g to be. not only do you have the entrepreneur who doesn't know, the but the banker doesn't know so you dent know if he can lend money to that -- but he doesn't know if he can lend money to that entrepreneur. mr. griffin: i have heart story after story from smalltown bankers, community bankers who say that not only are they deciding not to loan to folks based on character, based on relationship, but they're being told they can't. they're being told they can't. they are community banks, the sources of credit, the source of money for smalltown america are being told who they can and cannot lend to, their judgment's being taken away from them and say, look, you don't have to decide, we're going to regulate that, we'll tell you who you can

loan to and who you can't loan to, never mind the fact that you've known them for 20, 30, 40 years, generation after generation, we're going to control this from washington. this president talks about his financial reform bill going after wall street. actually the folks on wall street backed it. . what it ended up doing is hurting the folks that had nothing to do with the financial collapse in the first place. smalltown community banks got the brunt of a lot of this because the big banks can afford it, the small banks cannot. what the president's bill did, it ignored fannie mae and familiar, the problems and then it went after banks, made wall

street happy in many ways, many of them got on board and endorsed it and who took the burden? smalltown banks. and i yield back. mr. griffith: main street didn't back it and main street had problems. and i know personally about this because as a young lawyer right out of law school, i took risks and i went to the bank and they didn't work with me on buying a building but one of my community banks said we know as long as you are alive you will pay this loan even if business isn't good. we have known you since you were a kid and we know that you are going to be there and do things. without that money, i dare say that i wouldn't have had a successful law practice in 28 years.

if you are a sole practitioner as i was, you have to make the payroll and pay your loans and do the things you have to do. guess what's happening. right now, that loan wouldn't be made to me. another young man and wanted to go out and practice on his own wouldn't be allowed to do that under the current regulatory scheme and that job plus the jobs of all the people i had working for me in that office as i went forward with my practice. so you're absolutely right in what you say. and i have to get back to your regulatory freeze for jobs act. i have said for some time, if we put a freeze on new regulations and say to the american entrepreneur, the business people out there, if you invest in the united states now, we will give you a window where you don't have to worry about any new regulations and turn this economy around like that and see the unemployment rate not just

drop by point one or point two and see it drop below six percent if people knew they could count on having not know regulation but reasonable regulation. and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. griffin: i know we are running short on time. but i want to say to the folks listening out there wherever you may be, these are not new ideas. some of the ideas you have heard tonight on tax reform, energy reform, energy exploration, investing in infrastructure, these are not ideas that just came up this week. you may ask yourself why haven't we passed these a long time ago, why haven't we worked on this before, why are we just talking

about it now. we have been for over a year. for over a year, we have been working on these issues. many of these ideas we have passed. let's take tax reform. we talked about that in our budget over a year ago or be a year, i guess, in april. regulatory reform. i can't count the number of bills, not including mine -- i just introduced mine, but we have passed bill after bill after bill that deal with regulatory reform. what about energy exploration? i literally can't count the number of bills that we've passed that deal with energy splorings, particularly the -- exploration. if there is any softening on the position of the keystone xl

pipeline, you can bet it's because we have been relentless in this house, relentless in this house, pushing the president, pushing the president to allow for the construction of that pipeline. we have a long way to go, but we'll keep pushing. on the budget and living within our means, we have been fighting our battle. none of this is brand spanking new, a lot of these ideas we have been fighting for for over a year and we'll continue to, but we've got to keep talking about it. what's happened after we have passed them? a significant number, about 0 or so, passed this -- about 30 or so passed this house and go right down to the other side of the building and they sit in the senate. many of us grew up in the 1970's and saw the cartoon "schoolhouse

rock" mr. bilirakis: sitting on capitol hill on the steps out here somewhere and the cartoon taught me the fundamentals of our democracy, how a bill becomes law. passes this house and what happens? has to go down to the senate. unfortunately, they haven't passed a budget in the senate in over 1,000 days, so you can bet, they haven't passed our bill either. so we have addressed a lot of this stuff. and we will keep talking about it and keep pushing and keep pushing. but a lot of it is sitting right down there in the senate waiting for action, going nowhere. so if you're wondering what's happened to these ideas, that's where we are. and we are continuing to work on them here and continuing to pressure the president and the

senate to work with us to get this stuff done because these pillars, tax reform, regulatory reform, energy exploration, getting the federal government to live within its means and having a commonsense budget, as part of that addressing our infrastructure issues, all of those together, they all relate to jobs. we'll keep fighting for jobs. and i yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from mississippi, my good friend, the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker.

these are the best of times and some ways, the worst of times. our freedoms are under assault and some people in places of leadership do not appreciate the threat to our freedoms and therefore, assisting those who are taking them away. we know that in recent days, in afghanistan, we had some soldiers who were given the responsibility to burn korans, which were being used by prisoners to write messages of

an nature to other prisoners. it's my understanding of shria law that to write in such a koran could be considered a december creation -- desecration. yet there has been snow outrage over prisoners using the koran to pass inflam tower messages to other prisoners. and we've also seen the death of americans as a result, two officers, along with others, have been killed and injured. our commander in chief has seen fit to apologize to those who

are house the killers of our two american officers. when i think about the feelings of those family members of the two american officers who were serving, to have a commander not do as lincoln and so many other commanders have done in the past, where they have sent those troubling letters to grieving families to thank them for their service and to truly grieve with the families. no, in this case, the commander in chief sent messages instead to the home of the killers.

we are led to believe by some internationally that, gee, just overwhelmed the killer of the two officers. but then we hear that he may have taken a excellencer with him to work -- a silencer with him to work. where i come from, courts where i have been to prosecute, my court as a judge, my league end as a chief justice, that would be considered evidence of premeditation. of first degree murder. and yet we apologize to those who think like the murderer. i haven't heard a demand for an

apology from afghanistan and from the leaders of afghanistan who would not be in office but for the lives and sacrifice of american soldiers. they wouldn't be there, but for american soldiers. yet no apology from afghanistan. so i think we have to look a little deeper what is really going on here. we know within the united states it's been deemed to be just fine to stick a cross that symbolizes the death and sacrifice of jesus

christ in a beeker of urine. some of us believe that if anybody did such a thing without repenting before they leave this life will have a special price to pay by the judge of all judges, by that same creator that gave us our inalienable rights. but not only was that done, it was funded by the united states government. . we have been told repeatedly that there's nothing unconstitutional about burning an american flag. that flag for which so many millions of americans have given the last full pressure -- measure of devotion. we're told that it doesn't

violate our constitution to burn american bibles. that there's just fine. under our constitution -- that there's just -- that that's just fine. under our constitution. yet we even have great americans who have risked their life for this country who see the death and loss of lives and say, you know what? maybe we ought to have a law that says you can't burn a koran or you can't shoot at a koran. some may recall that in may, may 22 of 2008, there was a u.s. soldier that shot at a koran and that sparked unrest and there was -- there were two civilians and a lithuanian that were killed as a result of that. some people may remember last year when a pastor in florida burned a koran, sparked rioting,

11 were killed including seven u.n. workers. what's really going on here? well, i think it's important to look back to the organization of islamic -- what used to be islamic conference, now has been changed to islamic cooperation, and we can find some things. i've got a chart here to show. this is from the third extraordinary session of the islamic summit. it outlines the 10-year program of action to meet the challenges

facing the muslim in the 21st century and this is the islamic summit conference results and it's important to note that the term islamaphobia was invented for just such occasions to try to demonize americans or so-called westerners who might try to say there's such a thing as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, who would seek to subs gate our first amendment rights -- sub jew gate our first amendment -- subjugate our first amendment rights to the islamic conference, their rules and shari'a law. and the plan, the 10-year plan from december of 2005, the plan

is, here number two, affirm the need to counter islamaphobia through the establishment of an observatory at the o.i.c., general secretary, to monitor all forms of islamaphobia, issue an annual report thereon and ensure cooperation with the relevant governmental and nongovernmental organizations in order to counter islamaphobia. also to endeavor to have the united nations adopt an international resolution to counter islamaphobia and call upon all states to enact laws to counter it including deterrent punishments. that's right. this is in compliance with the 10-year plan from 2005 to subjugate americans' first amendment rights under our constitution to shari'a law.

it's not a terribly complicated effort. but it is brutal, it's cost so many lives. all in an effort to not only show disdain for actions of westerners regarding the koran but also to push to get the u.n. and all states such as the united states to adopt laws to punish any, what shari'a would consider, inappropriate use or abuse of a koran. i happen to think as a christian it's terribly inappropriate to abuse a koran. i would encourage people not to

do so. i would likewise say that it is a terrible thing to abuse a bible and to abuse a flag. it shouldn't be done. but as a service member, prosecutor, judge, chief justice, i took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states and that means all rights under our constitution. so just so people don't forget, i think it is appropriate to remember what's in the first amendment. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or bridging the

freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people peaceably -- to peaceable assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. we're supposed to have the right to freedom of speech. the supreme court has sad that means you can burn a flag, you can burn a bible, you can burn a koran. but there is a movement in all 57 states, that's right, 57, states of the o.i.c. to get the u.n. and all countries to subjugate their freedoms to shari'a law. so sure it's ok to burn a bible and a flag, that's fine, but not a koran.

it's wrong to do so but it's not illegal. we're told as of today that the taliban says the airport blast in afghanistan was revenge for koran burnings. this article today points out that 40 people have been killed in protests and related attacks since the incident became known this past tuesday, including four u.s. soldiers. nato, france, britain, the u.s. have pulled their advisors from afghan ministries out of concern that the antiforeigner anger might erupt again. after all we've done. but it's not over. these people feel they still must subjugate our first amendment rights to shari'a law.

first amendment should be pretty clear. and it should be noted that until the 1950's when linden johnson basically got tired of churches yapping at him over what they deemed moral issues, he shut them up by having an additional provision added to the tax laws that basically for bade any church or such organization from getting involved in politics. my children were surprised based on what they'd been taught in public school that for most of this country's history churches were the bedrock, churches were involved in every great movement that occurred, both in the revolution, in the civil right it's movement -- rights movement that resulted in abolition of slavery, in the civil rights

movement of the 1950's and 1960's, les we forget martin luther king jr. was an ordained christian minister. he knew and espoused the true way, truth and light. well, the cairo declaration on human rights in islam was established in 1990 and so when we hear about the calls for human rights under shari'a law, it is important to understand what that means.

this is from the cairo declaration on human rights in islam, from august of 1990. article 24 says, all the rights and freedoms stipulated in this declaration are subject to the islamic shari'a. article 25, the lace am shari'a is the only -- the islamic shari'a is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this declaration. that's what we're talking about. when the term human rights are utilized, it's important for people to understand that under this declaration of human rights that is system being forded today and thrust at us, it's important to note that those are considered human rights only under the definition of shari'a. so, when we're told about the

o.i.c. believing in pushing human rights, that means no one has the right to desecrate a koran in any way, although they can burp bibles and american flags all they -- burn bibles and american flags all day long. it means no one has the freedom of speech to draw a cartoon about muhammad because if they do they have the human right to be executed. if someone is a muslim and they pronounce that jesus christ has become their lord, then they have the human right to be executed. if someone is a woman testifying

under the laws of shari'a, she has the right to have her testimony only count as half of that of a man. under these terms if a woman inherits from a male she has the human right to receive just 1/2 of the inheritance that a man would. under shari'a, as to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them first, and last beat them. so, if a husband is displeased with his wife, the woman has the human right to be beaten. this goes on and on. i'm surprised that the women's

rights movement have not been more assertive in pointing out the inequalities that occur in countries that espouse shari'a and the threat that it poses to women's rights all over the world and in america. under shari'a, to bring a claim of rape, a muslim woman must present four male muslim witnesses in good standing. islam places the burden of avoiding elicit sexual encounter entirely on the woman. in effect, under shari'a, women who bring a claim of rape without being able to produce four male muslim witnesses admitting -- they're admitting to having had elicit sex, if she or the man is married, this amounts to an admission of adultery and she should be

punishedment some believe stoned to death -- punished. some believe stoned to death. at a minimum flogged. if she is raped and can't produce four men of muslim good standing on her behalf. she has the human right to be flogged or in some eyes to be stoned to death. those are sayi get out of afghanistan now. actually, we could have done that a long time ago if a different course had been pursued. it is not inappropriate to note that in so many circumstances, the enemy of our enemy should be considered our friend. i've met our backers, steve

king, met twice with northern alliance leaders. and although these brave leaders and their soldiers, their horse soldiers with some intelligence and special ops, individuals have indicated have performed acts of heroism and gallantry as they have never seen before on their behalf and on behalf of america. the taliban was initially defeated, people forget, when we initially had less than 200 and no more than 1,500 special ops and intelligence just embedded in the northern alliance, assisting them as the enemy tft taliban. our friends, the northern

alliance, they're muslims, muslim friends, but they did not want the intolerance of the taliban and were willing to pay any price, just as the founders were to prevent having the taliban take them over and as they had done before, burned films, burned art, dictate to the women, the northern alliance helped us by basically being the people that defeated the taliban, who provided them the arms to do it, who provided them the aerial support, and they did it. we disarmed them. we have nothing to worry about it. we added over 100,000 troops and became occupiers and we tried to nation build and gave them a constitution that provides for

shria law. where is the apology to afghan christians for us getting them a constitution that does not permit public churches? the last christian church in afghanistan has closed. the last account i have seen, there is one acknowledged jewish person living in afghanistan. now, there's intolerance. we have a $12.5 billion government in afghanistan, that's their budget, and they provide about $1.5 billion of their own. you know what happens to that government when we pull out? that's why the taliban is telling people, even on afghan television, we are going to be in charge as soon as the u.s. pulls out. there are ways to deal with this issue and if you just look at

the map, you get a good idea what we're talking about. during a recent trip to afghanistan and meeting with the people -- let's first look at the map itself. afghanistan, pakistan, iran, india. now before 1948, this area in here was the arbitrary lines that were drawn -- this used to be the area. and as a recent recent editorial pointed out, most of pakistan's natural resources come from this area. as people have advised us in

afghanistan when i was over there recently, the taliban are being supported by supplies, arms -- they're getting their support from southern pakistan into southern afghanistan. they're coming through the area. they don't want that. they're our friends. they want to be our friends. they have been wonderful friends. they have been terrorized by the pakistani government for decades and we have stood by and didn't seem to care -- the world has. well, perhaps it is time to recognize an independent area where we would have a friend who would not keep supplying the enemy of america, those people that helped train and prepare for 9/11, to kill as many

thousands of americans as they could. we don't want to leave afghanistan in the hands of the taliban and all the american life and treasure be for nothing. but there is an easy answer. we empower the enemy of our enemy, the northern alliance and the beluj people, let them take care of their own area. let them prevent the taliban from taking over. let them prevent pakistan from becoming such a focused enemy as they have, unabated. let them worry. india wants to be our friend. if we look at the area of pakistan -- well, this shows the different major ethnic groups.

