be able to think about -- you know, that he is responsible not only for his own country, of course his first concern but he should be all over the world. somebody who is able to think about that and also some added that is able to think was his -- with his own mind and not be too influenced by the different groups financial, lobby groups that are around. >> i think good leadership skills, good people skills, he needs to be smart and friendly. >> can you give us an example of that? >> well, i am 17 so -- from what i have heard, i like

john f. kennedy. >> you are a fourth grade teacher, what do your students think makes a good president? >> well, my students would say no school. i would say a strong sense of leadership honesty in connection with people. now when what they want and representing what this country is about fighting for our rights and making sure we are heard. >> can you give me an example of how the president could show those traits? for example, honesty. >> getting on national television and sharing with us where the world is where political viewpoints are for real not just the political party. i would appreciate more of that. >> who you think has been successful in doing that? >> gosh, not a lot of people. there is a lot of flip-floping

going around. >> integrity is one quality you need. great leadership skills. also probably, honesty. i think being honest is another quality you need in a good president. >> we are hearing honesty as one of the top things. how can the president show that to the american people? >> when you talk about issues that affect the people, you need to be straightforward, give the facts, and be truthful, whether it will hurt us or not. be truthful and then let us make a decision. >> tonight, a former navy seal chuck fapfarrer. >> one of the thing that got me

to read the book, by august, the factors had metastasized into a story where the swat team had shot out for 20, 30 minutes shooting their way through the building, wounding a man and his wife in the bedroom. that did not like -- sound like a seal team mission to me. talking to guys on the scene this was basically over in 120 seconds. quite a different story. >> see his remarks as part of our presidents day lineup. it also includes a debate on whether to prosecute wall street banks. also, hear from wael ghonim,

whose facebook page is credited with starting the egyptian revolution. >> national arts and humanities metal. recipients include al pacino and mel tillis. >> ladies and gentlemen the recipients of the 2011 national medal of arts. [applause]

>> the recipients of the 2011 national humanities metaldal. [applause]

♪ >> ladies and gentlemen the president of the united states and mrs. michelle obama. [applause] >> thank you. hello, everybody. thank you very much. thank you. thank you so much. please, have a seat. thank you so much for joining us in the celebration of the arts

and humanities. . two outstanding servants of the public arts is here. rocco landesman, chairman of the national endowments of the arts. jim leach, where is jim? good to see you, jim -- the chairman of the national endowment for the humanities. we also have two good friends and co-chairs of the president's committee on the arts and the humanities who are here -- margo lions and george stevens. and i also want to acknowledge one of our honorees who unfortunately, could not make it. ever the artist, andré watts had a concert to give in salt lake city. [laughter] so give him a big round of applause in his absence. [applause] michelle and i love this event. this is something we look forward to every single year, because it's a moment when america has a chance to pay

tribute to extraordinary men and women who have excelled in the arts and the humanities and who, along the way, have left an indelible mark on american culture. that's all the honorees we see here today. we honor your talents, we honor your careers, and your remarkable contributions to this country that we love. throughout our history america has advanced not only because of the will of our citizens, not only because of the vision of our leaders or the might of our military. america has also advanced because of paintings and poems stories and songs, the dramas and the dances that provide us comfort and instilled in us confidence, inspired in us a sense of mutual understanding and a calling to always strive

for a more perfect union. emily dickinson wrote, “i dwell in possibility.” "i dwell in possibility." and so does the american spirit. that's who we are as a people. and that's who our honorees are. each of you have traveled a unique path to get here. and your fields represent the full spectrum of the arts and humanities. with us are actors and poets authors, singers philosophers, sculptors, curators, musicians and historians. we even have an economist, which we don't always get on stage. [laughter] but what connects every one of you is that you dwell in possibilities. you create new possibilities for all of us. and that's a special trait. and it assigns you a special task.

because in moments of calm as in moments of crisis -- in times of triumph, as in times of tragedy -- you help guide our growth as a people. the true power of the arts and the humanities is that you speak to everyone. there is not one of us here who hasn't had their beliefs challenged by a writer's eloquence, or their knowledge deepened by a historian's insights, or their sagging spirits lifted by a singer's voice. those are some of the most endearing and memorable moments in our lives. equal to the impact you have on each of us every day as individuals is the impact you have on us as a society. and we are told we're divided as a people, and then suddenly the arts have this power to bring us together and speak to our common condition. recently, i've been reminded of

walt whitman's famous poem “i hear america singing.” and it's a poem that with simple eloquence spotlights our diversity and our spirit of rugged individualism -- the messy, energized, dynamic sense of what it is to be an american. and whitman lifts up the voices of mechanics and carpenters, masons and boatmen shoemakers, wood-cutters, the mother and the young wife at work, “each singing what belongs to him or her, and to none else.” and it's true that we all have songs in our souls that are only ours. we all have a unique part in the story of america. but that story is bigger than any one of us. and it endures because we are all heirs to a fundamental truth -- that out of many, are one -- this incredible

multitude. i hear america singing today. i hear america singing through the artists and the writers that we honor this afternoon the men and women who are following in the footsteps of whitman and hemingway, and souza and armstrong, and eakins and rockwell. but i also hear america singing through the artists and writers who will be sitting here a few decades from now with another president, the students in denver who recently wrote a play about teenage homelessness, or the kids in grand rapids who designed a mural to bring joy to a struggling community. they're singing what whitman called “strong melodious songs.” and somewhere in america the next great writer is wrestling with the first draft of an english paper. [laughter] somewhere the next great actor is mustering up the courage to try out for that school play.

somewhere the next great artist is doodling on their homework. somewhere the next great thinker is asking their teacher, "why not?" they're out there right now dwelling in possibility. so as we honor the icons of today, we also have to champion the icons of tomorrow. they need our support, we need them to succeed. we need them to succeed as much as we need engineers and scientists. we also need artists and scholars. we need them to take the mantle from you, to do their part to disrupt our views and to challenge our presumptions and most of all to stir in us a need to be our better selves. the arts and the humanities do not just reflect america. they shape america. and as long as i am president, i look forward to making sure

they are a priority for this country. [applause] it is now my distinct privilege to present these medals to the award winners who we have here today. and as the citations are read, i'm sure you've gotten extensive instructions from our military aides. [laughter] >> the national medal of arts recipients -- will barnet.

