were around here in the quad cities. for the next six months, my full-time job was looking for a job. i would get up every morning, send out applications and resumes, just continue to look for a job every day. a little more than two years ago, i was hired here at pct engineering as a full-time machinist. now i wake up every morning and i come to work and i make parts for the manufacturers in our industry. [ applause ] in other words i make things that help other folks make things and that is why the manufacturing jobs are so important and that is why president obama and vice president biden understand. [ applause ]

what happens in one stator one city or one plant matters all the way down our supply chain here in america, those jobs that help support our communities, the stores, the shops, the restaurants in which all of us spend our salaries. we're all connected and we're all in this together. [ applause ] the economy is much better now than what it was when i got laid off from the company who chose to close their doors. i see it in the job force here in the quad cities. i see it in my friends and some of them are finally finding work again. some of them took lower paying jobs at the time and now are moving back up into higher positions in the manufacturing industry. i see it here at pct, we're

continuablely getting busier an busier every day. exporting our that we make here at pct all over the world. i take great pride in my work. i take great pride in my job. and i'm honored to be one of the people beyond the products that are probably stamped with made in the usa. [ cheers and applause ] >> i am also honored to introduce someone who respects and fights for the blue collar workers like us. someone who knows how important manufacturing is in the quad cities and country. please join me at this time in welcoming the vice president of the united states, joe bidenp.

[ cheers and applause ] >> hello, everybody, how are you? it's good to be back in davenport, the quad cities. mr. mayor, thank you for flying back from brazil and getting off a plane and coming straight here. if i were you, i would be in bed trying to catch up on my sleep. i want to tell you something, i know i'm back in iowa, when the guy introducing you from the factory floor speaks better than you do. i know i'm back in iowa. incredible state. i understand mayor eldridge is here, and martin o'boyle, terry, thank you for the opportunity of allowing me on the factory floor here, and i understand the chancellor of the community college is here. thank you very much. i'm going to talk about what you guys are doing in a minute.

first of all. as it relates to the story that was just told by chuck reminds me, my dad used to have an expression. he'd say, i mean this sincerely, a guy who had lost jobs, had to move, move his family. he said, joey, you have to understand one thing, a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. it's about your dignity. it's about your respect. it's about your sense of yourself, it's about your place in the community. and too many people have been stripped of their dignity as a consequence of this god awful recession we've inherited. we're determined, i think all of us, republican and democrat are determined to turn that around. but first i want to thank terry, the president of pct and i also want to thank the community college for doing what is a

remarkable thing happening all across the country. for partnering with this great company and producing job. making sure the skills available match the needs. ladies and gentlemen, i come here today with a very, very simple message. manufacturing is back. manufacturing is back. and, folks. it's not only good news for chuck and all the fellow workers here on this factory floor. it's good news for america. it's even better news for america's middle class. they've taken an awful beating over the last decade or more. and what's happened just in the last couple years, 430,000 new manufacturing jobs just since 2010. more than 15,000 new manufacturing jobs here in the state of iowa. the fastest growth in

manufacturing since the '90s. after years of hearing the word outsourcing, our children are going to hear a new word as much as we heard outsourcing, it's called insourcing. because folks, the facts are -- and you're going to see more of them. the facts are, that the jobs that left the united states are coming back to the united states. plants that closed are opening, opening and reinvented. companies like john deer expanding here in davenport, waterloo and des moines, where they added nearly 500 new jobs in the last two years. good paying jobs. siemens wynn employs 4500 people in madison.ri's coming back, it's not a political slogan, it's a reality. and it's happening in the sector that built the middle class, in

manufacturing. look, you know a lot of my republican friends and some who are political opponents, wonder why the president and i have spent so much time working to bring manufacturing back. no one in the heartland has to wonder about that, you all know why. you all kn were the manufacturing center of the world. and you saw what happened whenl. you know that manufacturing jobs just aren't any oldey are good . jobs you can raise a family on. jobs that allow you to own a home and not just oun the promi of being able to send your kid to college. here in iowa, the average nu pays almost $50,000 a year. and they're jobs that matter to everyone, as was mentioned chuck. because they not only are good for america -- good for america, because they make america're jo

products to the future, in industries of the future, for an economy that's able to compete for the future. products like electronic beam systems built here at pct. remarkable. these are jobs building products that export to consumers not just here, but all around the world. expanding rural markets for the united states america, you know about that too. 50% -- all the workers here know, 50% what they produce here at pct engineering are sales that are destined to be exported. that's a big deal. they're jobs that anchor our communities. they're jobs that get the local community moving again. manufacturing jobs. manufacturing jobs create more jobs, other jobs. jobs in diners, hardware stores, schools, police departments. most importantly, they're jobs that can help rebuild the middle class which has been battered

and nobody knows it better than all of you. it matters, because real growth, growth that is widely shared, the only growth that really matters, growth that is widely shared by everyone in this country can only happen when the middle class is growing again. when the middle class is growing, everyone does well. the wealthy do very well, as they should. and those who are not wealthy, have a shot, a ladder, maybe they can climb up to change their circumstance. but the middle class will only grow if we build an economy that can support theclass. manufacturing is not the only part, but it's a critical part to bringing back the middle class. and no one people of iowa who kw the essential role that it's not only manufacturing, look at iowa and agriculture, and the role agriculture plays in the economic health and well with being this nation. that's why the president and i

are so proud, last year, farm exports reached a record high of $37 billion. $23 billion higher than ever before. that's not only good for the economic well being of iowa farmers, but the entire country. and with the new trade agreements, the president negotiated we expect an additional $2.3 billion in the coming years in agricultural products supporting an additional 20,000 jobs here at home. but it's not only the agricultural sector that's going to benefit from these new trade agreeme agreements. we'll create tens of thousands of new jobs because these agreements. and folks, we're not just fighting harder to be able to export our products. they're important, but we're fighting to export complex high-tech services as well. services that america's providing better than any other people in the world. things most people don't think

abo about. things most people don't think about. that they contribute and con contribute unite tens of billions of dollars to our economy, like construction, engineering, health care technology. i.t. we do that better than anyone in the world. we recently signed an agreement after my negotiations with the vice president of china, opening america's automobile insurance industry to the largest automobile market in the world. what does that do? if you have access for american automobile insurance companies to sell insurance which has been blocked up until now in china, to the largest number of folks in the world who drive automobiles, that's real money. that's real jobs. that's real jobs back here at un