pink is the beluj people. green is the pashtun and only a tiny percentage of those people make up the taliban. virtually all of the taliban is made up of pashtun and they come over here into pakistan. and then we have the yellow is the sunni. northern alliance is up here. you have a number of different groups up there, including u sbeks and these are the people who do not want the taliban to take over. they are the enemy of our enemy, and that's where we can do some real good.

it's time to support -- to stop the support of those who would take away our first amendment rights. this is from cnn may 20, 2009, military personnel burned confiscated bibles that were printed in the two most common afghan languages amid concern that they would try to convert afghans said a state spokesman said tuesday. they were con physician indicated because military rules forbid troops from talking about religions. american troops and civilians in the muslim nation. why would it endanger civilians if they had the rights that americans say we're fighting for? why?

the burning bibles, the american military did back in 2009, i was given this bible by my aunt and told it was provided in world war ii by my uncle and says the lord be with you. and inside the front cover, it says, as commander in chief, i take pleasure in commending the reading of the bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the united states throughout the centuries, many have faced have found in the sacred book words of wisdom, counsel and wisdom and it is a if the of strength and attaining the highest aspiration. signed by president franklin d. roosevelt. it wasn't signed by president obama. it was signed by president

roosevelt and given to our soldiers. mr. speaker, in conclusion, let me just say if the president takes more action to demean the american rights and eliminate our own rights, then it's time for the president to apologize, not to afghanistan, but to the american people. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair would entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. gohmert: i move we move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is adopted.

michigan and arizona hold republican presidential primaries on friday. republicans and democratic congressman from michigan about tomorrow's primary, the general election in november and the legislative agenda. republican jeff flake, he will also talk about the presidential election and his campaign for the senate. and about the obama administration plan for school

vending machines. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. in a few moments, at a briefing on the unrest and violence in afghanistan. in a little bit more than a half-hour, mitt romney and rick santorum get ready for the primaries in michigan. and then the president obama talks about education. >> bobby jindal it is ready to reveal his budget for the fiscal year. a budget $900 million in the red. cloudy and 37 degrees at the airport. you are listening to the news and radio station. >> this weekend, book tv and

american history tv explore the history of shreveport, louisiana. barry on the union army's failure in louisiana. "1 dam blunder from beginning to end." we will look at the collection from the shreveport archives. and a walk through the shreveport enclosure city. on american history tv, sunday at 5:00 eastern, we look at the 9/11 and theon history of the b-52 bomber. from the pioneer heritage center, medical treatment during the civil war. shreveport, louisiana, this weekend on c-span2 and c-span3. >> a pentagon spokesman says that the frequency of protests

in afghanistan is dropping. the investigation of a koran burning on a u.s. base continues. there is no time line for allowing nato officials back into the building. this is a little bit more than a half-hour. >> good morning. i will open with a few remarks on afghanistan. since we learned that forces and mishandled the religious materials including behold koran, political leaders including the secretary of defense and the commander of international security assistance force in afghanistan moved quickly and forcefully to apologize for this incident. both american and afghan leaders

have met with leaders over the last several days to enlist support in conveying that message. many in afghanistan have been killed or wounded as a result of violence. extremists have killed four americans including two officers within the confines of the afghan interior ministry. these are tough losses. it demonstrates that we will experience challenges during the course of this campaign. let me be clear. secretary panetta and dempsey are committed to our strategy in afghanistan. they believe that we have achieved significant progress in slowing the taliban's momentum. they believe that the fundamentals of our strategy remain sound. we will not lead recent events

allow us to lose sight towards our objectives including defeating al qaeda and its terrorist allies and denying its ability to maintain a safe haven in afghanistan. we are unwavering in our commitment to achieving the transition to afghan security along the timeline agreed to at lisbon. we join joinkarzai -- president karzai and other leaders that have called to the end for the protests. and then the hard work and sacrifice of the afghan security forces -- we commend it the hard work of the sect -- and sacrifice of the afghan security

forces. further bloodshed serves neither the coalition or the afghan people who are falling victim to violence. our relationship with our afghan partners remain strong. we continue to strengthen the mutual trust between isap and the government of afghanistan as well as afghan forces and civilians. every day, our forces together with our afghan partners face a brutal enemy. there are 30,000 afghan security forces defending their own country. they are paring with isap forces on operations. they need to build trust and mutual respect despite recent incidents. we know that the spirit of

americans, coalition, an afghan forces will be tested throughout the campaign in afghanistan. anyone who believes they can weaken our resolve through these cowardly attacks is severely mistaken. let me repeat that. anybody who believes day cash weaken our resolve is mistaken. our coalition will emerge from these attacks far stronger and able to provide security for the afghan people. there is much at stake in afghanistan. in our commitment to our strategy will not waver. with that, i will be happy to take your questions on less the captain has any further comments. -- unless the captain has any further comment. >> no thanks. i thought that you cover that

pretty well. >> with respect to the general's decision to move all of advisers from the ministries, what must happen before they go back into the partnership? you said the fundamentals of the strategy remains sound. some of the fundamentals are the partnership and the trust, which seems to have deteriorated to put it mildly. is this business as usual to have the strategy without any reconsideration? >> appropriate security for isap personnel, that is something that we constantly work on. we continue to fight alongside our afghan and isap partners. the mission continues. the mission is to continue to

fight the enemy. we are trying to ensure a better future for the afghan people. nothing that has happened this last week will deter us from this goal. we have made progress. we have put the enemy on its heels across the country. that does not mean that there is not work to be done. let's not let the events from the last week steer us away from the reality that we have made significant progress. we have updates from kabul. >> thanks, george. general allen has made it clear that the advisers will go back into the ministry's when he is ready for them to go back. he has not put a deadline or a time line on that. he is in discussion every day with the ministry of defense on

what to do to improve security in the ministries so that he can get to that point. i would not want to go into any specifics on that. you want to preserve a little bit of your protection measures. he is not ready to have the advisers go back. this is temporary. he made it clear yesterday in meetings. he wants the work to go on. advisers are remaining in contact with their counterparts in the ministry. the work is continuing. they are just not physically at the ministry buildings. >> without taking any additional measures about pausing or departnering without the personnel as a protection measure.

how canisap staff feel confident that they are not vulnerable to attack by the very people that they are protecting? >> great question. when we talk about green on blue incidents, it is a challenge we are dealing with all of the time. general allan and urged them to be vigilant. he made it clear that operations must continue. we just wrapped up an operation today. a 3 or 4 day operation. over 900 afghan national security troops were part of this operation. nearly half of the troops that participated. it was what they called a

spoiling attack. they wanted to get ahead of any spring offensive by the enemy down south. they did a tremendous work together. over 200 pounds of homemade explosives captured 53 pressure plates. they inspected over 5000 vehicles over 2 districts. that is just one example. partnering continues. the training of afghan national security forces. everybody is going to be more vigilant. that is the right thing to do. >> capt. kirby, please give me your best assessment of what is going on on the ground. how widespread are these

protests? how dangerous is the atmosphere awha? t, if any additional steps are you doing to protect americans and civilians? >> right now, all that has been done in kabul, nothing has changed over the last few days. the advisers are not in the ministries. movement is restricted. especially anything outside the green zone. obviously, i would be less than honest if i did not say that t is wereense in kabul . they are. we had protests.

a great number of them were violent. yesterday, all the nine protests. they were not throughout the country. there were four in the north, four in the east and only one out west. only two of the three were about the koran issue. one was about land use. none were violent. there has been a call by religious leaders and president karzai for calm. we are starting to see the results of that effort to exercise restraint. >> could you give us the status of the investigation of themurders of the 2 u.s. officers within the ministry. why has the perpetrator not been caught?

>> i am not going to speak to what the afghan ministries are saying or not saying. this just happened. the investigation is just now under way. the afghans are investigating it as well. we are working with them on it. the killer fled. there is an active search to find him. believe me, what happened the other day as everybody's attention and sharp focus. to the larger point. george said this well, as

tragic as that was, and a shock to the system. everybody wants to continue the mission and get back to work. that is what we are focused on. >> can you tell us where things stand in reviewing the entire afghan strategy? you have the post-surge strategy. everybody was getting together this week to look things over. when are we going to get the report from analysts? with everything that has gone on this week, how has that changed the planning? >> we are thinking of the long view. in terms of the troop draw downs, no decisions have been

made. we will consult with our isap partners. we believe it is important to sustain the progress we have made. the fundamentals of the strategy remains sound. we are not going to let the events of the past week which are regrettable -- regrettable and unfortunate and tragic influence the long view we are taking with our partnership in afghanistan. >> to go back to the original question, is, in fact, trust, strained right now between the u.s. and afghanistan? where is it strange? can you trust them? this as well. i will offer my perspective. when we learned of the incidents last week involving the sacred text of the koran, we took immediate steps to apologize to

the afghan government. when our officers were killed over the weekend that -- afghan officials apologized to the secretary and others. they pledged to take immediate steps to curtail violence in the country. the measure of trust in a rush of like this, and it is a strong partnership with the government of afghanistan, is when something like this happens, when we have tragic events, how quickly do we respond? we have taken responsibility for what we have done over the past week. the afghans have taken responsibility as well. i think that was a key measure of trust. we are going to continue to work together. we will continue to work in ways to further the partnership. i think that is the essential ingredient. john, do you have anything to add?

>> no, george. i think that is right. trust and confidence are the keys to coalition warfare. there is going to be issues. there is going to be tension. there is going to be some disagreements. as we have seen throughout, there will be some very dreadful, regrettable, lethal incidents. but i can tell you, at the leadership level, everybody here is focused on maintaining that trust and confidence and continuing to work together. it has been in daily contact between general allen and his counterparts in the afghan government. >> do believe the government did and not to stop the violence in the initial day? and as we all sit here today, could leon panetta walking to the ministry of defense in kabul and be safe without protection?

>> we believe that afghan officials clearly understand that the violence threat the country -- they have pledged to us that they do recognize that issue. they're taking steps -- let me finish, if i can. >> following the initial outbreak of violence. >> feel free to weigh on this. we were in partnership after the koran incident. we believe they are committed. we look forward to seeing violence abate in the coming days.

i'm sorry, john, do you have anything to add? >> no, george, nothing to add. >> i want to go back to the incident of the minister of interior. are you 100 percent sure that the issue is related to the koran issue? and you think that senior afghan officers could be involved in this incident? >> the answer to both of your question is, quite honestly, we do not know. we do not know what the motivation was behind the murders.

frankly, she was able to get out as quickly and easily as she did. we just do not have that level of detail. >> a couple more questions. >> can you update us on the status of the investigation into the koran burning itself? has anyone been placed on leave pending the outcome of the investigation? and where is that? we were told last week there would be some preliminary results within 24 hours or something. we have not heard much about that. and what was the decision making about, calling advisers from the ministry in kabul and around, what is the distinction there and why you think advisers around the country are sick?

>> john, do you want to take that question? >> on the status of the investigation, it is ongoing. it is not yet complete. i would be a load to get to a specific deadline here, but i can tell they're working very hard on this. the work is going on and they are working very hard at it. i just cannot have a better feel for it beyond that. the other question, this was such a very specific -- they saw what we knew at the time and

the hours after. the most prudent thing to do was to get everybody back inside of the compound. we did not have any indication that the threat was anywhere other than in kabul. he also, and i made this clear earlier, that he made clear to all the regional commands that they need to take whatever measures they felt they needed based on the committee -- based on the conditions on the ground and what they were. without getting into the cells of what everyone did or did not do, i can take it took that guidance to heart. >> can you tell us if those forced measures included separating armed afghan security forces from u.s. forces and any of those areas?

also, could you give us an update on this food tampering business this morning? was it intentional to poison u.s. forces there? >> to your first question, as i said, we just concluded a successful operation. we are still out there in very connecticut operations. as i said earlier, partner operations and training continues today. we are investigating this right now. i do not have all the facts. there could have been some tampering of the food.

they immediately closed the facility. the food did find high levels of chlorine in the coffee and on some fruit. what we do not know right now, and again, this is why the team is looking into it, if this was a deliberate act to poison or whether it was just an inadvertent mistake using more clorox in the cleaning process than they should have. we just do not know right now. >> do any of the commanders, particularly at the upper levels, considering the levels of last week, consider u.s.

forces in the field, a fighting side-by-side with armed afghans, at greater risk today than they were one week ago? >> again, i would not want to speak for operational commanders that i have not spoken to. what i can tell you is that all of the r.c. commanders are continuing operations every day. it is not just the field operations. it is the process of transition training. they all outlined their ongoing efforts. they take whatever measures the team approach prepared it affects the mission itself.

>> it is hard to escape the conclusion that the wheels are coming off a little bit here. since last week, we have the border still close with pakistan. understanding you are focused on the taliban, the relationship with partners is in crisis. i think that is fair to say. are you ruling out any changes in adjustments to strategy? are those under consideration? or are you saying it is business as usual? >> on the long view here, and to take stock of what has happened. there has been no shift in the strategy. our strategies are always

evolving. they tend to be living. that is what we recognize. there has been no fundamental change. >> have there been any changes to the way that advisory and partnering are taking place other than what is happening with the ministry? >> i will throw that to capt. kirby. >> none that i am aware of. but, again, i do not have my finger on each r.c. command. the guidance he gave was that they needed to be vigilant and

take whatever appropriate measures they needed to take. he did not order them to change the mission or the strategy. as i said, it was a very successful operation down south. i am not aware of any operational changes as a result of this. again, i am not in contact with each of the r.c. commanders. i cannot speak to individual details, the daily operations. i will tell you, in general, across the country, everything is continuing. the mission does continue. the affect is largely and almost solely felt here in kabul, specifically with the advisory mission to the ministries. >> i think everyone wants to ask a question should get one in. >> ok. all right. we will take one or two more.

>> john, you talked a lot about the situation being tense. you talked about control's going down. i want to ask what this says about counter insurgency. we spent 10 years trying to win hearts and minds in afghanistan. the fact we're at this point and that afghans are not accepting the u.s. apology. the afghans that i have talked to say they call this an attack on faith. what do you say to those that suggest that the mission to win hearts and minds and has failed. >> well, a couple of things, nancy. you said 10 years. and yes, we have been there 10 years. but you know, as well, it has only been a strategy in the last couple of years. i think it would be wrong to try to extrapolate from the events of the last few days.

some sort of broader declaration about the failure or gaps in the strategy. these events are troubling and worries some. they have everybody's attention. tensions are high in cobble right now -- kabul right now. the number of protesters just since saturday dropped from what we estimate was 11,000 total to roughly 4000 out of 3.5 million afghans. i cannot speak to each and every individual afghan about how they feel about this. as george said, we recognize that our forces mishandled the holy koran. we apologize for that. it certainly is not emblematic of how we respect the religion of islam.

i think it is really making a lead appeared to try to extrapolate from what has been happening in the last week for so to some sort of failure in the strategy in general. the mission continues. that mission essentially is a counter insurgency strategy and we are still productive. >> quick one here. did general allen or any other commanders there, leaders, reach out to president obama asking him or suggesting to him that he should apologize to the president as he eventually did? >> the decision to apologize was the president's. general allen supported that decision. >> just a couple more now.