[applause] the 2011 national medal of arts to will barnet for his contributions as an american painter, printmaker, and teacher. widely celebrated for a lifelong exploration of abstraction, expressionism, and geometry that marry sophistication and emotion with beauty and form, mr. barnet has been a constant force in the visual arts world. [applause]

rita dove. [applause] the 2011 national medal of arts to rita dove for her contributions to american letters and her service as poet laureate of the united states from 1993 to 1995. through works that blend beauty lyricism, critique, and politics, ms. dove has illuminated american poetry and literature, and cultivated popular interest in the arts. [applause]

al pacino. [applause] the 2011 national medal of arts to al pacino for his iconic contributions to american film and theater as actor and director. recognized around the world for his signature intensity of the silver screen, mr. pacino stands among america's most accomplished artists. [applause]

emily rauh pulitzer. [applause] the 2011 national medal of arts to emily rauh pulitzer for her contributions as a curator art collector, and philanthropist. the founder of the pulitzer prize for the arts mrs. pulitzer has broadened the impact of the arts in our national life by bringing great works into the public sphere. [applause]

martin puryear. [applause] the 2011 national medal of arts to martin puryear for his reflections on history culture and identity through sculpture. mr. puryear's mastery of wood, stone and metal, and his commitment to manual skill offer a stirring counterpoint to an increasingly digital world. [applause] mel tillis. [applause]

the 2011 national medal of arts to mel tillis for his contributions to country music. with over 1,000 songs and more than 60 albums to his name mr. tillis's unique blend of warmth and humor distinguishes him as one of the most inventive singer-songwriters of his generation. [applause] accepting on behalf of the uso united service organizations sloan gibson. [applause] the 2011 national medal of arts to united service organizations for lifting the spirits of service members and their families through the arts. the uso continues to support

members of our armed forces by bringing iconic american artists to share the sights and sounds of home with troops stationed around the world. [applause] the national humanities medal recipients -- kwame anthony appiah. [applause] the 2011 national humanities medal to kwame anthony appiah for his contributions to philosophy and the pursuit of truth in the contemporary world. dr. appiah's writing within and

beyond his academic discipline sheds light on the idea of the individual in an era of globalization and evolving group identities. [applause] john ashbery. [applause] the 2011 national humanities medal to john ashbery for his contributions to american letters. one of the new york school of poets, his work has profoundly influenced generation of writers and garnered awards spanning the pulitzer prize to the grand prix de biennales

internationales de poésie. [applause] robert darnton. [applause] the 2011 national humanities medal to robert darnton for his commitment to making knowledge accessible to everyone. an eminent cultural historian and librarian, dr. darnton has illuminated the world of enlightenment and revolutionary france, and has pursued his vision for a national library of digitized books. [applause]

andrew delbanco. [applause] the 2011 national humanities medal to andrew delbanco for his insight into the american character, past and present. in writing that spans the literature of melville and emerson to contemporary issues in higher education, he has continually informed our understanding of what is means to live in america. [applause] accepting on behalf of national history day, cathy gorn.

[applause] the 2011 national humanities medal to national history day for sparking passion for history in students across our country. every year national history day inspires more than half a million young americans to write, perform, research and document the human story. [applause] charles rosen. [applause]

the 2011 national humanities medal to charles rosen for his contributions as a pianist and a scholar. demonstrating a rare ability to join artistry to the history of culture and ideas, his writings on classical composers and the romantic tradition highlight how music evolves and remains a vibrant, living art. [applause] teofilo f. ruiz. [applause]

the 2011 national humanities medal to teofilo f. ruiz for his outstanding scholarship in history. an accomplished teacher and author, dr. ruiz has captivated students and scholars by deepening our knowledge of medieval spain and europe, and exploring the role terror has played in society for centuries. [applause] ramón saldívar. [applause] the 2011 national humanities medal to ramón saldívar for his bold exploration of identity along the border separating the united states and mexico. in his studies of chicano literature and the development of the novel in europe and america, dr. saldívar

highlights the cultural and literary markings that divide and unite us. [applause] amartya sen. [applause] the 2011 national humanities medal to amartya sen for his insights into the causes of poverty, famine, and injustice. by applying philosophical thinking to questions of policy, he has changed how standards of living are measured and increased our understanding of how to fight hunger. [applause]

>> let's give a big hand to our award winners today. [applause] well, we are just blessed to have this incredible array of talent and inspiration with us here today. we are so glad we had the opportunity to make this small gesture of appreciation and thanks to all that you have contributed to us. each and every day you continue to inform who we are as a people, and we could not be

prouder of everything that you've done, and we know you've got a lot more to do, so keep at it. in the meantime, for everybody who is gathered here today we have a wonderful reception. so please enjoy. the food is usually pretty good around here. [laughter] the music is even better. i think the marine band will probably be out there playing a few tunes. and again, we are very thankful to all the honorees here today for everything that you've done for our country. congratulations. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seats as president obama, the first lady and the recipients to exit the building. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> pictures of the washington monument on this president's day. it is the first federal holiday to honor an american citizen and was of a burden on washington possible october stay in 1796. while it is still officially known as washington's birthday, it has become presidents day, honoring both president washington and lincoln as well as all others. martin van buren was the first to be a native-born u.s. citizen. prior to him, all of the president's were born as british subjects. this president's day, a former new york gov. eliot spitzer joins the debate on whether to prosecute wall street banks for mortgage fraud. >> you almost hate to bring up occupy wall street, but there was a sign down there that was actually accurate. it said, we will know corporations are people when

texas executes one. [laughter] the problem we have right now is we have given corporations all the upside but none of the downside. we have given them all of the rights and privileges that we extend to individuals but when it comes to holding them accountable, because of the diffusion of responsibility, the layers and bovvers built-in by lawyers, accountants investment bankers, all in good faith, it is difficult to ascribe criminal intent. so justice on the financial side, you keep the upside, we guarantee you too big to fail on the downside. in the criminal context, you do bad things, we do not have a way of holding you responsible. >> see his remarks as part of our prime-time lineup. wael ghonim, whose facebook page

is widely believed to have inspired the egyptian revolution. >> president and the presidency have featured prominently in c- span programming throughout the years. as the nation celebrates president's day, there are some of resources we have that can help you learn more about each president. we put together a special page on our video library at cspanvideo.org. the link is located on the right side of the library home page. you can see all the different resources we have to help you learn more about the president's, starting with a series we produced in 1999, called the american presidents, life portraits. this includes links to at the time the 42 presidents we profiled individual programs, as well as a page of specially commissioned presidential portraits by chaz fagen.