>> in the nato video released, after the second and third deaths, they urged troops not to take revenge. from your perspective on the ground in afghanistan, are these killings having an affect on troops' morale? what is being done to make sure that morale does not degrade? >> well, general allen was very clear with the troops about the need to continue on and to not let this affect the relationships that they are building with security forces. it would be hard to speak to every person here in afghanistan and how they feel about this. i can tell you-the force is that the work is really important.

we want to continue it. i contend that many of the advisers i've spoken to here just in the last day and a half have said, and uniformly to me, that they want to get back out there. they have important work to do. they are doing it remotely, obviously, right now. that will happen. it will happen in due course. >> we will wrap it up. >> following up on the earlier questions about the difference between the security situation in kabul and elsewhere. what does that say about what you know but the security situation in kabul? is there a group there that is suspected? what in kabul is unique? >> well, again, what started the pullback was this murder inside the ministry building in a secure space.

i think it was a prudent thing to pull back there. again, i say it again. things are still tense tense in kabul. there is a peaceful protest with no violence whatsoever. >> thank you everyone. appreciate it. take care. >> in a few moments, mitt romney and rick santorum campaign for tomorrow's primary election in michigan. president obama talks with the

nation's governors about education. several live events to tell you about tomorrow. environmental protection agency administrator lisa jackson testifying before a house energy subcommittee. that is at 10:00. at 2:00 eastern, secretary of state hillary clinton will take questions about her part of the budget from members of the senate foreign relations committee. michigan and arizona hold their presidential primaries tomorrow. gop candidate mitt romney campaign late today just north of detroit. this is a little more than 20 minutes. >> thank you. what a welcome, thank you so much.

[applause] you touched our hearts, thank you so much. what an honor to have the governor introduced me. to have this young lady here with me. she and i went to elementary school together. she was in second grade, i was in fourth grade. i did not notice her. when she was almost 16, i noticed. she went to a party at a friend's house and she came with somebody else. i look to that guy and i said, i live closer than you do. can i give for a ride home? he said, yes. we have been going steady ever since. [applause] >> this is wonderful. i cannot see your faces very well because of the lights. it is wonderful to be in

michigan. we grow up here. i tell people -- i was -- i had a little pink transistor radio. i walked all around the listening to tiger baseball. we love michigan. we are michigan and. and born. -- bred and born. when mitt is the president of the united states, i guess what state we will carry about. we will be partners with this governor over here and we will help bring -- [applause] we will help bring michigan back. we love michigan.

i spent my summers climbing at the sleeping bear at the difference and swimming and lake michigan. i have known this guy a long time. we have five sons together, 16 grandchildren. when i was a young mom, he was so wonderful to make sure i knew my job was more important than his. i appreciated that. i have the feeling his next job will be more important than mine. [applause] everything he has done, he has done a with excellence, integrity, and success in everything he has done. in business, they turned to him to turn things around. in the olympics, they asked him to turn things around. in the state of massachusetts, he does not borrow money and does not raise taxes.

that is what we need to have happen in washington. i am ready for some sanity to be brought back to washington. i cannot wait to see this guy do it. [applause] >> she is amazing. i should to stop right there. i really appreciate your willingness to be here tonight. i know he will make a difference tomorrow. i need you to vote, at least once. get out there and vote tomorrow. this is a race about the nature of america. what kind of america we will have for ourselves and leave to our kids. we have a president who has been making some promises. he said he would cut the deficit in half. he doubled its. if we let him borrow $787 billion comment he would hold unemployment below 8%. it has not been below 8% since.

he said he would cut taxes for middle-income americans. had he seen those taxes? -- have you seen those taxes? we have a president who is out of ideas and out of excuses. in 2012, we will get 10 out of office. [applause] -- we will get him out of office. the course he would take and the course i would take could not be more different. he just gave a state of the union address. he did not mention the deficit, even as nations in europe are in peril. if i am president of the united states, i will cut spending and i will finally balance the budget. i will do it -- i will do what your governor is doing. i will take programs and

eliminate them. is this program so critical is worth of borrowing money from china to pay for it? if not, i will get rid of it. the first thing i will get rid of is obamacare. [applause] i am also going to work to get jobs in america. there are a lot of things you can do. lower all regulatory burden. he has ratted -- he has added regulations 2.5 times his predecessor. one of the things you have to do is get taxes down. particularly for small business. [applause] i do not know whether you know this or not, but there are a lot of businesses that are not taxed as big corporations. their tax like individuals. the taxes of the business are the individual tax rate. he has proposed raising the top

individual tax rate from 35% of to 40%. that will kill jobs. that will kill small business. i will lower taxes for americans by at least 20%. [applause] i will get america working again with regulations that work and encourage the private sector. taxes that allows small businesses to grow and hire more people. i want to talk about energy. we spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year out of our economy to buy energy from other nations. this president says no to drilling for offshore oil, makes it harder to get cold at of the ground, fills one of the easiest decision the president has ever had to made. should we be getting oil from

canada? if i am president of the united states, we will get that pipeline from canada and get the energy and attended. -- energy independence. this president believes in crony capitalism. he did that with solyndra and tesla. we will turn once again to a nation that believes in free enterprise and free markets. based on the innovation of the american people. you will have to ask yourselves and ask your neighbors and people across michigan and across the nation, what do we want in our next president? we know what we have now. a guy who is an eloquent speaker and made a lot of promises he has been unable to keep. i believe you want someone who

understands how to get the economy working. to understand how to get jobs again. who understands what it takes to get rising incomes again. the median income in america has dropped 10% in the last four years. this president has failed the american people. i believe we need a president to get the economy going. if we have a strong economy, that means kids coming out of high school and college will have jobs waiting for them. [applause] it means a few at art and -- if you are in the prime of your life and you need to move you can find a new job right away. it means that if you are in your retirement years, you know your savings are going to be growing because american enterprises are growing in their value. if we have a strong economy, we will provide for a military that

is second to none in the world. because this economy is faltering, this president is saying, where can i cut? there is only one place is willing to cut, and that is our military. at the very time our military -- we have fewer ships in our navy since any time since 1917. we have fewer aircraft and older aircraft in our air force than any time since 1947. this president wants to cut are active-duty personnel by 50 to 100,000. we no longer have the capacity to engage it into conflict at -- in two conflicts at once. we want a strong america to prevent war from occurring. no one would test america. [applause]

it comes back to an economy that is strong that can maintain a strong military, and economy it that a strong so people have good jobs. when people want to change places in the country, they can find work wherever they want to go. i happen to believe that if we want to have a strong economy and good private-sector jobs, it helps to have a president who has had a private sector job. and i have committed -- and i have. i think the reason i am a be 2at barack obama in michigan in the fall -- beat barack obama in michigan in the fall, this will be a contest about who can strengthen the economy. we will look at his record and we will look at my record, and

that will be able to talk about the economy with credibility that he does not have. my commitment to getting america working dimbleby second to none. for that reason, i am going to -- working will be second to none. for that reason, i am going to win in michigan and across the country. i have to be our nominee. to get that job, i need you guys to get out to vote. we used to say, it out early, and vote often. you cannot do that, of course. did your friends who have not voted, take them to the polls, asked folks in your neighborhood. we have to get that done. i want to mention one more thing. we grew up here. we were born and raised here.

we are back asking for your help. we love the beauty of this place. we love the character of the people of michigan. i have had the chance to see a lot of america. my dad took us around the country when we were kids. he showed us the national parks. i love the hymns of america. i love the beauty of america. i love the people of america. our veterans -- will our veterans and armed services personnel raise your hands? thank you, sir. thank you. thank you.

thank you. [applause] there is another verse i love. the founders of this great country did not just right for their time. they saw beyond the years. the principles they put in place in the declaration of independence and the constitution are enduring principles. when they said we were endowed by our creator, they did not say we were given those rights by our government. they were right. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. in america, we would be free and we would have the occasion to pursue happiness as we choose. we could not be told by our government but we would be doing. we would not be limited by the

circumstance of our birth. this would be the land of opportunity. for hundreds of years, people have come here from all over the world, seeking the opportunity, not seeking checks from governments. if you want somebody will promise opportunity, vote for me. [applause] i will keep this country strong. i will keep this country strong. i will get our economy working again. i will put people back to work and i will make sure america remains the hope of the earth by restoring the american principles and values. [applause] the other day, i got in my car and i drove out to a call of a fellow lives in this area.

-- a home of a fellow who lives in this area. he loves michigan, he loves detroit. he has recently made quite a commitment. he will raise a million dollars for the detroit symphony. [applause] he had a piece of paper in front of me. he had written down some questions. first of all, if you are elected president, will you help me help the state of michigan? i said i would. if you are elected president, will you help me help the city of detroit? i said i would. i turned to him and i said, by the way, given the fact i am willing to do those things, will you perform a concert for my friends? he said he would. i am happy to introduce a

friend -- kid rock. [applause] ♪ ♪ like a new moon rising wandering out into this great unknown i don't want no one to cry

♪ i was broorn free i was born free born free free like a river raging strong is the wind ♪ like the greatest canyon wild like untamed stallion chains onkeep those

me i was born free i was born free free norborn ♪ i was born free ♪ yeah ♪ ♪ yeah yeah yeah ♪

♪ like an unknown stranger grateful for my time with no regrets close to my destination frail and aching waiting patiently i was born free i was born free i was born free i was born free

♪ i was born free i was born free whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa free yeah ♪ born free ♪ [applause]

♪ >> every some poll indicates in michigan, mitt romney is slightly ahead of greg santorum. he campaigned in the southwestern parts of the state in kalamazoo. this is about 45 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. wow. thank you. [applause] it is great to be in kalamazoo.

[applause] all right. thank you. thank you, pastor clark. i want to thank all the organizers for this event for putting this crowd together. you guys did such a great job. there are people that cannot fit in there. we had to set up a second room. we will have to town hall meetings going on at the same time. my daughter, elizabeth, is here. she is the oldest of our seven children.

i want to thank the duggars for being here. they have made over 1000 phone calls for us. i want to thank them for their help. my daughter has been traveling with me. we do a lot of traveling together. my wife is coming and with another couple of the kids tomorrow morning to be here for a great victory party tomorrow night. [applause] this is our oldest, elizabeth, are 20-year-olds. -- our 20-year-old. she is going to sneak out and do

her own town hall meeting for the people who could not be here. go right ahead. to the members of the press, you might find that more interesting. she will have to answer all the personal questions about me. he might find some dirt. -- you might find some dirt. it is great to be here. we have had such a great day in michigan. we have been traveling all over the state. these last few days -- up in the up. i feel like i'm initiated. we have been down to flint,

lansing. we have been traveling all over the state and we are excited about the response. i think we will surprise a few people tomorrow night. the reason i believe we will surprise people is because we have been talking about a positive vision for our country. something that can get people excited about the future. we have a president right now who is the divider and chief. now working on trying to be honest with the american public and bring us together in a way america works best. i want to go out there and put forth ideas and the vision that reminds us who we are. ronald reagan, when he left office, his last words to the american people, he expressed

concern about whether america was going to do as well in the future. the reason for that is because he was worried about american children not learning about the real american history is. the real origins of our country. what holds it together as a nation. in america, i am a first- generation american. my dad came over on the boat. when my father came to this country with his grandfather when he was 7. when he came to this country, he stepped on american shores and because he came here to be part of this great experiment, at that day he became an american. under a pet is not about and ethnicity or race. -- america is not about a race or ethnicity. it is about an ideal and a set

of values that make us a country. we forget that. we forget that somehow, america is an enterprise. it is constantly changing the basic core of america is the same. it is what makes us exceptional. that is our founding document. barack obama said about nine months ago, he listed a whole bunch entitlement programs. everything from medicare to unemployment insurance. america is a better country because of all these government programs and then he read from his teleprompter, i will go one step forward -- for there. and they're out the was not paid -- america was not a great

program -- country until these programs were passed. that is a view of america that is foreign to most americans. that is the view, i think, that most other sovereigns have of their country. what makes our country great is what the government does for the people. instead of what makes our country great is free people. having the opportunity to do for themselves, not the government. [applause] i believe america was founded great. there may be a few tea party people here. there may be a few tea party people and i want to thank the tea party for resurrecting a

document that had been out of fashion and favor for a long time. a document called the constitution of the united states. the idea that this document is the operator's manual of our country. it is the overall -- it has worked well in establishing and building the framework for a great country. the most prosperous, most transformational country in human history. from the standpoint of not just freedom, the advancements of humankind. at the time of the declaration of independence and the constitution, life expectancy was about 35 to 40 years of age. just what it was at the time of jesus christ.

the human condition did not changed dramatically. and then america happened. right? we formed a government. we declared our independence and in that document, which is not the operator's manual, but the heart of america, the core of america is, i would make the argument that it is what makes america exceptional. we hold these truths to be self- evident. >> life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. >> there you go. that is who we are.

[applause] that sentenced changed human history. that sentence changed the whole concept of governance. the whole idea of what the government was there to do. when this constitution was drafted, it was drafted for the purposes of protecting and managing government to make sure the individual, the family, the church the civic organizations, the little businesses, were free to be able to thrive and prosper from the bottom up. not some roller trying to order society from the top down. -- ruler to order society from the top down. our founders trusted the great unwashed of america. they trusted all of us.

this is not fly over country. this is the heart and soul of america. [applause] and 235 years, life expectancy went from 35 to 80. the dynamism of the economy, because of america, because of liberating people to pursue their wants and dreams, and not have a government or a leader condemning them for success, at breeding and the between the 99 and the one. when people achieved greatly, we held honors and dinners for them. we build statues because we knew with great success of an individual brought great success for everybody.

employers hired employees. right? people who take risks, people who strive and do great things, that is the greatness of america. we do not envy each other. what has been going on in this country, this divisiveness, condemning certain sectors of our economy, taking other the other sectors of our economy, it is not what america is about. that is why there is this angst in america. what is happening around us, our freedoms are being taken away. obamacare -- anybody want to repeal obamacare? [applause]

in swing states, which includes mich., 75% of voters and swing states believe obamacare is unconstitutional. believe it or not, the people in white house who think this is normal course to do what ever they want to do, whether it is passing unconstitutional laws, traveling first amendment rights, this administration does not have any concern that this document has any constraints on their power. i do not know if you saw the other day, ruth bader ginsburg, supreme court justice, was asked

the question, whether she would recommend to the united states constitution for a country that was starting a government's. she answered, no, she would not. it is antiquated. it is dated. we need something new that reflect the new truce that had been discovered -- truths that have been discovered. the united states supreme court justice suggesting that the document that she has sworn to uphold cannot defended. we need somebody in the oval office and someone in the courts to revere this document and understand its greatness and adherenc to it.

[applause] obamacare does not adhere to it. it would shut down the throats of the american public. if they could get this done, they did not care whether they lost the next election or not. they thought, the economy by 2012 will be good enough for obama to be reelected. once that happens, they have delayed the implementation of obamacare. they do not want you to experience obamacare before the election. they will wait until after that. then they will bring the hammer down. they will bring the hammer down just in time and everybody in america will be used to having government run their lives. it will not be for three years. you will have a chance to vote

out that president. biden, their hope is they will get you out -- by then, their hope is they will get you hooked. i will never forget going to the green room at fox when obamacare -- this was after the massachusetts senate election and when scott brown was elected. the president decided to shelve the senate bill through the house. i remember going to fox and i ran into juan williams. i said to him, what are you guys doing? you will get killed in the next election. this is what he told me. i just talked to the white house and they said, we believe americans love entitlements. and once we get them hooked on

this entitlement, they will never let it go. okkedup of people to be hop like mindless fish. that is how they see this country. not people who are free and independent, and have the ability to provide for themselves. a group of people who need them and they need you and your votes to keep their power. this is the state of affairs we find ourselves in today unless we are able to win this election. that is why this issue of obamacare is so vital. it is about taking away your freedom is. it is about destroying the business community by overregulation. it is about micromanaging the health-care field.

becausebe denying care there is a budget we have to keep. all those things that you see in socialize medicine will come to the united states. you will be dictated to. all the other aspects of it. it is not just your economic freedom that will be dictated by the government. once the government says they will give you a right, and they will tell you how to exercise that right. as we saw with the catholic church, where they said to the church, you will do what we tell you to do. even though you object to it marlee. i just saw an article yesterday. if obamacare is implemented, there will be no catholic

hospitals and america within two years. they will be sold, but we will not comply. [applause] you hear the left with their constant drumbeat, separation of church and state. separation of church and state. here is the proper definition of separation of church and state. it does not appear in the constitution. what does is the term of the free exercise of religion. those words do appear. religion is to be free from the dictates of government. but the government is not to be

free of the influence of faith and people of faith. [applause] this is a basic constitutional law. to the elite in our culture this is some kind of cultural war. that people of faith should be able to go out and express their opinions in the public square. they should be able to advocate. according to them when someone of faith as that, they're trying to impose their morality. no more than anyone else who is allowed in the public square tries to impose their morality on anybody else. that is what the public square is for. it is for a healthy debate. [applause]

what are they afraid of? are they afraid to go in there and make their arguments? according to the courts in this country, they are afraid of people making their arguments even korean court. i will give you an example -- proposition 8 was f unconstitutional. marriage should be between a man and woman. it passed in california by a vote of the people. the ninth circuit said that is not constitutional. they said this is -- there was no rational basis for anyone

believing that marriage should be limited to one man and woman. let me explain what that means. anybody who thinks marriage should be between a man and woman is irrational in their beliefs. there is no legitimate reason other than this is what they said. hatred and bigotry. if you believe marriage is between a man and woman in is because you're a hero or a bigot. that is a court telling people they're not allowed in the public square to voice these things. if you do, you are a bit. here we go. this is the tolerant left, right? folks, fundamental liberties are at stake in this election. first amendment rights, economic liberties. we have an opportunity to paint a different vision. one that is a welcoming public

square. that says to people of faith, no faith, and the faith, come on in. talk about it. make your case. make your argument to the people. i do not have to agree with you but i respect the fact you're here. just because you have a different opinion of me does not mean you hate me. or that i hate you. and that is what america's about. [applause] the candidate who can go out and articulate a vision of freedom. first amendment freedom. someone who understands what is at stake here. limited government and free people. obamacare -- the could not be heated up better for us. and yet you have a decision here in michigan tomorrow between two candidates who are -- have a

chance to win. one has a strong and long track record. of economic liberties in the area of health care. have you heard of health savings accounts? anybody want to take a guess, you can guess as i am asking the question, who were the first bill on health savings accounts? you talk to any conservative free-market person in health care. they will tell you the core of getting it right on health care is consumer involvement. that is health savings accounts as a policy idea to give people the power back in the health- care system. right? i have been a people first, free market health care advocate for 20 years, since 1992 when i introduced that bill with a guy you might know, jon casey from ohio.

-- john kasic from ohio. there is a person who has a different view. >> romneycare. >> that would be a different view. they have to -- amending everyone has to purchase health care and how much it would be fined if they did not do it. how much businesses would be fined if they did not do it. they set the limit of any business over a certain amount. romneycare it is 10 employees and you have to provide health care. they put a specific four different plans to could choose from. obama's five different plans you can choose from. they have a dramatically expanded medicaid to cover

expandsobama carcare medicare. you get the point. the idea that governor romney said i stand by what i did in massachusetts but what obama did was wrong. why is it wrong? it should not be done at the federal level. that is a big difference. you are for government-run health care. you want to have the state to do it. so much for freedom. governor romney imposed on catholic hospitals of requirements to have to provide the morning after pill. so much for the religious liberty argument to make against the president. governor romney uniquely disqualifies himself on the biggest issue in this general election. the ability to go after barack obama on a government takeover of health care. why would that people of

michigan put an nominee forward who takes away the most important and salient issue for 75% of swing states for what governor obama -- romney and, did was wrong. how about putting someone who stands on your side with no government mandates? [applause] we have an opportunity in this election to put forth someone who has a bold vision for getting this economy growing. written by washington insiders. does not make any changes to the tax cut. governor romney lowered taxes a little bit. cut them by 20% to the rate i suggested. it is nice to be copied. take that as flattery. we have a bold plan to get this

economy going. we take the corporate tax for corporations, 35%, the highest in the world as of april 1. we cut in half and make it a flat tax, expensing everything. a flat tax that a small business will take -- pay the same rate as the biggest businesses in america. a level playing field for the big guys versus the little guys. [applause] accept of course i focus, you have seen in my tv commercials. i focus on one area of the economy that does not just compete here but has to compete some -- against a ruthless competitors in china, mexico, and others. we need to make sure that american jobs stay in america, right? where we can compete in vital

sectors of our economy. that we create a level playing field the government is not the reason and the cost that government imposes on businesses is not the reason that we lose manufacturing jobs in this country. i put forth a three-part plan that nails it. three things. number one. we 0 out all taxes on manufacturing activity in america. if you manufacture here you do not pay taxes because we want you to make your things here. [applause] secondly, if you made the business judgment you had to move overseas to keep profit to keep your business open and you made profits which many of them dead, reported $1.57 trillion

profits are sitting in overseas banks. were they sitting there and not coming back to america? they are subject to a big, hefty tax, up to 35%. the reinvested in those endeavors in those countries. we want that money to come back to america. here's the deal. if you bring it back to america, mr. or ms. manufacturer, you invest it and plan here, create the jobs here in america. [applause] finally, the regulatory burden. not just on manufacturers, but general. this administration, i hear it from small businesses to large print the level of uncertainty about what the government will do to as next is truly chilling and harming people to put their capital out there and grow their

businesses. they are afraid. already, this administration has put on a record number of large regulations come out large cost impact on the economy. the measure them in anything over $100 million is singled out by the government. barack obama last year did almost as many regulations as bush or clinton did in four years. in one year. 150 regulations. this is a president that is going to set the record book on micromanaging the private sector in america. whether it is the epa or the nlrv or fda, you name it. they are regulating everything because government knows best. on the one, i will repeal every single one of those regulations.

[applause] people ask me when the economy will turn around. i said, if michigan hopes -- because what i hope they do on election night, 11:00 p.m. is wendy economy will start to spur because we will have -- when the economy will start to spur because we will have a brand new president. [applause] we will get jobs, good paying jobs, not just in the major cities. but where the manufacturers go. they go where they have always gone. almost every little town in america across this country has --ittle manufacturer tryinplant

manufacturing plant. imagine what you will be able to do here in this community to attract businesses because of the workforce to have. because of the tradition you have. and the ability to be able to produce good, high-quality american goods. it can be profitable doing it again. we will transform all these little towns across america. we will create opportunities and be able to rise in society. there are far too many people who do not have the skills necessary and not have jobs that require skills so they can rise in society. it is not a matter of going to college. college is a great thing. i encourage people who want to go to college and upgrade their skills but there are a lot of people who do not want to go and have other skills that need to be upgraded. they can produce in this society. in manufacturing is the perfect

place for them to be able to exhibit those skills that we can turn this country around for everybody, from the bottom up in america. [applause] i have a record that can go out and take on barack obama on this issue and build support in those key areas of our country and the swing states like pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, wisconsin, missouri, indiana. the states if the gulf for rick santorum you can go to bed. -- if they go for rick santorum, you can go to bed. we need someone who can take it to the president on the issues where the president has fallen down. as i have said before, we can do that better than anybody. we have a clean and clear record on issues of government control of your life where there

is health care, whether it is the takeover of wall street, where there is cap and trade and the imposition of carbon restrictions, co2 restrictions, which, believe it or not, you might find this easy to believe. as the grandson of a coal miner. i did not buy into this global or climate science which from the very beginning -- [applause] which from the beginning if you look at the data and the science, it did not look like climate science but political science. i stood up and said we're not going to go along with this. it is another attempt by the left to use some sort of junk science to take more control over people's lives. we're not going to do that. i was alone in this field, other than ron paul. i was alone in this field than

standing up and saying i'm not going to buy and to cap and trade or man-made global warming but unfortunately, governor romney did. as governor he proclaimed loudly and probably they had put the first carbon cap in place for power plants in massachusetts. so much for the contrast on that issue. we're not going to win this election because we're going to have the most money and we're going to be up president obama in state-by-state by spending four or five times as much money as he does. he will have more money and he will have the media on his side. whoet's look at the canada -- candidate who had the least money and did the most with it in winning an election. [applause]

that is who we're looking for. someone who is able to win based on ideas and a positive vision. someone who did not go out and attack your opponent and tear them down personally or misrepresent their record. just the facts, ma'am. just the facts. that is what we're running on. the facts of what i want to do for this country and our policies to create the opportunity to create jobs. we have an opportunity here tomorrow in michigan. here in kalamazoo to go out and do something big. shock the establishment. [applause] they are all worried, this guy is too conservative. all the pundits are saying to

conservative but romney runs ads i am not conservative. those that fall short as a contradiction? i do not know if i am too conservative or not, depending on who i am talking to. my daughter was talking to me about the story of the three bears. maybe i am just right. not too hot, not too cold. we have an opportunity to do in a sense what happened in 1980. in 1980, everyone was saying, you cannot elect the sky reagan. he is too conservative. he is a movie actor. he colors his hair and puts on makeup. why would we elect someone like that? he will be a disaster. we will lose and we have to be jimmy carter, he was the worst in history. until now.

[applause] jimmy carter was a disaster, no question and we had to win. but the american people realized, the people in the republican primaries realized that replacing jimmy carter with something better was not enough. it is good. do not get me wrong. it is not enough. we need someone who is going to as ronald reagan did, remind us who we are, spur the american public to do big things, to believe big thoughts in themselves, why? we are big, we're great. we are americans. we can do anything. [applause] so, let's rally behind someone who is not running for president because they want to be the most

powerful person in the country or the world. because they're running for president because i want you to be the powerful people again in this country. [applause] so, tomorrow. i am asking to walk out of here and i will spend some time getting around and meeting and greeting everybody. if you have got your cameras, you got to put meat on facebook tonight. -- put me on facebook tonight. i cannot spend a lot of time because i have to do hannity at 9:00 p.m. so i do not have a ton of time. i will take some time to do that. thank you for coming here. i really do appreciate it. thank you. [cheers and applause]

thank you come lago bless you. -- thank you, god bless you. thank you so much, god bless you. thank you for all your help.

>> i will be there. >> thank you. >> make sure you get some people about. -- to vote. thank you. >> what would you do about personal taxes? >> cut them 20%.

>> c-span's wrote to the white house coverage continues tomorrow night with results from the primaries in arizona and michigan. you will hear from the four major republican presidential candidates and can call in with your reaction. our campaign coverage includes the washington caucuses on the third. super tuesday voting on the six, and on march 10, it is the continuation of the wyoming caucasus along with kansas, the

virgin islands, and warm. more than 1100 delegates are needed for the republican presidential nomination. the republican delegate count stands at 234 mitt romney, 724 rick santorum, 324 newt gingrich, and 18 for president of ron paul. this count includes the republican national committee delegates who can support any candidate regardless of their state's poorer results. president obama has called on governors to invest more in education. the governor's are in washington for their annual winter meeting. this is a little less than half an hour.