we also have a link to programs with interviews with the authors of presidential biographies. also on the page is a link to a series of programs where we visited the 13 visit -- different presidential libraries. recently, we produced a series of programs that profile 14 man that ran for president but did not win. the series is called "the contenders" and we have a website where you can watch each of the 14 programs. we have also put together a link of more than 400 different c- span programs throughout the years that deal with the president or presidency. if you are interested in this year's campaign for the white house, you can visit our campaign 2012 web site as well. all of the links we have shown are available at csp

anvideo.org. >> can look now at the affordable health care act. the va attorneys debated the issue at the national press club. the supreme court hears oral arguments next month in two cases challenging the law saying it is unconstitutional to require americans to buy insurance. >> welcome to the national press club news makers series. the national press club is the leading organization for journalists. i am bob weener, today's event coordinator and the news makers committee member. today, two outstanding and prominent state attorneys general, martha coakley and ken cuccinelli, will lead a national press club news makers. the affordable health care club act as a prelude to the supreme court decision of the law.

ken cuccinelli brings personal experience with the state legislation and national leadership concerning the federal health care lawsuit. martha coakley has the knowledge of the massachusetts legislation and will discuss it -- state and federal law. cuccinelli filed the first lawsuit against the affordable health care act before 26 other state attorneys generals. while coakley is the expert in her home state's some called romney-care legal basis and how does and does not serve precedent for the federal law that followed. coakley also filed a lawsuit. reelected to her second term as attorney general in 2010, martha coakley has devoted her career to protecting children and public safety, standing up for consumers and taxpayers and fighting for equality, prosecuting dangerous criminals.

she has recently been appointed to the president's national fraud enforcement task force and today has a separate announcement. ken cuccinelli was elected attorney general of virginia and sworn into office january 2010. prior to serving as attorney general, he served in the senate of virginia from 2002 until january 2010. as a senator and private attorney, he were to improve the mental health system and has been a champion for citizen property rights. he may government more transparent and accountable by putting the state's budget on line in a format that citizens could understand. mr. cuccinelli is proud to perform -- protect consumers from fraud take sexual predators out of the community and put gang members in jail,

prosecuting meditated fraud. like ms. coakley cuccinelli has often talked about her higher for va office, but that is not today subject. the attorneys generals have been invited to discuss several facets of the cases the supreme court is taking up, including the health care mandate general where prayer aspect of the expansion of medicare, severability and other areas. the supreme court is considering for three days of consideration this 5.5 hours of debate and because of the june decision so the press club event today will be a timely preamble. we did not call for today a debate, but that is what it is with these two attorneys generals on opposing sides. the difference is, after the opening presentations the media will have at them, and we will try to keep the questioning fair. please, on the media and press club members ask questions until and unless those run out, and we

will see what happens in the hour. we hope this will serve as a primer for the media and public and what the supreme court may consider as arguments for and against the bill and its provisions. many thanks to the staffs of both attorney-general for their company's liaison and follow- through in every today's event. as a former white house congressional staffer i appreciate your work. i also want to introduce my wife pat who helped with your web site, as the event staffer today. specifically with ms. coakley, meghan, christopher they have been great. mr. cuccinelli, sarah noah, they have all been fantastic. i want to thank ron for his support of our events, and the

chair of our organization. they are marvelous in our support of the series to inform the public. from my team, i want to introduce rich. he is our chief liaison. jamie did a lot of work in calling the press. harry brooks, a lifetime friend. we were at each other's weddings, from new england new service. we are ready to go. in terms of questions what we will do is, after each attorney general makes their 15-minute presentation, we will go to questions. come to the podium. rebecca will get the names and the dedications of people as they come. this will be set up as the microphone for audience. c-span requested that there be sound, instead of the faint, do

not hear-kind of question as he usually have on television. we will lead off with ms. coakley. >> thank you. great to see you. i appreciate the opportunity. i think this will be more fun than arguing in front of the supreme court. we have to be good because i only have 15 minutes. i look forward to questions. thank you bob, for your invitation to the press club today to join me in this lively debate about health care reform and the supreme court's consideration of the constitutionality. i cannot imagine two better attorneys general to do this. because i'm from massachusetts, he is from virginia, i will be the john adams to thomas jefferson. our states were involved in writing the constitution, and we happen to have a different view on this, but i think we will be

good representatives of those different views. before i highlight why i believe, and why i believe the supreme court will find the patient protection and affordable care act as we refer to as theaca aca as constitutional and individual mandates. i want to talk about what we have been up to relative to health care. u.s. supreme court justice louis brandeis said a single courageous state may if it's state citizens choose, serve as a laboratory to try novel social and economic experience -- experiments without risk to the country. the massachusetts experiment in health care reform has been recognized as a smaller version but clearly a prototype of what the a ca -- aca is.