>> to the members of the president's candid and the white house staff, i want to tell you how much we governors appreciate your being here and we look forward to these meetings because we know that all of you as well as the president and vice president, in the same spirit as we do. that which unites us is a much more important and so much bigger than that which divides us. we could not be any more fortunate to have as the head of the governors' association the government -- governor of nebraska. he has done a great job pulling us together and it gives me great pleasure to introduce him. [applause] >> thank you. we served together 10 years ago. we have great respect for each other. we want to thank the president

and first lady and the vice president, dr. biden for an exceptional evening last night. jack and i also decided the reason we're here today is not to hear from jack or i. but to hear from the president and vice-president. in the spirit of governor beebe, we will keep the sure. it is my pleasure to introduce the vice-president of the united states, joe biden. >> thank you. thank you all very much. the good news is you are not going to have to hear much from the vice president. you get to hear the president. one of the things first of all, i had a great night last night at the dinner. i had a chance to have some real conversation with you. for all the differences that we have politically, there is a

sense of inevitability about america. my dad used to say no matter who is in charge, no matter how long, the american people are so much bigger and better and capable than any government or either party can be. a lot has changed. when we came into office, many of you came in the same time, we came into office and we were in free fall. the middle class was and still is clamoring to just hang on. just to make it. and a lot has changed. what most has changed, we have 23 months consecutive of private sector employment. over 3.5 million jobs after losing over 8.5 million jobs. we disagree on some of the policy prescriptions, but there is two. want to make to you. one is that a lot of and i have

had a chance to be in a number of your state, a democrat and republican. some states are fearing better and some states are doing just fine. it varies from state to state and based on your economies and what you relied upon to generate growth. one thing i think i heard last night from bunch of you, a dozen of view, a democrat and republican. certain things that coming back. manufacturing is coming back in that united states for real. the point i want to make to you, there is a reason for us to disagree on policy. i do not think there is reason for us to be doubtful that there is inevitability to america regaining its strength and leading in the 21st century economically. i would like to put a couple of things in perspective. the governors have heard me say this when we were in california with the vice-president of china. we're in a situation where our

economy is three times as -- we are better positioned than any other nation in the world to dominate economically through the first half of the '20s -- 21st century. not because of who is in office. we are better positioned. if you look at the hard numbers. you see the -- we are in a position that if we give our folks a fighting chance, i was saying this to the president. the american people are tired of being tired. it used to be an expression of the civil rights movement, sick and tired of being sick and tired. the american people are tired of being tired. they're tired of being told how bad things are. they're looking for us, all of

us, democrats, republicans to let them know we think as well it is time to just get out. just get up and start to move. ladies and gentlemen, we're going to disagree on a bunch of things. one of the things we all agree on, we need a better education system. we're ranked 16th in the world now. the idea that we will be that way on where we are. the idea that we could sustain that position and lead the world in the 21st century is not possible. we made great strides in terms of being less reliant on foreign oil than any time in the last 16 years. we've long way to go. the american people are looking to cooperate. you have to get things done. we're open for business in terms

of cooperation. the president is open for business, i am open for business. you have a better idea, we will push that idea. the american people, as i said, they are ready. they're convinced we're able to take back what we lost. they're convinced we're able to lead the world. i would like now to introduce the guy to you who is leading our effort am looking forward to looking with all of you in an effort to do that, president barack obama. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you so much. everybody have a seat. have a seat. thank you, joe, for the outstanding work you're doing on behalf of the american people every day. i want to thank the members of my cabinet and the administration here today. i want to thank dave heineman and jack markell for the

outstanding leadership they have shown. i am glad to see that everyone has recovered from the well time we had last night. it was wonderful to have all of you here. i always look forward to this event because governors are at the front line of america's recovery. you see up close what is working, what is now working and where we could take it. the thing that connects all of us, no matter what part of the country where from and certainly no matter what part you belong to, that we know what it means to govern. what it means to make tough choices during tough times. hopefully it affords some common ground. we have all felt the weight of the decisions and the impact those decisions have on the people we represent. i first address this group three years ago, it was a moment as to

mentioned when the economy was in a freefall. some of you were coming into office at that time as well. hundreds of thousands of americans were losing their jobs or their homes every month. businesses were closing their doors at a heartbreaking pace. our entire auto industry was on the verge of collapse. all told, the prospect of it going to a full blown recession were real. there is no doubt that enormous challenges remain. -- remain. the fact is over the last two years, american businesses have created 3.7 million new jobs. manufacturers are hiring for the first time since the 1990's. the auto industry is back. our recovery is gaining speed and the economy is getting strong. and we have got to do everything we can to make sure that we sustain this progress. that means we have got to strengthen american manufacturing so that more and more good jobs and products are

made here in america. it means that we have got to develop new sources of american energy so we are less dependent on foreign oil and nearly spikes in gas prices. and it means that we have got to make sure that every american is equipped with the skills, with the education that they need to compete for the jobs of tomorrow as well as the jobs of today. and that is what i want to talk to these governors a little bit about. no issue will have a bigger impact on the future performance of our economy and education. in the long run, it is going to japan -- determine whether business stay here or not. it will determine whether businesses are created here, whether businesses are hiring here. and it will determine whether there is going to be an abundance of good middle-class jobs in america. today, the unemployment rate for americans with at least a college degree is about half the national average.

their incomes are about twice as high as those who only have a high-school diploma. so this is what we should be focused on as a nation. this is what we should be talking about in the beating. the countries who out-educators today will out-compete as tomorrow. that is a simple fact. and if we want america to continue to be no. 1 and stay number one, we have got some work to do. now, in the last three years, the good news is that we have made some important progress, working together. we have broken through the traditional stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. and i think arne has done an outstanding job of saying we have got to get past the old dogmas, whether it is the dog was on the liberal or the conservative side and figure out what works. we have invested, but we have invested in reform. and for less than 1% of what our

nation spends on education each year, almost all of you have agreed to raise standards for teaching and learning. and that is the first time that has happened in a generation. we have also worked with all of you, democrats and republicans, to try to fix no child left behind. we said that if you are willing to set higher, more honest standards, then we will give you more flexibility to meet the standards. earlier this month, i announce the first 11 states to get a waiver from no child left behind, and i hope that we're going to add more states soon. i believe education is an issue that is best addressed at the state level, and governors are in the best position to have the biggest impact. i realize that everybody is dealing with limited resources. trust me, i know something about try to do with tight budgets. we have all faced some stark choices over the past several

years. but that is no excuse to lose sight of what matters most. and the fact is too many states are making cuts to education that i believe are simply too big. nothing more clearly signals what you value as the state than the decisions you make about where to invest. budgets are about choices. so today, i am calling on all of you, invest more in education. invest more in our children and in our future. that does not mean you have to invest in things that are not working. that does not mean that it does not make sense to bricks and china and move aggressively on reform. but the fact that -- of the matter is we do not have to choose between resources and reform, we need resources and reform. now, there are two areas in education that demand our immediate focus. first, we got to get more teachers in our classrooms. over the past four years, school districts across america have

lost over 250,000 educators. 250,000 teachers, educators have been lost. think about that. a quarter million educators, responsible for millions of our students, all laid off when america has never needed the more. other countries are doubling down on education. and their investment in teachers. we should, too. each of us is here because at some point in our lives, a teacher changed our life trajectory. the impact is often much bigger than even we realize. one study found that a good teacher can increase the lifetime and, of the classroom by over $250,000. one teacher, one classroom. and a great teacher offers potentially an escape for a child who is driving beyond his circumstances. the point is, teachers matter, and all of us have to realize -- recognize that, and we have got to put our money behind that.

now, we want to help you every place that we can. at the federal level, we have already provided billions of dollars in funding to help keep hundreds of thousands of teachers in the classroom. and the cornerstone of the jobs plan that i put forward in september, a chunk of which has gotten done but a chunk of which remains undone, was to provide even more funding, so that you could prevent further layoffs and rehire teachers that have lost their jobs. i would like to thank those of you in this room who voiced support for that effort. congress still is in a position to do the right thing. they can keep more teachers in the classroom, but you have got to keep the pressure upon them to get this done. the second area where we have to bring greater focus is higher education. the jobs of the future increasingly going to those with more than a high-school degree. i have to make a point here. when i speak about higher education, we're not just talking about a four-year degree. we're talking about somebody going to a community college and

getting trained for that manufacturing jobs that now is requiring someone walking through the door, handling a million dollar piece of equipment. and they cannot go in there unless they have got some basic training beyond what they received in high school. we all want americans getting those jobs of the future. so we're going to have to make sure that they are getting the education they need. it starts, by the way, with just what kinds of expectations and ground rules we're setting for kids in high school. 21 states require students to stay in high school until the graduate or turn 18. 21 states. that means 29 do not. i believe that is the right thing to do, for us to make sure to send a message to our young people, you graduate from high school, at a minimum. i urge others to follow suit of those 21 states. now, for students that are ready for college, we have got to make sure that colleges affordable.

-- college is affordable. today graduates to take out loans leave college going an average of $25,000. that is a staggering amount for young people. americans owe more in state loan debt than they do in credit-card debt. there is so many americans out there with some much to offer who are saddled with debt before they start out in life. the very idea of owning that much money put college at a rate for far too many families. this is a major problem that must be fixed. i addressed at the state of the union. we have a role to play here. my grandfather got a chance to go to college because americans and congress decided that every returning veterans from world war ii should be afford -- able to afford it. my mother was able to raise two kids by herself while still going to college and getting an advanced degree because she was able to get grants and work steady while she was in school. michelle and i are only here today because of scholarships

and student loans that gave us a good shot at a great education. and it was not easy to pay off these loans, but it sure was an -- was not as hard as it is for a lot of kids day. my administration has tried to do our part by making sure the student loans program put students before banks. if tuition -- by increasing aid like the pelt grants for millions of students and their families and allowing students to cap their monthly loan payments at 10% of their income which means their repayment schedule is manageable. congress still needs to do its part. by first call keeping student interest rates low. right now they're scheduled to double at the end of july of congress does not act. that would be a great -- a real tragedy for an awful lot of families around the country. they also need to extend the tuition tax credit for the middle class, protect pilgrims, and expand work study programs. but it is not enough just to

focus on student aid. we cannot just keep on at the federal level subsidizing skyrocketing tuition. if tuition is going up faster than inflation, faster, actually, then health care costs, then no matter how much we subsidize it, sooner or later, we're going to run out of money. so everybody else is going to have to do their part as well. this is not just a matter of the federal government coming up with more and more money. that means colleges and universities are going to have to help make their tuition more affordable. and i have put them on notice, if they are not taking some concrete steps to prevent tuition from going up, then federal funding from taxpayers is going to go down. we have got to incentivize better practices in terms of keeping costs under control. and all of you have a role to play by making higher education a higher priority in your budget. -- budgets. over two-thirds of students attend public colleges and

universities where, traditionally, tuition has been affordable because of state investments. and that is something that every state takes pride in. that is the crown jewel, in fact, of our economic system is, by far, we have got the best network of colleges, universities, and community colleges in the world but more than 40 states have cut funding for higher education over the past year. this is the peak of what has been a long-term trend in reduced state support for higher education. and state budget cuts have been a long -- been among the largest factor in tuition hikes at public colleges over the past decade. so my administration can do more. congress can do more. colleges have to do more. but unless all of you also do more, this problem will not get solved. it can be done, though. jacko malley -- jack o'malley. where is jack.

martin. sorry. martin in maryland is doing some outstanding work on this front. he worked with the lead swisher to keep tuition down by controlling costs and cutting spending on colleges and you are seeing a real impact from the flagship university of maryland all the way down. a lot of you are starting to experiment with this as well. we cannot allow higher education to be a luxury in this country. it is an economic imperative that every family in america has to be able to afford. and frankly, i do not think any of the should be a partisan issue. all of us should be about giving every american who wants a chance to succeed that chance. [applause] so, let me wrap this up by sang a few weeks ago i held, right here in this room and in the adjoining room, one of my favorite events and that is the white house science fair.

we invited students from a lot of your states and a showcase projects that cover the full range of scientific discovery. we had a group of kids from texas, young latina woman who came from the poorest section of texas and yet were winning rocket competitions. and they were so good because they could only afford one rocket. they could not test them and they have to get it just right. and their parents ran bake sales so they could travel to these events. you had a young woman who was from long island, had been studying mussels and wanted to be an oceanographer and won the intel science award while she was homeless. her family had lost their home and she was living out of a car and out of her family's -- on

and yetily's couch, still was able to stay focused and achieve what was just remarkable. there was a kid -- the kid who got the most attention was a young man named joey hudy of arizona. that is because jolie let me fire off an extreme marshmallow cannon. we did it right here in this room. we shot it from here. we pumped it up, it almost hit the light. i thought it was a lot of fund [laughter] . -- a lot of fun. joe had printed out his own business cards. he left a bigger oppression. he was handing them out to everybody, including me. he is on the short list for a cabinet post. under his name on each card was a simple model, do not be board,

do something. -- motto, do not be bored, do something. do not be board, make something. all across their -- the country their kids like joye who are dreaming big and are doing things and making things. we want them to reach those heights. they're willing to work hard. they're willing to dig deep to achieve. we have got a responsibility to give them a fair shot. if we do, then i am absolutely convinced our future will be as bright as all this one. so this is something that i want to collaborate with all of you on. if you have got ideas about how we can make our education system work better, i want to hear them today and arne duncan is going to want to hear them for the rest of the time he is education secretary and the rest of the time i am president. thank you very much, everybody. [applause] >> the attorneys general of

virginia and massachusetts debate the constitutionality of the affordable health care act. and in a little more than an hour, mitt romney and rick santorum campaign in michigan. and the meeting with the governors focusing on education. on "washington journal," will talk about the congressional agenda and campaign with hansen clark. and jeff lake. we will look at the administration's new rules on the types of snack foods sold in school vending machines. our guest is stephanie armour, food safety reporter for bloomberg is. washington journal is live every day on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> of the jindal is scheduled

to review his proposal for balancing the state budget for the next fiscal year. $900 million in the red. his report is mostly -- 38 in menden. you are listening to news radio. "book tv" and "american history tv" explore the history of shreveport, louisiana. gary joiner on the union's failure in louisiana. the red river campaign of 1864. and then a look at the over two under thousand books of the john smith nobel collection housed at the shreveport archives. then it walking tour in both your city with neil johnson. -- bozier city with neil johnson. in ok at the base's role

9/11. also visit the founding fathers autograph collection. and from the pioneer heritage center, a medical treatment and medicine during the civil war. shreveport, louisiana at this weekend on c-span2 and 3. >> the attorneys general of virginia and massachusetts on the constitutionality of affordable health care act. martha cokely at the press club for a little more than an hour. >> welcome to the national press club newsmaker series. this is the leading professional organization for journalists. i am bob filner. today's event coordinator. today, two outstanding and

prominent attorneys general, will lead a press club news maker. the affordable health care act, constitutional or not, is a pre lead to the march consideration of the law. ken brings experience with his national leadership concerning the federal health care lawsuit. martha cokely has deep knowledge of the massachusetts legislation and will discuss federal law. he filed the first constitutional lawsuit to the supreme court against the affordable health care act before 26 other state attorneys general. cokely is the expert in her home state on romneycare and how does serve for does not serve for the president that follows. she filed a brief with the supreme court.

reelected to her second term in 2010, martha has devoted her career to protecting children and public safety, standing up for consumers and taxpayers and fighting for equality, prosecuting dangerous criminals, and protecting consumers civil rights and the environment. she has been appointed to the national fraud enforcement task force and both these attorneys general on this very matter ofk. eken was sworn into office january 2010. prior to this he served in the senate of virginia from 2000 to through january 2010. as a state senator and private attorney, he worked to improve the commonwealth's mental health system and has been a champion for citizens' property rights. he made government or transparent and accountable by sponsoring a lot to put the state's detailed budget on line in a format that citizens could understand. he is proud to protect consumers from scams and frauds and take

sexually violent predators' out of communities. my wife found a correction. your web site said the most violent and sexually violent predators. she said, does he not do all of them? and put to gang members in jail and prosecute medicare fraud. he has been talked about for hire virginia office but that is that today's subject. the attorneys general have been invited to address several facets of the cases the supreme court is taking up including the health care mandate, the tax bases, the general welfare aspect, severability, the law's provisions and other areas. the supreme court is preparing for three days of consideration march 26 through 28 with five and a half hours of debate and possible june decision. the press club event will be a timely preamble. we did not call the form a debate but that is what is with these two powerhouses on

opposing sides. the difference is that after their presentations, the media will have at them and we will try to keep the questioning even and fair. only media and national press club members ask questions until and unless those run out which we will see what happens during the hour. our hope is that today's forum will serve as a primer for what the supreme court may consider as arguments for and against the bill and its provisions. many thanks to the staff of both attorneys general for their competent liaison and follow through with the club in arranging today's event. as a former white house and congressional staffer, i appreciate your work. i also want to introduce my wife pat. who helped with your web site and the event staffer for today. for ms. cokely, megan silverberg.