i would suggest -- and i want to talk about how it has been more successful than scary -- access cost, quality. insuring two of those three is easy but all three? not so much. this has been and still is our challenge and gold, and is a work in progress, no doubt about that. but that demonstrates, rather than proving that what massachusetts has done is a risk to the country massachusetts has a test laboratory has a lot to offer. i want you to come back to me, circa 2004, 2006. that was the year or reform law was passed. mitt romney was the governor of massachusetts, and yes he had a massachusetts license plate although we believe the new hampshire license plate that says live free or die is more to his liking. we were confronted with a health-care cost crisis. the rate of the uninsured was

somewhere between 10% and 12%. but the cost of caring for uninsured people topped $1 billion. the rate of increase was on a spiral that seemed unsustainable -- that was unsustainable. we also had a free rider problem. we all know there is no free lunch, no such thing as a free lunch. there is no such thing as a free rider, because somebody pays. helping people were opting out of coverage altogether or only getting it when they knew they would need coverage. that is skewed the risk pool and also drove up premiums for everyone else in massachusetts. the so-called free care of 8% to 10% a year, the escalation of our health insurance premiums, threatened to cripple our system. in massachusetts, there was a broad coalition of stakeholders that wanted to solve the

problem. that included political leaders from both sides of the table. if you remember the picture of the signing, there was governor romney with senator ted kennedy. we had our labor unions and business hospitals and health insurers not for profits and for profits, and business and consumer groups ready to say this is a problem we all have an interest in tackling, and we are going to do it. the importance of this coalition cannot be understated in solving this problem, and particularly the support of the boston chamber of commerce. it is important to know we purposely did this in two stages. we will get everybody covered first, and then we will tackle cost. the second phase of that is still ongoing. happy to answer questions about this. i am limited to 15 minutes. it is important to understand what our for merck was and what we were able to accomplish. four pieces of the bill that are

important that you will recognize. we demanded individual responsibility in the form of the individual mandate. this was a massachusetts parallel to the aca individual mandate. it is the feature that seems to inspire the most of them about the aca. in 2006, it looked like a pretty good way to keep government out of health care. how soon we forget, only six years ago. it is also notable that governor romney at the time not only felt that that individual mandate was constitutional he believed it was good public policy. many of us still think it is. secondly we demanded employer responsibility based on the size of the business. if you had a 11 or fewer employees, certain things kick in, more than 11, certain responsibilities. we expanded our subsidized coverage for our reports to residents. that is how we started to fill in the uninsured gap. expand insurance for those who

could not afford it, and those who could afford it, would buy it. finally, we established our own exchange to implement our common law connector. as we consider the legal issues and principal legal issue of whether congress had a rational basis to enact the aca and individual mandate, we do not need to do that in a vacuum. we can see from the experience in massachusetts there is strong support for congress's rational basis and their tours to require an individual mandate. we have achieved a dramatic increase in access to health coverage. we have the highest access rate in health care in the u.s., with over 90% of our residents in church. the national rate is about 15 points lower. -- 98% of our residents injured.

$300 million 33% less than we were spending in 2006. we have seen improved quality of care. significantly, fewer adults report on that health needs to to cost. for instance, dental care. there has been a great reduction in the emergency room care. we all agree are emergency rooms is an inefficient and expensive way to provide primary care. we have cut that because of what we did in massachusetts. and insurance premiums have fallen dramatically for individuals in the non group market in massachusetts. the individual premiums grew 14% nationally from 2006 until 2009, but our style. that is significant. as we address other cost issues and we have that coalition that i speak about we are looking at transparency and market disruption and prevention to bring costs down. we are doing that successfully

in massachusetts. with five years of experience and these results massachusetts is uniquely positioned to speak to the actual economic effects of a comprehensive reform that includes an individual mandate. as for the constitutionality of that i believe it is not even a close call. i believe under commerce clause analysis or especially under the necessary and proper " clause analysis, the supreme court's can and should uphold the aca. the only way for the supreme court to invalidate the mandate under the commerce clause is to reverse at least 70 years of clear precedent. congress, of course, as recently as 2005, stated congress can regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. that is the third prong the one we agreed this comes under. it is for congress, not the courts to determine whether

"activities taken in the aggregate substantially affect interstate commerce." the courts task is only to determine if congress had a rational basis for that conclusion in passing this bill. congress has given prompt resumption. it is not just a polite nicety that there is a rational basis for a bill they passed. and it is not just a scary looked to massachusetts. the court's long-held the business of insurance was within the commerce clause authority. secondly the power to regulate commerce regulates even practices affecting commerce. even though it does not unlamented that reaches pretty broad, it has been upheld for 70 years. established back in 1942 considered former marie kilbourne when you think this should be upheld. that center around the right of congress. under congress clause authority to manage the participation of

one individual farmer in the national wheat market. that case, and cases following set legal precedent for the past 70 years. they have been cited by the supreme court, including members of this court, to uphold the authority of congress to regulate and national marketplace. in health care, every person in the u.s. has or will be involved in health care marketplace services. in 2009 alone over 80% of people in the united states were treated in our healthcare system. someone has to pay for that health care. the free rider may not be paying but he is sure riding along. how are they any different from pharma kilbourne? they are not. even though a free rider may have a de minimus of fact, they add up, and that the national health care markets. congress has an interest and ability to require free riders to purchase coverage in a way that is necessary and proper for

the marketplace. unless you are prepared to say the case should be overturned, and all cases following, the aca is constitutional. my colleague will say that in activity -- he is wrong and you not have to listen to me. if you listen to the analysis and decision by two conservative justices, one appointed by reagan and another president bush they both sound reject this analysis as being irrelevant to whether congress had commerce clause authority. rather they talk about behavior in the marketplace rather than activity or an activity. my colleague also believes this is an invasion of a liberty interest. i respectfully disagree with that. he believes this is the equivalent of forcing people to buy a particular car. it is the equivalent of requiring people to have a car and drive a car to buy car

insurance if you want to use that analogy. no one has suggested requiring the purchase of car insurance if you are driving a car is unconstitutional. congress had a rational basis for concluding that free riding by individuals had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and that of reducing or eliminating free riding was a help for regulation of the healthcare market as a whole. even if you do not want to include it in the commerce clause -- and i believe the court can and should -- do have a tough argument to say it is not constitutional under the necessary and proper clause. that clearly supports an individual mandate. it is a requirement to mandate many aspects of the aca not only banning discrimination in health care based on status. in other markets the individual mandate is a way to make sure those elements of the statute can be affection with it. congress found a man it was

essential to creating perspective help ensure its markets in which improved health insurance products that are guaranteed or sold to not exclude coverage of pre-existing conditions. that determination places the individual mandate squarely within congress's authority under the necessary and proper clause. in conclusion, there are very real and important policy decisions over health care reform. we have had those in massachusetts. we do not always agree on them, and this discussion and -- should and will continue in this country, but these are policy discussions, not questions of constitutionality. and discussions should be carried out in legislatures, the press, and manifest did in elections. not every policy agreement deserves to be a constitutional challenge. wouldn't it be more productive to put our energy into tackling the problem of health care cost and quality? congress has made a decision.

those decisions are squarely within its authority. i hope the supreme court will see this debate and through that lens but i suggest to you if it does not, it would make the score the most activist interventionist court in a long time. i look forward to my colleague mr. cuccinelli's remarks and i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you, and the national press club for hosting us. i am pleased to be here with attorney general coakley, and all of you. this is a critically important question for our country that we are facing here in the next few months, and that the supreme court will deal with directly at the end of march. we will hear from them by the end of june about their conclusion. this legislation relates to health care and health

insurance. the litigation relates to liberty. there is a distinction. the federal health care bill necessitates the dramatic destruction of liberty in this country. we are focusing today on the individual mandate that all of us must by government-approved health insurance. however, in the last three weeks, we have seen more evidence of the necessity for the implementation of this legislation that liberty be crushed, and that is the hhs mandate to all institutions of pay, that regardless of their hundreds of years of history in this country of the government leaving them to practice their faith consistent with their conscience this bill does not allow for that. it should surprise no one even

as shocking as that is, given the invasion of liberty that this bill this test tapes. i would also note, -- necessitates. i would also note, the litigation going on is an example of federalism and action. we are familiar with the separation of powers between the judicial executive and legislative branches, which the founders set up to keep the government from becoming too powerful to tyrannical. it is an internal check. federalism is what i think of as a vertical check between the government and states, and it is two ways. it is built in the form of tension. what you see with the states suing the federal government is an attempt to check the government overstepping the boundaries of the constitution. that system of federalism was set up to preserve the very liberties that the government was founded, and that we broke

away from great britain to establish. over to protect the constitution on the federal government. that is what the founders had in mind when they're outside of the constitution. he walks right through that, right through what that is part of the goal with the federalist system put in place. -- it was the first state to bring suit and the first state to get a ruling that the mandate was on constitutional. our argument is that the government can regulate commerce. however, they cannot command you into commerce. they cannot compel you into

commerce. the government has never, ever under the guise compel americans to buy a product or service. that has never happened in our history. we have these questions and hasn't been a case like this before the supreme court because the government has never attempted to exercise a power like this before. we look back to determine what were the intended parameters of the commerce clause. what do they intend the government to do and what did they intend to block it from doing. the colonial period the lead up prior to the american revolutionary war. we were boycotting british goods. that was heavily entrenched in

virginia and massachusetts and continued up to the war. many of the royal governors as well as officials on the other side of the atlantic wrestled with whether or not that boycott was treason or not. a very significant question particularly if you were a boy cotcotter. the conclusion was that it was not treason. in some respects it came up close to the line but it was not treason. that is an acknowledgement that the colonists rebelled against that they cannot compel us to buy a product or a set of products. but we have a president who believes he can.

that is how historic week on president at the exercise of power is. it is not analogous to any other existing case that the supreme court has seen before. the congress could have taxed americans to achieve their policy goals in this bill. medicare is a great example of this. thtey tax us all is what the supreme court views this as. they take that money in and spend it on health care. but they did not have the political will to passed the monster of a tax that would be necessary to pay for the federal health-care legislation and the implementation. the political will to not exist to pass that tax.

so they look for a gimmick. go back to a computer and google up president obama george stephanopoulos it is not a tax. the interview in which the president says this is not a tax increase. all my opponents say everything is a tax increase. we filed suit. he sent his lawyers into court and said, this is a tax. really? judges have asked counsel for the federal government -- what am i supposed to do, council come with the fact that your side argued this is not a tax and now you walk into court concern that you will lose on the commerce clause and say it

is a tax. there is no good answer to that. commerce at another way to achieve the policy goals. they chose to set up a legislative gimmick that is outside the constitution. it is an attempt to compel people into commerce so they can regulate them. read it the commerce clause. the government regulate commerce that already exists. it has other a former powers like raising an army out of nothing. that is why the draft is a constitutional. the individual mandate is not constitutional. when he was running for president, the president

commenting about hillary clinton's health care mandate he said if things were that easy, i could mandate everybody buy a house and that would solve the problem of homelessness. it does not. he noted that is not a power to the government. he and his lawyers now say otherwise. your decision, your thoughts to do nothing, you take no activity at all, it is regulable under the commerce clause as economic activity. this is what shows up in the commerce clause cases since the new deal. there are four primary cases. two have been onewon by the bigger

government side. that notion of regulating economic activity runs to all the case law. if deciding to do nothing -- the decision is your decision not to buy something. if that is eight regulable act that is a regulation of inactivity. thought, yes. activity no. there is nothing they cannot regulate under the commerce clause. the constitution set up a government of limited authority. people as close by as professor tuleyrley of george washington university a constitutional scholar who predicted the

government would win said that federalism will be dead. make no mistake about the consequences. the federal government has never identified a constitutional boundary for their power if the individual mandate is constitutional. that is why this case is about liberty, not health care. if you can be ordered to buy a car, asparagus, a gym membership -- the examples the judge came up with. if they order you to buy a car it will be a gm car. i know will be eight chevy equinoxes -- it will be a chevy

equinox. i own a chevy equinox. that is not the way government has ever worked. if they can order you to buy this product they can order you to buy any product. former filburn grew 23 acres of wheat, not 11. he fed the other 12 acres of wheat to his hog. that was true his demand for wheat from for market's-- that withdrew his demand for wheat from the market. he engaged in activity that affected the market. in this case, you were doing nothing.

the commerce clause reaches very far today. once you engage in anything commercial, chances are very high that the commerce clause will reach you. it has not been used to compel you into commerce. this is unprecedented. the limited government states to prevail in this case, this requires not the change of one bit of supreme court law. we are within wicker v filburn. this requires a radical expansion of federal power under the commerce clause. the ability to compel americans into commerce is a dramatic expansion of the power the

federal government currently has under the commerce clause. there are three bases for jurisdiction. this is an area the congress can legislate. both sides agree that we are under the third of the three bases and that is that activities that affect interstate commerce may be regulated under the commerce clause. it is debatable on the supreme court whether that basis for jurisdiction should even exist. both sides agreed that that is the one we are under in this case. it requires activities. not future activities. someday you'll get health care. on that day, your activity may be regulated.