and they have all been fantastic. you saw joann is out there and i want to thank the outgoing presidents. they are marvelous in their support to inform the public. and want to introduce -- i want to introduce micrich mann. rebecca vanderlin, my longtime executive assistant. and harry brooks. and so we are ready to go. i would -- in terms of questions, what we will do is after each attorney general makes the presentation, we will go to questions. please come to the podium and

rebecca, you will get the names and identifications of the people as they come. we will set this up as a microphone for questions so c-span requested there will be sound instead of the usual faint you do not hear a question on television. we will have the questioners come to the microphone and we will ask the questions that way. we will lead off with ms. cokely. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to do this. we have to be good because we only have 15 minutes. we will try and do that and i look forward to questions. i think you for the invitation today. and to scan for joining me in this lively, i assume lively debate about health care reform and the supreme court's consideration of its constitutionality. i cannot imagine to better attorneys general to do this.

i will be the john adams to his thomas jefferson. since representatives from our states were involved 245 years ago in writing the constitution, we happen to have a different view on this. we will be good representatives of those different views. before i highlight why i believe and why i think the supreme court will find that the patient protection and affordable care act is constitutional, with a specific focus on the individual mandate, i would like to talk about what kinds of things we have been up to in the bay state relative to health care. the u.s. supreme court justice louis brandeis stated that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel and social economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. massachusetts experiment in

health care reform five years ago has been recognized as a smaller version but clearly a prototype of what the aca is. what has come out of our laboratory? you would think it was a frankenstein by some accounts. i would access, cost, quality. insuring two of those three is relatively easy. but all three, not so much. this has been and still is our challenge and our goal sand a work in progress. there is no doubt about that. i think the facts demonstrate rather than proving what massachusetts has zone a risk to the country. massachusetts as a test laboratory has a lot to offer. i want you to come back with me to massachusetts circa 2004, 2006 when our reform law was passed. mitt romney was governor of massachusetts and yes, he actually had a massachusetts

license plate. we think in these days, the new hampshire plate, we like many states were confronted with a health care cost crisis. the rate was somewhere between 10% and 112%. but the cost of caring for uninsureds in massachusetts topped $1 billion and the rate of inquiries was on a spiral that seemed unsustainable. that was unsustainable. we also had not uncommonly the free rider program. we all know there is not no such thing as a free lunch or free rider. somebody pace. healthy people were opting out of coverage altogether or opting in and out when they knew they were going to require coverage. those opt-outs of coverage skewed the risk pool and drove up premiums for everybody else in massachusetts. the so-called free care of 8% to

10% a year and the 8% escalation of our health insurance premiums threatened to cripple our system. in massachusetts, there was a coalition that decided to focus on solving this problem. that included political leaders from both sides of the table. there was governor romney right with senator ted kennedy. we had our labor unions and our business. we had our hospitals and health insurance and not for profits and profits consumer groups saying this is a problem we're interested in tackling and we're going to it. the support of groups like our boston chamber of commerce. it is important also to know that we purposely did this in two stages. we said we will get everybody covered first and then we will tackle costs.

that was purposesful. happy to answer questions about this. i'm limited to 15 minutes, but it is important, i think, to understand what our framework is and what we were able to accomplish. four pieces of the bill that you'll recognize if you're familiar with the a.c.a. we demanded individual responsibility. this was the massachusetts parathrole the a.c.a. individual mandate. many of us in massachusetts still think that it is. secondly, we demanded in responsibility based on the size of the business, if you have

more than 11, there is other responsibility. we expanded our subsidized coverage and that's how we started to fill in the uninsured gap. we made those those who could afford it were buying it. finally we established our -- a commonwealth connector. as we consider now issues, whether congress had a rational basis to enact the a.c.a. and the individual mandate werks don't need to do that in a vacuum. we can see from the actual experience we had in massachusetts that there is strong support for congress' rational basis and their choice to require an individual mandate. in massachusetts we achieved a dramatic increase to access to health care coverage.

the national rate of health coverage is about 15% lower. we see overall economic benefits for state. a sharp decline in spending on care. $300 million, 33% less than we were spending on that in 2006. significantly fewer adults report health needs due to to costs. dental has within one of them. i think we all agree emergency rooms is an inofficial and expensive way to obtain primary care. insurance premiums have fallen dramatically for individuals in the market in massachusetts. individuals premiums grew 14% nationally.

now as we address other cost issues and we have that same coalition i spoke about, we're looking at transparency and market dysfunction and prevention as ways since we have everybody in short to bring costs down. we are doing that successfully in massachusetts. so with five years of experience and these results, massachusetts is uniquely positioned to speak to the actual economicfects of a comprehensive reform that includes an individual mandate. i firmly believe that it is not even a close call. i believe that under commerce cost-analysis or especially turned necessary and proper clause analysis the supreme court can and should uphold the a.c.a.. the only way for this supreme court to invalidate the individual mandate turned -- under the commerce clause -- congress of course, we know as

recently in 2005 restated in gonzales versus rate, the third frong. the one obviously that we agree this comes under. it is for congress, not the courts to determine whether "activities substantially effect interstate commerce". the court's task is only to determine if congress has a rational basis for that conclusion in passing this bill. congress is given broad presumption. it is not just a polite nicety. it is not just a theory. look to massachusetts. first the court's long that he would the business of insurance within the commerce clause authority. second, the power to regulate commerce reaches practices affecting commerce, although it is not unlimited, that reach is pretty broad. that has been upheld for 30

years. consider farmer filburn when you think about whether this should be upheld. that centered around the right of congress. under congress clause authority to mandate the participation of one individual farmer in the national wheat market. that case the cases following it have set legal precedent for the past 70 years. it includes members of this supreme court to uphold the authority of congress to regulate a national marketplace. in health care, every person in the united states has or will be involved in health care marketplace services. in fact, in 2009 alone, over 80% of people in the united states were treated in our health care system. not just one year. someone these pay for that health care. the free rider may not be paying but he sure is riding along. how are free riders any

different than farmer filburn, they are not. they ea even affect the national health care market. congress has an interest in requiring them to purchase coverage in a way that is necessary and proper for the overall marketplace. unless you are prepared to say that the filburn case should be overturned and all the cases following it, it is unconstitutional. you don't just have to listen to me. if you read the analysis stand decisions by two conservative justices, one appointed by president reagan, one appointed by president bush, they both soundly reject this analysis as being -- rather they talk about behavior in a marketplace rather than activity or inactivity.

my colleague 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 who drive a car, to buy car insurance if you want to use the car analogy. no one has suggested that requiring the purchase of car insurance if you are driving a car is unconstitutional. reducing or eliminating free riding was a helpful regulation of the health care market as a whole. even if you don't want to include it turned commerce clause and i believe the court can and should, i think you have a much tougher argument to say it is not constitutional under the necessary and proper clause. that clearly supports an individual mandate. it is a rational retirement for imprementing many of the aspects

of the a.c.a. banning discrimination and health insurance based on health stats. it is a way to make sure those elements of the statute can be effectuated. it was essential to croig effective health insurance markets in which improved health insurance product s that areguaranteed and sold do not include coverage due to to existing conditions. that places the mandate squarely within the authority to have necessary and proper clause. in conclusion, there are important real a policy decisions over health care reform. we had those in massachusetts. we don't always agree with them. this discussion about health care reform has been -- continue in this country. those conditions are just that, they are policy discussions. they should be carried out in legislatures in the press and

manifested in elections. not every policy agreement deserves to be a constitutional challenge. wouldn't it be more productive to put our stpwhoorg tack it will problem of health care cost and quality for everybody in this country? congress has made its decision. those decisions are squarely within its authority. i hope the circuit court will see this debate over its 8 1/2 hours through a -- through that lens, but i suggest if it does not it will make this court the most activist, interventionist court in a long time. i look forward to attorney general cuccinelli's remarks and questions from you. >> thank you and the national press club for hosting us and i'm pleased to be here with attorney general coakley and all of you. this is a critically important question for our country that we're facing here in the next

few monthsened that the supreme court will deal with directly at the end of march and we will hear from them by the end of june. i'm sure about their conclusions. this legislation relates to health care and health insurance. the litigation relates to liberty. there is a distinction. the frahm health care bill necessitates a dramatic destruction of liberty in this country. -- federal health care bill. we are focusing on a mandate that all of us must buy 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 faith that, regardless of their

hundreds of years in this country of government leaving them to practice their faith consistent with their conscious 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 necessitates. i would also note for you that the lit indication that is going on and will conclude by june is an example of federalism in action. we're all familiar with the separation of powers between the executive, the judicial and the legislative branch which is was set up to keep the federal government from becoming too powerful, to tyrannical. it is an internal check. federalism is what i think of as a vertical check between the federal government and the states. it is a two-way check. it is a built-in form of tension and what you see with the states suing the federal government is an attempt to check the federal

governments overstepping the boundaries of the constitution. that federalism -- that system of federalism was set up to preserve the very liberty that the government was founded and that we broke away from great britain to establish. over half the states, as bob noted, are suing the federal government today, to protect the u.s. constitution from the federal government. and that is exactly what the founders had in mind when the federal government got outside of the constitution. you can read a good virgin jan madison walks through that. why that is part of the goal that the federal system put in place. virginia was the first state to bring suit in this case. we are the first state to get a ruling that the individual mandate was, in fact,

unconstitutional. our argument was and is that the federal government with regulate commerce under article one, section eight, the commerce clause. however, they cannot compel you into commerce. and the federal government has never, ever, under the guise of regulating commerce, compelled americans to buy a product or service. that has never happened in our history. in fact, it is so historically unprecedented and when we have these questions that we lawyers call questions of first impression, there hasn't been a case like this before the supreme court because the federal government has never attempted to exercise a power like this before. we look back to the founding period to determine what were the intended parameters of the commerce clause. what did they intend to allow the federal government to do and what did they intend to block it

from doing? in forming that analysis is the colonial period that led up to it, during 10 yoirs prior to the american revolutionary war, we were boycotting british good. that was boycott that was heavily entrenched in virginia and massachusetts and continued up to the war. many of the royal governors in the colonies then 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 boycotter. knowing the penalty for treason. the conclusion was that it was not treason. in some respects it came up close to the line but it was not treason. think about that. flip that coin over. that is an acknowledgement that the colonists rebelled against

that they could not compel us to buy a product or a set of products. but we have a president who believes he can. that is how historically unprecedented the exercise of power represented by the individual mandate 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. they tax us all, an eck size -- excise tax on working, that 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 of it. the political will to not exist to pass that tax. so they look for a gimmick. mind you, if you go back to a computer and google up president obama, george stephanopoulos, it is not a tax. you'll pull up the interview with george stephanopoulos, that noted right winger, 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 in more than one case, including virginia, have asked

council for the federal government -- what am i supposed to do, council 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 has 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 the commerce clause. it is a passive power. the government regulate commerce that already exists. it has other affirmative powers like raising an army out of nothing.

that's why the draft is constitutional, but the individual mandate is not constitutional. when he was running for president, the president commenting about hillary clinton's health care mandate, which was attempted many years before this. 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 that was not a power available to the federal government. he and his lawyers now say otherwise. the federal government's position is that your decision, your thought to do nothing, you take no activity at all, it is regulable under the commerce clause as economic activity. economic activity is what shows

up in the commerce clause cases since the new deal. there are four primary cases. two have been won by the bigger government side. two have been won by the smaller government side. it is a pretty even slate. nonetheless, that notion of regulating economic activity runs through all of the case law. all of it. if deciding to do nothing -- the decision is your decision not to buy something. if that is a regular lateable act, if that is a regulation of inactivity. thought, yes. activity, no. if the federal government may regulate that activity and regulation in commerce, there is nothing they can't regulate turned commerce clause. the constitution set up a government of limited authority.

people as close by as professor turley of george washington university a noted middle of the road 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. my own view is if they order you

to buy a car, it will be a gm car. they have a little interest in that these days. i know it will be a chevy equinox. i own a chevy equinox. you don't want to 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. the filburn case, which attorney general coakley drew your attention to, is the outer reach of the commerce clause. former filburn grew 23 acres of wheat, he was allotted 11. he fed the other 12 acres of wheat to his hog. made bread for his family. because that withdrew his demand for wheat from the market, the supreme court at that time said

that was regulateable. note, he voluntarily engaged in activity that affected the market. in this case, you are doing nothing. 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. but it has never before been used nor allowed to be used to compel you into commerce. this is unprecedented. for states, 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. to allow this individual mandate to stand 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. under current commerce clause juries prudence, 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. nonetheless, both sides agreed that that is the one we are under in this case. it requires activities. not future activities.

coakley, i'm sure would say, someday you'll get health care. on that day, your activity may be regulated. but you may not be compelled against your will to deal with it before that point in time, once you have entered congress -- and mind you, this is a hard area because health care is so personal to people and we want to see the system improve. there are many things we can do to improve it. 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 represented in our states, our

commonwealths, in our case. james madison was the primary author of what we're now debating. there's a reason to read his portions of the federalist papers. that is where we are in this case. we're arguing about the outreach of the foundational power of the federal government and its exercised in 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 of auto insurance. medicare and social security 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.

because they have been left powers the federal government does not have. that's why we have a 10th amendment. that's why 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. not a federal exercise of power. there are many misconceptions like that. hopefully time will allow for questions that reach those. again, i want to thank bob and the national press club and attorney general coakley, 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? we're going to be sething up a stand mic for people to come and identify yourselves.

let me lead off the questioning. you both made outstanding presentations for and against the mandate. but what i think 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. in terms of my question, if the court were to separate the mandate from the provision and allow severeability, now you 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 their doughnut hole 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, not to overhead and

salaries. you the doubling of insurance premiums every 10 years. you have preventive care. you have some provisions. if you do the polling on the 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. what does court do about the fact that now these benefits have triggered? should the court allow severeability of the provisions so that the bills can stay even if the mandate is knocked down? ms. coakley, why don't you go first? >> 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 access, quality and choice in elt health care. that issue will be addressed and i think it will be upheld. let me address one thing that ken said. i think he has made a big concession, if i understand his argument. it 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, that is a small percentage of people in 2009 use some kind of health care. that's my asht. -- argument. everybody is in the health-care marketplace. if you agree with me on that, you can be regulated if use health care.

the argument it is the congress' authority to regulate the market. that's how it is paid for. i think that is pretty clear. i know his argument is this is a liberty address. i think he has to do that because you have to get it out of that box of commerce clause. he tries to make that argument. this is about buying a service or product. it really isn't. it is about how people pay for health care 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 stay up here? >> the consequences of martha's comment are very interesting. if you have a lot of time on your hands and read through 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 it. the whole thing collapses without it. they used the word lifrpbl pin to describe the mandate. 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 tried backtrack. it is very hard to backtrack once you have written it down. 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