once you've entered congress -- this is a hard area because health care is so personal to people and we want to see the system improve. no improvement would be worth the sacrifice of the liberties that so many americans and died for over the history of this country and that the founders of this country worked so spectacularly well to establish especially the ones from virginia. but we have a lot of history represent it in our states, our commonwealths. james madison was the primary author of what we're now debating. there's a reason to read his portions of the federalist papers. we're arguing about the outreach

of the foundational power of the federal government and its exercise in a way that has never happened before. the comment about behavior in the marketplace, i would suggest brings you right back to the notion of having activities to regulate rather than being able to compel the activities. she used the example although insurance. medicare and social security's are covered by taxing and spending for the general welfare. auto insurance is a power that the states have. the states may compel the purchase of health insurance. we have a 10th amendment. we have limited the powers. the state's command you to

purchase of auto insurance as a condition of the privilege of having a driver's license or driving on our roads. that is a state exercise of power. there are many misconceptions like that. i want to thank the national press club and i think this kind of constructive discussion is a very beneficial to americans and to america. thank you for being here to participate. >> rich, could you set up the stand mike? people can comment identify themselves. let me lead off the questioning. you both made outstanding presentations for and against the mandate. what still needs to be addressed is the provisions of the bill

and the question if the court were -- you can respond to what mr. cuccinelli said. if the court were to separate the mandate from the provision and allow that, and now you have a situation where you have millions of kids covered under parents plan already and they are thrilled about that. you have seniors who are thrilled that there don't hall is being squashed and they are paying less for prescription drugs. you have no caps and oversight of the insurance companies. 85% of the premiums have to go to benefits. we have the doubling of insurance premiums every 10 years. you have some provisions. the american people are thrilled

with the specific provisions but they have questions on the mandate and the concept of the bill. so you have a split personality by the american people. should the court allow several abilitability? >> i think that so far the courts have ruled that it is severable. i think there would have to be a response to find other ways to pay for the other pieces of the bill that people do want and are important for health care. that issue will be addressed and i think it will be upheld. let me address one thing that kinden said.

he said as long as you're no longer in the health-care marketplace, we cannot regulate you. if you never are brought to a doctor ever, i do not concede that is correct. for those people over 80% of people in 2009 use some kind of health care. everybody is in the health-care marketplace. if you agree with me on that you can be regulated if use health care. it is the congress' authority to regulate the market. that's how it is paid for. i think that is pretty clear. you have to get it out of the

box of commerce clause. he tries to make that argument. it is about how people pay for health coare that they receive. regulating the marketplace of providing for an paying for health care is within the congressional power. >> why don't we both just a stay up here? >> if you have time on your hand and read to the briefing, you could look from the motion to dismiss. the attempt by government to take the case out. we do that as attorney generals. the second round is on the merits. the government came in and said this mandate is critical and we

cannot live without ait. by the time we got to the summary judgment face, they realize that that language to bring the whole thing down when we got to the remedy if the individual mandate was found to be unconstitutional. they still try to backtracked. martha just said this is about financing of health care. realize what that means when you get to the remedy. if we prevail -- the private sector health care reforms which have to fall because they cannot stand without the individual mandate. i would suggest that what martha just said is that because it is

about health care financing the elements about medicare and medicaid in the bill must also go. the third rate to slice eight is everything else -- the third way. including the individual mandate. bob walked through some of the polling. this was on popular when it passed and they got less popular afterwards. that is unprecedented here. the way the grand selling of achievements of this bill will occur is by the denial of your liberty and choice. you'll start to hear about the ipab that will start to decide.

these are what some people have called the death panels. that might be a big dramatic. i see where the name comes from. that will be how those cost savings ocher the denial of opportunity for care that we now have. i've tried to solve some problems in my state. it is still the best in the world. we will do a lot to undo that if this legislation stands. >> can i just respond? the people we're talking about who you say we cannot regulate are exactly the people who don't have those choices because they do not have health care insurance.

their only option is to go to an emergency hospital room. i think we're talking about a section of people who did not have coverage or choices and that is one goal of congress. and people who can afford it but decide to self-insure. but when have they could-be, they cannot pay for it -- but one they have a catastrophe they cannot pay for it. let's not mix of policy decisions. can congress do this? i know you do not like it. >> let's go to media questions. come up and identify yourselves. sort of stand in new line and

identify your outlet. >> money ms. russell -- my name is russell. you argued that the individual mandate is necessary to achieve congress's goal of universal coverage. there are single payer groups and doctors across the country who believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it is not necessary and that a single payer system could have achieved it. how do you counter that argument? >> that is a fair question. we could have done a single payer system. that was governor romney's arguments. we will make sure the people pay

for their health care and we will do this in a responsible way. you can have a policy argument about how we pay for this. should it be like medicare? congress made this decision partly because they decided it would make sense. our people in massachusetts are happy with our bill. it was that argument -- there was not an argument that we cannot do wiit. still of the authority to do this. the federal government cannot do this. if we're talking about the goals, making sure we sustain the cost, these are goals that

congress can attend to the chief. states want this because we have citizens and residents who go between states and we end up paying for their care. and so i think that the idea that congress can do this is separate from the policy discussion about whether there would be a better way to do it. >> we're drifting between policy and law. the question is not a policy question of whether congress has this authority. martha just what the federal government in with the states as far as the authority to do this. states were left with distinct areas of authority.

police powers or the residual powers that were not delegated to the federal government in the constitution and those remain with the states. they will be if not eliminated nearly eliminated if this case is lost. if i can or you to buy a product to resolve my problem, i can figure my way through that problem just by compelling you to do things. >> we have christian from kaiser health news. others can come on up. >> address the constitutionality of the medicaid expansion. >> this is a good question. the question is whether or not

what amounts to coercion and the argument is that it is coercion, that the medicaid expansion is so significant a burden on the state. whether the expansion is so large as to amount to coercion of the state's. they make extricate themselves and thereby give up several billion dollars of federal funding. the supreme court in the 1980's ruled against a portion argument as it related to transportation dollars where the dollars or about 5% of the state transportation budget. they said it is possible that

the federal government may reach a point using the spending power that amounts to unconstitutional portion of the states. the case includes that question. the supreme court has never found their to be unconstitutional portion of the states based on the strings the government attaches to the spending power. if this case isn't the want for that conclusion then the last 30 years or so of the discussion of that topic has been an academic exercise initiated by the supreme court. i did not think we will have a case that pits the bill -- fits the bill. that is the other constitutional

question before the acccourt. they have never found it yet. >> is the expansion a problem for congress or one that the court should get into? >> i thing thatken ken has answered the question anyway factual question. it is an issue of the relationship between federalism and with the states do. all the states except medicaid money -- all of the state'ss accept medicaid money. what is the actual burden? if that theory is out there i disagree that this is the case for it.

the idea of carrots rather than sticks is something that congress can do. it has been upheld. i do think that would be a requirement of states who argue that to make that factual case. this is a factual issue. >> jimmy lewis, a freelance. he made the argument that we're in the market and if we show up at the hospital door, there is a requirement under the law to treat people. if the extraction of one individual from the general marketplace of demand, how would you respond to the requirement to provide care and how that is not separable under the filburn case and supply of that

care is required by law? >> you have partially answered that question. if you're a medical provider and you get federal dollars, if they come to your door, you must at least screen them and determine emergency treatment or transfer or do nothing, but not before that screening to determine their need. that is a federal law coring you into that position -- cornering you. that denies reality to a certain extent. i'm standing in front of you. i'm not buying anything or ordering anything. there are other things we need. for instance food.

the asparagus example. usually we go back and forth between asparagus and broccoli. it is neck and neck. other things are necessities of life. transportation housing. the example of the president used himself when he was campaigning. those are all other examples. using one of federal law to trap you to say, we're stuck here -- that is a non sequitur that the federal government has put in place. it does not address whether they can compel you when you choose to do nothing.

the law ultimately is force. that is how government governs. the compliance of the citizens. >> if you don't get coverage, then you pay a penalty for it. you have a choice in that respect. i think ken's answer -- we're done this already. we do pay for those people. that is a fact of life. we do not leave people at the emergency room door. it is so expensive. using emergency room care it is incredibly inefficient and expensive. that is one reason why our free care costs have gone down 30%

since we implemented it. the argument that people have a right to stay in our homes and say, i'm not buying the policy. that's not what this is about. it is making sure that people have it funded and pay for inappropriate way, necessary and appropriate. >> if i can use that as an example. that entire, it was a policy argument. the entire argument for the other side in the health-care case is a policy argument. these are good policy goals and so this is constitutional. that is not the way the constitution has been set up. note -- the disconnect on the

pro-government side, between the constitutionality and the history of the provisions at stake and the argument be made for this power, they are policy arguments. there is no constitutional boundary to any of those arguments as heartfelt as they are. >> i take that as ken's vote for a strong public option. >> the tax question. what i would like to address is that issue. what is the tax basis for the bill? is it a parallel to a tax?

you can lead with that. >> this is a radical question actually. if the government can compel you to do what ever -- forget commerce -- and then penalize you for not doing in it and defend that act they can or you to do anything. anything. that has to stand separately under the taxing power. this is a radical notion. only one judge out of the 16 that have addressed it has decided that he would find it under the taxing power. that defied my prediction. i am off by one so far.

i will stick to that prediction among the justices. i don't think a single justice will find this to be an exercise of the taxing power. >> i would agree with that for different reasons. most of the justices have said it is unconstitutional under the commerce clause. the ability to argue alternative reasons that congress is entitled to do something. we do it for medicare and social security and for income tax. federal government and the state government does that all the time. i think it is less controversial. ken said it wanted to do, they

should have done under the taxing authority. is this under the commerce clause something we can accept? i think courts will take it outup. >> i have one last question. >> go back to one filed in 2010 and looked at the next month's press coverage. it was all on the commerce clause. gradually as the other side figured out their presumption of victory began to fall away, they began to get desperate and look for other arguments. it starts to cropped up up in mid- april, this fallback argument. it tells you they lost their argument in their own commerce

clause arguments. the statements on the other side are grandly confident. i would not wager anything this will be 5-4, one way or the other. the lineup of justices may not be as predictable as you thing. -- as you think. i think it will be a close case. it should not be a close case. it is a slam dunk against the federal government. we will see how plays out. >> that is an interesting question. it's the politics of the court -- is that the bases that this will be ruled on or do you think

it will rise to the patriotism of the situation? interesting question. >> i would like to think so. i will not predict what the numbers will be. i'll be surprised if it is not withheld. they have upheld similar series. for many of the justices who do not like the mandate, i think they will be hard pressed best upon their theory of the constitution in ways they have decided these kind of cases. but i'm prepared to wait to see what they saidy. >> we talk about judges and presidents who appoint them. judges and justices tend to be closer to the world view of the presidents that appointment

then to the other side. that doesn't tell you where people are going to wind up. that will be the case at the supreme court level. i think it is a possibility. i don't think you'll see anything that runs along party lines by way of a pointersppointors. whenthere is andn't a dummy up there. it is -- the fact of the designated five and half hours of argument tells me how significant they believe this case is and just how dramatic a

ruling is for the constitution. >> you would agree that you cannot draw from the questions they ask where they are going. >> i would agree with that. >> final question from mike fishman. >> this is directed to the attorney-general cuccinelli. you argued that compelling people into commerce unless and until the seek purposes. my understanding of insurance is the premium is not something you pay to get a product at the time you buy ait. you get it in case you need it sometime down the line. it could be argued that every citizen of the united states is already in commerce with the health care system because there

is the potential need for that. the health-care system is there to meet the needs that might arise -- >> not yet inco commerce. >> if they are prepared to use that system. if somebody has a heart attack and they don't have health insurance, they will count on the local emergency room to go to it unless they were willing to waive never using that health care system during their whole lifetime. nobody would ever ask anybody to do that. they count on the availability of health care system should some emergency arise. therefore the fact that the potential is there the health- care premium pays for a

potential need that nobody would ask them to waive their right to. >> both of our guests will answer. and if he could turn them into concluding comments. >> we can regulate you. i would draw your attention to a judge in the district of columbia who ruled for the federal government and what she said was the mental activity was being regulated, that was her phrase of those deciding not to buy health care. the synonym for that is the lo ought. i'm not comfortable with that. that would make a great george orwell sequel. if your assertion is correct

the supreme court except that as what defines the market for purposes of this case, then i think you're probably right and the government will be granted this power that it has never before had or exercise to compel people to buy this product. you could have made the same argument for food. where does it and? end? clothing transportation. my colleague distinguish between the two and that is a legitimate distinction. those are questions the supreme court will wrestle with. the historical power that this power has never before been exercised and it goes well beyond wicker v philburn.