-- would have to fall because they cannot stand without the individual mandate. the federal government has conceded that. 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. they must also go. the third way to slice it in terms of remedy is that it all peals in comparison. 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 decide. you don't get to decide. they will decide. these are what some people have called the death panels. that might be a big dramatic. when you can't get care that determines whether you live or die, i see where the name comes from. that will be how those cost savings occur, the denial of opportunity for care that we now have. i've tried to solve some problems in my state. even with all of that, it is still the best in the world. unfortunately we will do a lot to undo that if this legislation stands. >> can i just respond? i think you turned your asht on

its head. -- argument on its head. 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 room. we don't leave people at the emergency room door unless we want to change that license plate to live free and die. 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. then when they find they have a catastrophe, cancer or an accident that they can't pay for, we end up paying for it so there is no such thing as free care. let's not mix of policy decisions. >> you did. >> no, i didn't. can congress do this?

that's issue today. i know you do not like it. that's your prerogative but let's not mix up the argument. >> let's go to media questions. come up and identify yourselves. sort of stand in a line and identify your outlet. your name and your outlet. >> my name is russell with "corporate crime reporter." >> is this concerning the health care bill? >> it is. >> 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. understand that in some ways my colleague made that argument for

medicare. we could have done a single payer system. nobody wanted to do that. that was governor romney's arguments. we will make sure the people pay for their health care and we will make sure people pay for their health care in a responsible way. you can have a policy argument about how we pay for this. should it be like medicare? should bit through individual mandate? congress made this decision partly because they decided it would make sense. i think our people, more than 2/3 of the people in massachusetts are very happy with our bill. it was briefly challenged as unconstitutional. that argument was quickly gotten rid of. the argument that we could not do it.

i don't buy the states do it but the federal government cannot do it argument. if we're talking about the goals, making sure we sustain the cost, these are goals that congress can attempt to achieve. they are already in the marketplace. states want this because we have citizens and residents who go between states and we end up paying for their care. people come to massachusetts for coverage. 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. i would agree that the question for the court is not a policy question. the question is whether congress has this authority.

martha rather swiftly just swept the federal government in with the states as far as the authority to do this. states were left with distinct areas of authority. health care was thought to be one of them. health, welfare, those are called police powers, among others. they are 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. the reason is because 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.

that the court will bls considering? >> 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. who have been participants nofle medicaid for 47 years this year -- mostly in medicaid for 47 years this year, because whether the expansion is so large as to amount to coercion of the states. they make extricate themselves and thereby give up several billion dollars of federal funding. the supreme court in the 1980's

ruled against a coercion 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 coercion of the states. the case that has gone before the supreme court 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. i would submit to you, if this case isn't the one 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. sfwaws that this case doesn't

do it, i don't think we'll ever have one that will fit the bill of compelling estates. co-certification the word the supreme court uses in an unconstitutional manner in using the spending power. that is the other constitutional question before the court. they have never found it yet. if it doesn't exist here, i would suggest that whole theory of law is dead. >> is the expansion a problem for congress or one that the court should get into? >> i thing that ken has answered the argument in a way that it is only a factual question. it is not a legal question because uit is an issue of the relationship between federalism and with the states do. all the states except medicaid money -- all of the states accept medicaid money.

what is the actual burden? it will really is benefits that jouf set those costs. -- benefits that offset those costs. 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 don't see it is even close to that compelling border, but 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. thank you. attorney general coakley, you 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 filburn extracted 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 because that individual demanding health care and the supply of that care is required by law? >> you have partially answered that question. federal law requires thats ifif 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's federal law cornering you in that position. every human being is in the health care market. 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 for many people in the world we live in today. housing, the example of the president used himself when he was campaigning. while being critical of hillary care from the 1990's. those are all other examples. using one of federal law to trap you to say, we're stuck here -- we have to be allowed to compel

people to get us out of this situation. 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. that's what's going on here. >> ultimately the law says 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 can't boot strap that argument into saying you can't do this. we do pay for those people. that is a fact of life. either under state law or federal law, we do not leave people at the emergency room door.

because we do it and because 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. we can do 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 in an appropriate way, necessary and proper to affect the goal. >> if i can use that as an example. the entire argument for the government side was a policy argument.

these are good policy goals and we need to do it this way. it is constitutional. that is not the way the constitution has been set up. congress chose not to utilize those. note for all of you, the disconnect on the pro-government side, the big government side, there are lots of governments in this case, 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. and as heart-tugging as they are. >> i take that as ken's vote for a strong public option. >> one that i think came out that you both addressed was the tax question. regardless of george

stephanopoulos changing his mind -- >> no, that was president. he was the interviewer. >> what i would like to saturdays that issue. -- address is that smusmwhat 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 you think about it, 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 under its power to tax, because they get money if you disobey, they can order you to do anything. anything. as it stands 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 thought we would go all the way through this case and not one judge or justice would do it but 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 zwronet to reach that question and we don't get there because we find 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. if you don't pay your income tax, you pay a fine.

federal government and the state government does that all the time. the reason this has remained a secondary slue, i think is -- issue, i think it is because it is a less controversial issue. 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 up. and find if they don't accept it they may find it is an appropriate use under the taxing authority. >> i have one last question. >> go back to when we filed on march 23, 2010. look 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. you will find it starts to crop

up in mid-april. it didn't show up until 2010, this fallback argument. that's why it is here. 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 think on the individual mandate. i think it will be a close case. we have thought that all along. the only reason is because of the preassumptions of the federal government. it should not be a close case. it is a slam dunk against the federal government. nonetheless, they get tremendous preassumptions in their favor. we'll see how it plays out.

>> another side on the 5-4. that is an interesting question. should and is the politics of the politics of the court appointing power, is that really the basis that this will be ruled on or do you think it will rise to the patriotism of the situation? interesting question. i would like you both to answer that. >> i would like to think so. i will not predict what the numbers will be. i think that it will be upheld. i will be surprised if it is not based upon the conservative members of the court who have upheld similar issues. 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. i think it will be difficult for them to explain striking down an individual mandate.

but i'm prepared to wait to see what they say. >> we talk about judges and presidents who appoint them. it shouldn't surprise anyone that judges and justices tend to be closer to the world view of the president who is apaint them than -- appoint them than 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 presume at all that you're going to see anything that runs along party lines by way of appointors. the appointing president, party line votes. for those of you who have never been in a supreme court argument, whatever anybody thinks of these justices, there isn't a dummy up there. it is an impressive undertaking

when you're in the room. the preparation they have put in is evident in every case there. the fact that they have 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. press club member and physician. >> retired physician. my comment is directed to attorney-general cuccinelli. you argued that compelling people into commerce unless and until they actually seek services. my understanding of insurance is the premium is not something you pay to get a product at the time you buy it. you get it in case you need it somewhere down the line.

it could be argued, and i would be interested in your response to this, is 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. >> if they are not yet in commerce. >> if they are prepared to use that system. if they count -- 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.

unless they are willing 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. >> sure. you're really arguing what the federal government has argued and that is that you're always at all times in health care commerce and therefore 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. -- insurance. the synonym for that is thought. your thoughts are being

regulate. your decisions. i'm not comfortable with that. that would make a great george orwell sequel. it is not much of a constitutional policy. if your assertion is correct, and the supreme court accepts 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.i doe not made the same argument for food. or does it end? close, holmes, a transportation. the list can go on. -- clothes, homes, transportation. the list can go on. those are questions the supreme court is going to wrestle with

intertwined with the legal question. and the historical reality this power has never before been exercised. all assertions to the contrary, i urge you to read the case. they had to do something to subject himself to regulation. we are now regulating people who are doing nothing. that has never happened before in american history. >> i think you are right. i think you have pinpointed what the reality of the marketplace is and how we fund it and expect to pay for it. you cannot expect to show up at the emergency room and say i have $15,000. whenever it would cost for that event, which do not expect people to do it. what congress has said is that we pay for this one way or the other. this is the mechanism we want to

accomplish these goals in regulating the health-care marketplace. which taxpayers or other people pay for if we do not provide for an individual mandate. it is constitutional. i believe the court will find it is constitutional. rather than get involved in the philosophy around whether this is an invasion of liberty, and i appreciate my colleague's walk back into history. you can look at massachusetts. john adams played a role in the constitution. no one ever questioned that we could do that under our constitution. i know the commerce clause is different. when you look at the authority, the goals that it allows for and the branch of the decisions around it, i do not think there is any question that the analysis behind the regulatory

response encompasses this activity. it will be up to the judges who have more experience than can and i. i appreciate this opportunity. i know he is passionate about what he believes in. this is what we can have. i would say that to allow for this kind of debate in the legislature, in the congress and our community to make sure people have access to health care, we can cut costs is an important debate. thank you. >> we thank our input -- talented attorneys general. we know why you are among the leaders in the nation in your film. gratitude to you for increasing

-- gracing us with your presence. we hope the american people are informed on what the debate will be. thank you for the discussion. we are now concluded. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in a few moments, mitt romney and rex form are in michigan -- rick santorum are in michigan. and president obama talks with the nation's governors about education. several eave vents to tell you about tomorrow on c-span 3.

-- events to tell you about tomorrow on c-span 3. lisa jackson testifying at 10:00 a.m. eastern. then hillary clinton will take questions about her part of the budget from members of the senate foreign relations committee. michigan and arizona hold their presidential primaries tomorrow. mitt romney campaigned late today in royal oak, mich., north of detroit. this is a little more than 20 minutes. >> thank you. what a welcome, thank you so much. [applause] you touched our hearts, thank you so much. what an honor to have the

governor introduced me. to have this young lady here with me. she and i went to elementary school together. she was in second grade, i was in fourth grade. i did not notice her. when she was almost 16, i noticed. she went to a party at a friend's house and she came with somebody else. i look to that guy and i said, i live closer than you do. can i give for a ride home? he said, yes. we have been going steady ever since. [applause] >> this is wonderful. i cannot see your faces very well because of the lights. it is wonderful to be in michigan. we grow up here. i tell people -- i had a little pink transistor radio.

i walked all around the listening to tiger baseball. we love michigan. we are michigan bred and born. when mitt is the president of the united states, guess what state we will care about. we will be partners with this governor over here and we will help bring -- [applause] we will help bring michigan back. we love michigan. i spent my summers climbing the sleeping bear dunes and swimming in lake michigan. i have known this guy a long time. we have five sons together, 16 grandchildren.

when i was a young mom, he was so wonderful to make sure i knew my job was more important than his. i appreciated that. i have the feeling his next job will be more important than mine. [applause] everything he has done, he has done a with excellence, integrity, and success in everything he has done. in business, they turned to him to turn things around. in the olympics, they asked him to turn things around. in the state of massachusetts, he does not borrow money and does not raise taxes. that is what we need to have happen in washington. i am ready for some sanity to be brought back to washington. i cannot wait to see this guy do it. [applause]

>> she is amazing. i should stop right there. i really appreciate your willingness to be here tonight. i know he will make a difference tomorrow. i need you to vote, at least once. get out there and vote tomorrow. this is a race about the nature of america. what kind of america we will have for ourselves and leave to our kids. we have a president who has been making some promises. he said he would cut the deficit in half. he doubled it. if we let him borrow $787 billion, he would hold unemployment below 8%. it has not been below 8% since. he said he would cut taxes for middle-income americans. have you seen those taxes? we have a president who is out

of ideas and out of excuses. in 2012, we will get him out of office. the course he would take and the course i would take could not be more different. he just gave a state of the union address. he did not mention the deficit, even as nations in europe are in peril. if i am president of the united states, i will cut spending and i will finally balance the budget. i will do what your governor is doing. i will take programs and eliminate them. is this program so critical is worth of borrowing money from china to pay for it? if not, i will get rid of it. the first thing i will get rid of is obamacare. [applause]

i am also going to work to get jobs in america. there are a lot of things you can do. lower all regulatory burden. he has added regulations 2.5 times his predecessor. one of the things you have to do is get taxes down. particularly for small business. [applause] i do not know whether you know this or not, but there are a lot of businesses that are not taxed as big corporations. they are taxed like individuals. the taxes of the business are the individual tax rate. he has proposed raising the top individual tax rate from 35% to 40%. that will kill jobs. that will kill small business. i will lower taxes for americans by at least 20%.

[applause] i will get america working again with regulations that work and encourage the private sector. taxes that allows small businesses to grow and hire more people. i want to talk about energy. we spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year out of our economy to buy energy from other nations. this president says no to drilling for offshore oil, makes it harder to get coal out of the ground, fails one of the easiest decisions the president has ever had to make. should we be getting oil from canada? if i am president of the united states, we will get that pipeline from canada and get energy independent. this president believes in crony capitalism. he did that with solyndra and

tesla. we will turn once again to a nation that believes in free enterprise and free markets. based on the innovation of the american people. you will have to ask yourselves and ask your neighbors and people across michigan and across the nation, what do we want in our next president? we know what we have now. a guy who is an eloquent speaker and made a lot of promises he has been unable to keep. i believe you want someone who understands how to get the economy working. who understand how to get jobs again. who understands what it takes to get rising incomes again. the median income in america has dropped 10% in the last four

years. this president has failed the american people. i believe we need a president to get the economy going. if we have a strong economy, that means kids coming out of high school and college will have jobs waiting for them. [applause] it means if you are in the prime of your life and you need to move you can find a new job right away. it means that if you are in your retirement years, you know your savings are going to be growing because american enterprises are growing in their value. if we have a strong economy, we will provide for a military that is second to none in the world. because this economy is faltering, this president is saying, where can i cut? there is only one place he is

willing to cut, that is our military. we have fewer ships in our navy at any time since 1917. we have fewer aircraft and older aircraft in our air force than any time since 1947. this president wants to cut our active-duty personnel by 50 to 100,000. we no longer have the capacity to engage it in two conflicts at once. we want a strong america to prevent war from occurring. no one would test america. [applause] it comes back to an economy that is strong that can maintain a strong military, an economy that is strong so people have good jobs. when people want to change

places in the country, they can find work wherever they want to go. i happen to believe that if we want to have a strong economy and good private-sector jobs, it helps to have a president who has had a private sector job. and i have. i think the reason i will beat barack obama in michigan in the fall, this will be a contest about who can strengthen the economy. we will look at his record and we will look at my record, and that will be able to talk about the economy with credibility that he does not have. my commitment to getting america working will be second to none. for that reason, i am going to win in michigan and across the

country. i have to be our nominee. to get that job, i need you guys to get out to vote. we used to say, get out early, and vote often. you cannot do that, of course. get your friends who have not voted, take them to the polls, ask folks in your neighborhood. we have to get that done. i want to mention one more thing. we grew up here. we were born and raised here. we are back asking for your help. we love the beauty of this place. we love the character of the people of michigan. i have had the chance to see a lot of america.