i urge you to read the case. we are not regulating under this bill people who are doing nothing. that has never happened before in american history. >> i think you're exactly right and you have pinpoint what the reality of the marketplace is and how we fund it and expect to pay for it. somebody pays for it. you cannot expect to go to the emergency room and say i have $15,000, $20,000. whatever it would cost. we do not want you to do that. a national health care marketplace. it is constitutional, i believe.

i believe the court will find the it is constitutional. i appreciate my colleague's walk back into history. i think you can look at massachusetts. john adams played a role in the constitution. i know the commerce clause is different. when you look at the authority the goal that the commerce clause allows for. i don't think there is any question that the analysis behind forarmer philburn encompasses this activity. it will be up to judges who have more experience than ken and i. i appreciate this opportunity.

this is what our country allows for. i would say that to allow for this kind of debate in the congress and in our own communities to make sure that people have access to good health care and that we can cut costs on that is tan important debate. >> we thank our talented and prominent attorneys general and now we know why you are among the leaders in the nation in your field. the press club expresses its deep gratitude to attorney- general cuccinelli and attorney general coakley and we hope the american people are informed about what the debate will be for five and half hours in the supreme court. thank you for attending and we are now concluded.

>> coming up on c-span nobel peace prize recipients talk about women. that will be tfall by the economic effects of colleges. then plans to improve education for minorities -- that will be followed. we celebrate presidents' day. we have some interesting facts. diderot's about was the youngest president -- theodore roosevelt was the youngest president, and

ronald reagan was the oldest upon leaving office. >> you want somebody in there that is on a career politician. somebody who cares about what they are doing for the people. >> i think understanding how people try to live in this country. we are not unified. we are divided in the sense of our thoughts. we need someone to applause bridge those differences. >> how can a president do that? >> primarily he needs to listen and bring about people that can make those bridges. a good president would know the people that can do that.

>> honest and hard-working. there will try to make things better. >> how old are you? >> i am 10. >> humility, integrity generosity, and a sense of humor. >> how do you think a president can show a sense of integrity? >> thankfully not being corrupt or having done anything in his past. we scrutinize them so much. if a president ever flicked a cigarette butt -- we forget they are human and they may have done things in the past. i think their record by their point -- they have to be a 35 and obama is the youngest.

most of the time they are in the 40's or 50's or older and they need to show a track record that they have done things with integrity and that there are not skeltonetons in their closet. i felt most of the people that are running -- i hope that most of the people that are running into have integrity and a true feeling of wanted to give back to the community. >> tonight here from google's wael ghonin. >> i know this doesn't make sense to a lot of people. that is how i see things. working for google that does

mass scale projects online makes a difference. i remember the interview about what i want to work for google. the food -- what i liked about google -- offering people information. people living near do not understand the diet that we have equal access to information. in a present regimes, most of the people would get streams of propaganda flowing into their brain. >> see his remarks as part of our prime-time lineup. it includes a former navy seal on the killing of osama bin laden. it all begins tonight at 8:00

p.m. eastern on c-span. a panel of women from across africa and the middle east gathered at harvard university to talk about their experiences as women piece builders and freedom fighters. the moderator of the panel was swanee hunt. here is that discussion. [applause] >> it is a pleasure to be here. we have been able to bring extraordinary women from all around the world who are working in conflict zones. we would be here -- we would not be here without this crowd and you are the results of the work of the institute of politics and the center for human rights, the

woman and public policy program the center for public leadership. i want to say a thank you for each of those groups for being part and for being co-sponsors share. you enjoyed the title "why women won the nobel peace prize." i'm in the entourage of the president who was one of the three winners and she is a graduate of the kennedy school. she was there with a member from liberia. it was so interesting to think what they chose to put liberians as well as a yemeni representative of arab spring. i think it was the statement they were making about change beginning at the top and bottom

and how you have to have a coming from both directions. there is a fabulous grass-roots organizer type. sitting there it was so exciting being in this gorgeous room in the city. what did you say? the city hall, thank you. i'm 61 years old. if you think that is back, wait till you asked me the name of someone, like my children. here are the words that we heard coming from the nobel committee. they were giving these woman the prize for their work but also for the nonviolent struggle. then they said to ensure women's

rights to full participation in peace building work. that is an important policy statement. you are talking about changing the security paradigm. security means bombs and bullets in most people's minds. if you have a large participation of women -- the peace process does not simply mean negotiation. it means street protests and all kinds of social media now to try to prevent a war or bring down a dictator. having the transitional justice after a war or the tribunal or the truth and reconciliation commission or having simply an honest government instead of a corrupt government, which can lead right back into war again. how do you get woman to get

fully involved in all of that? you have to have the policy makers who are willing to make a stand. president obama has done just that. he signed an executive order which launches a u.s. national action plan on women peace and security. he calls this a comprehensive road map for accelerating and institutionalizing efforts across the united states government to advance women's participation in making and keeping peace. there are a lot of countries that are doing this. this is not like we're leading the charge. but at least we're coming through and doing our part. secretary clinton on the day that this was launched --

forgive me for reading this. it is too important tonot to. they focused discussion on human rights justice and economic renewal that are critical to making peace but are often overlooked in formal negotiation. they build coalitions and they speak up for other marginalized groups. it is important that the woman are there not just represent their own points of view of the other groups. they help foster compromise. they galvanized opiate and helped change the course of history -- the galvanized opinion