my dad took us around the country when we were kids. he showed us the national parks. i love the hymns of america. i love the beauty of america. i love the people of america. for heroes proved in liberating strife. will our veterans and armed services personnel raise your hands? thank you, sir. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you, ma'am. [applause] there is another verse i love. for patriot dream that sees

beyond the years. the founders of this great country did not just write for their time. they saw beyond the years. the principles they put in place in the declaration of independence and the constitution are enduring principles. when they said we were endowed by our creator, they did not say we were given those rights by our government. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. in america, we would be free and we would have the occasion to pursue happiness as we choose. we could not be told by our government but we would be doing. we would not be limited by the circumstance of our birth. this would be the land of opportunity. for hundreds of years, people have come here from all over the world, seeking the

opportunity, not seeking checks from governments. if you want somebody who will promise opportunity, vote for me. [applause] i will keep this country strong. i will keep this country strong. i will get our economy working again. i will put people back to work and i will make sure america remains the hope of the earth by restoring the american principles and values. [applause] the other day, i got in my car and i drove out to a home of a fellow who lives in this area. he loves michigan, he loves detroit. he has recently made quite a commitment.

he will raise a million dollars for the detroit symphony. [applause] he had a piece of paper in front of me. he had written down some questions. first of all, if you are elected president, will you help me help the state of michigan? i said i would. if you are elected president, will you help me help the city of detroit? i said i would. i turned to him and i said, by the way, given the fact i am willing to do those things, will you perform a concert for my friends? he said he would. i am happy to introduce a friend -- kid rock. [applause] ♪

♪ on a rough road riding high twisting, turning like a new moon rising wandering out into this great unknown i don't want no one to cry ♪ i was born free

i was born free born free free like a river raging strong is the wind ♪ like the greatest canyon wild like untamed stallion you can't keep those chains on me

i was born free i was born free i was born free ♪ i was born free ♪ yeah ♪ ♪ yeah yeah yeah >> you feel good tonight, people? ♪ facing danger

♪ like an unknown stranger grateful for my time with no regrets close to my destination tired, frail and aching waiting patiently for the sun to set done, believe that i will yell it from that mountain high ♪ i was born free i was born free i was born free i was born free ♪ i will bow to the shining sea and celebrate god's grace on thee

♪i was born free i was born free born free. whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa free yeah ♪ born free ♪ [applause] ♪

>> a recent poll indicates mitt romney is slightly ahead of rick santorum. he campaigned in the southwestern part of the state. this is about 45 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. wow. thank you. [applause] great to see you here. it is great to be in kalamazoo. [applause] all right. thank you. thank you, pastor clark. i want to thank all the

organizers for this event for putting this crowd together. you guys did such a great job. there are people that cannot fit in there. we had to set up a second room. we will have two town hall meetings going on at the same time. my daughter, elizabeth, is here. she is the oldest of our seven children. i want to thank the duggars for being here. they have made over 1000 phone calls for us. i want to thank them for their help.

my daughter has been traveling with me. we do a lot of traveling together. my wife is coming and with another couple of the kids tomorrow morning to be here for a great victory party tomorrow night. [applause] this is our oldest, elizabeth, our 20-year-old. she is going to sneak out and do her own town hall meeting for the people who could not be here. go right ahead. to the members of the press, you

might find that more interesting. she will have to answer all the personal questions about me. you might find some dirt. it is great to be here. we have had such a great day in michigan. we have been traveling all over the state. these last few days -- up in the up. i feel like i'm initiated. we have been down to flint, lansing. we have been traveling all over the state and we are excited about the response. i think we will surprise a few people tomorrow night. [applause]

the reason i believe we will surprise people is because we have been talking about a positive vision for our country. something that can get people excited about the future. we have a president right now who is the divider and chief. now working on trying to be honest with the american public and bring us together in a way america works best. i want to go out there and put forth ideas and the vision that reminds us who we are. ronald reagan, when he left office, his last words to the american people, he expressed concern about whether america was going to do as well in the future. the reason for that is because he was worried about american children not learning about the

real american history is. the real origins of our country. what holds it together as a nation. in america, i am a first- generation american. my dad came over on the boat. when my father came to this country with his grandfather when he was 7. when he came to this country, he stepped on american shores and because he came here to be part of this great experiment, that day he became an american. america is not about a race or ethnicity. it is about an ideal and a set of values that make us a country. we forget that. we forget that somehow, america is an enterprise.

it is constantly changing the basic core of america is the same. it is what makes us exceptional. that is our founding document. barack obama said about nine months ago, he listed a whole bunch entitlement programs. everything from medicare to unemployment insurance. america is a better country because of all these government programs and then he read from his teleprompter, i will go one step further. america was not a great country until these programs were passed. [booing] that is a view of america that is foreign to most americans. that is the view, i think, that

most other sovereigns have of their country. what makes our country great is what the government does for the people. instead of what makes our country great is free people. having the opportunity to do for themselves, not the government. [applause] i believe america was founded great. there may be a few tea party people here. there may be a few tea party people and i want to thank the tea party for resurrecting a document that had been out of fashion and favor for a long time. a document called the constitution of the united states. the idea that this document is

the operator's manual of our country. it has worked well in establishing and building the framework for a great country. the most prosperous, most transformational country in human history. from the standpoint of not just freedom, the advancements of humankind. at the time of the declaration of independence and the constitution, life expectancy was about 35 to 40 years of age. just what it was at the time of jesus christ. the human condition did not change dramatically. and then america happened. right? we formed a government.

we declared our independence and in that document, which is not the operator's manual, but the heart of america, the core of america is, i would make the argument that it is what makes america exceptional. we hold these truths to be self-evident. >> life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. >> there you go. that is who we are. [applause] that sentence changed human history. that sentence changed the whole concept of governance. the whole idea of what the

government was there to do. when this constitution was drafted, it was drafted for the purposes of protecting and managing government to make sure the individual, the family, the church, the civic organizations, the little businesses, were free to be able to thrive and prosper from the bottom up. not some ruler to order society from the top down. our founders trusted the great unwashed of america. they trusted all of us. this is not fly over country. this is the heart and soul of america. [applause]

in 235 years, life expectancy went from 35 to 80. the dynamism of the economy, because of america, because of liberating people to pursue their wants and dreams, and not have a government or a leader condemning them for success, at breeding envy between the 99 and the one. when people achieved greatly, we held honors and dinners for them. we build statues because we knew with great success of an individual brought great success for everybody. employers hired employees. right? people who take risks, people who strive and do great things, that is the greatness of america.

we do not envy each other. what has been going on in this country, this divisiveness, condemning certain sectors of our economy, taking other the other sectors of our economy, it is not what america is about. that is why there is this angst in america. what is happening around us, our freedoms are being taken away. obamacare -- anybody want to repeal obamacare? [applause] in swing states, which includes michigan, 75% of voters in swing states believe obamacare

is unconstitutional. believe it or not, the people in the white house who think this is normal course to do what ever they want to do, whether it is passing unconstitutional laws, trampling first amendment rights, this administration does not have any concern that this document has any constraints on their power. i do not know if you saw the other day, ruth bader ginsburg, supreme court justice, was asked the question, whether she would recommend the united states constitution for a country that was starting a government. she answered, no, she would not. it is antiquated.

it is dated. we need something new that reflects the new truths that have been discovered. the united states supreme court justice suggesting that the document that she has sworn to uphold cannot defend it. we need somebody in the oval office and someone in the courts to revere this document and understand its greatness and adhere to it. [applause] obamacare does not adhere to it. it would shoved down the

throats of the american public. if they could get this done, they did not care whether they lost the next election or not. they thought, the economy by 2012 will be good enough for obama to be reelected. once that happens, they have delayed the implementation of obamacare. they do not want you to experience obamacare before the election. they will wait until after that. then they will bring the hammer down. they will bring the hammer down just in time and everybody in america will be used to having government run their lives. it will not be for three years. you will have a chance to vote out that president. by then, their hope is they will get you hooked. i will never forget going to the green room at fox when obamacare -- this was after the

massachusetts senate election and when scott brown was elected. the president decided to shove the senate bill through the house. i remember going to fox and i ran into juan williams. i said to him, what are you guys doing? you will get killed in the next election. this is what he told me. i just talked to the white house and they said, we believe americans love entitlements. and once we get them hooked on this entitlement, they will never let it go. a group of people to be hooked like mindless fish. that is how they see this country.

not people who are free and independent, and have the ability to provide for themselves. a group of people who need them and they need you and your votes to keep their power. this is the state of affairs we find ourselves in today unless we are able to win this election. that is why this issue of obamacare is so vital. it is about taking away your freedoms. it is about destroying the business community by overregulation. it is about micromanaging the health-care field. we will be denying care because there is a budget we have to keep. all those things that you see

in socialized medicine will come to the united states. you will be dictated to. all the other aspects of it. it is not just your economic freedom that will be dictated by the government. once the government says they will give you a right, and they will tell you how to exercise that right. as we saw with the catholic church, where they said to the church, you will do what we tell you to do. even though you object to it morally. i just saw an article yesterday. if obamacare is implemented, there will be no catholic hospitals in america within two years. they will be sold, but we will not comply. [applause]

you hear the left with their constant drumbeat, separation of church and state. separation of church and state. here is the proper definition of separation of church and state. it does not appear in the constitution. what does is the term of the free exercise of religion. those words do appear. religion is to be free from the dictates of government. but the government is not to be free of the influence of faith and people of faith. [applause]

this is basic constitutional law 101. to the elite in our culture this is some kind of cultural war. that people of faith should be able to go out and express their opinions in the public square. they should be able to advocate. according to them when someone of faith as that, they're trying to impose their morality. no more than anyone else who is allowed in the public square tries to impose their morality on anybody else. that is what the public square is for. it is for a healthy debate. [applause] [chanting rick]

what are they afraid of? are they afraid to go in there and make their arguments? according to the courts in this country, they are afraid of people making their arguments even korean court. -- even in court. i will give you an example -- proposition 8 was unconstitutional. marriage should be between a man and woman. it passed in california by a vote of the people. the ninth circuit said that is not constitutional. they said there was no rational basis for anyone believing that marriage should be limited to one man and woman. let me explain what that means. anybody who thinks marriage should be between a man and woman is irrational in their beliefs. there is no legitimate reason

other than this is what they said. hatred and bigotry. if you believe marriage is between a man and woman in is because you're a hero or a -- hater or a bigot. that is a court telling people they're not allowed in the public square to voice these things. if you do, you are a bit. -- bigot. here we go. this is the tolerant left, right? folks, fundamental liberties are at stake in this election. first amendment rights, economic liberties. we have an opportunity to paint a different vision. one that is a welcoming public square. that says to people of faith, no faith, and the faith, come on in. talk about it. make your case. make your argument to the people. i do not have to agree with you but i respect the fact you're here.

just because you have a different opinion of me does not mean you hate me. or that i hate you. and that is what america's about. [applause] the candidate who can go out and articulate a vision of freedom. first amendment freedom. someone who understands what is at stake here. limited government and free people. obamacare -- the could not be heated up better for us. and yet you have a decision here in michigan tomorrow between two candidates who have a chance to win. one has a strong and long track record. of economic liberties in the area of health care. have you heard of health savings accounts?

anybody want to take a guess, you can guess as i am asking the question, who were the first bill on health savings accounts? you talk to any conservative free-market person in health care. they will tell you the core of getting it right on health care is consumer involvement. that is health savings accounts as a policy idea to give people the power back in the health- care system. right? i have been a people first, free market health care advocate for 20 years, since 1992 when i introduced that bill with a guy you might know, john kasic from ohio. there is a person who has a different view. >> romneycare. >> that would be a different

view. they have to -- amending everyone has to purchase health care and how much it would be fined if they did not do it. how much businesses would be fined if they did not do it. they set the limit of any business over a certain amount. romneycare it is 10 employees and you have to provide health care. they put a specific four different plans to could choose from. obama's five different plans you can choose from. they have a dramatically expanded medicaid to cover folks, obamacare expands medicare. you get the point. the idea that governor romney

said i stand by what i did in massachusetts but what obama did was wrong. why is it wrong? it should not be done at the federal level. that is a big difference. you are for government-run health care. you want to have the state to do it. so much for freedom. governor romney imposed on catholic hospitals of requirements to have to provide the morning after pill. so much for the religious liberty argument to make against the president. governor romney uniquely disqualifies himself on the biggest issue in this general election. the ability to go after barack obama on a government takeover of health care. why would that people of michigan put an nominee forward who takes away the most important and salient issue for 75% of swing states for what governor romney did was wrong. how about putting someone who stands on your side with no

government mandates? [applause] [chanting "rick"] we have an opportunity in this election to put forth someone who has a bold vision for getting this economy growing. written by washington insiders. does not make any changes to the tax cut. -- tax code. governor romney lowered taxes a little bit. cut them by 20% to the rate i suggested. it is nice to be copied. take that as flattery. we have a bold plan to get this economy going. we take the corporate tax for corporations, 35%, the highest in the world as of april 1. we cut in half and make it a flat tax, expensing everything.

a flat tax that a small business will pay the same rate as the biggest businesses in america. a level playing field for the big guys versus the little guys. [applause] accept of course i focus, you have seen in my tv commercials. i focus on one area of the economy that does not just compete here but has to compete against a ruthless competitors in china, mexico, and others. we need to make sure that american jobs stay in america, right? where we can compete in vital sectors of our economy. that we create a level playing field the government is not the reason and the cost that government imposes on

businesses is not the reason that we lose manufacturing jobs in this country. i put forth a three-part plan that nails it. three things. number one. we 0 out all taxes on manufacturing activity in america. if you manufacture here you do not pay taxes because we want you to make your things here. [applause] secondly, if you made the business judgment you had to move overseas to keep profit to keep your business open and you made profits which many of them dead, reported $1.57 trillion profits are sitting in overseas banks. were they sitting there and not coming back to america? they are subject to a big, hefty tax, up to 35%. the reinvested in those endeavors in those countries.

we want that money to come back to america. here's the deal. if you bring it back to america, mr. or ms. manufacturer, you invest it and plan here, create the jobs here in america. [applause] finally, the regulatory burden. not just on manufacturers, but general. this administration, i hear it from small businesses to large print the level of uncertainty about what the government will do to as next is truly chilling and harming people to put their capital out there and grow their businesses. they are afraid. already, this administration has put on a record number of large regulations come out large cost impact on the economy. the measure them in anything

over $100 million is singled out by the government. barack obama last year did almost as many regulations as bush or clinton did in four years. in one year. 150 regulations. this is a president that is going to set the record book on micromanaging the private sector in america. whether it is the epa or the nlrv or fda, you name it. they are regulating everything because government knows best. [booing] on the one, i will repeal every single one of those regulations. [applause]

people ask me when the economy will turn around. i said, if michigan hopes -- because what i hope they do on election night, 11:00 p.m. is when the economy will start to spur because we will have a brand new president. [applause] we will get jobs, good paying jobs, not just in the major cities. but where the manufacturers go. they go where they have always gone. almost every little town in america across this country has a little manufacturing plant. imagine what you will be able to do here in this community to attract businesses because of the workforce to have. because of the tradition