endorsing a peaceful plan developed by syria's owned neighbors. but we have refused to let that stand in the wake of our support the for the syrian people. united states police in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all member states, but we do not believe that sovereignty offers a grant of unity, when governments massacre their own people, threatening the peace and stability that we are collectively committed to protect. how cynical is that even as they were receiving kofi annanan, they were invading iblib and continuing their agression. i had a meeting with russian foreign minister lavraf.

-- lavrav. he agreed on the need for humanitarian access and a political process led by kofi annan. based on the terms of the arab league and the u.n. general assembly resolution. this is the time for all nations, even those who have blocked our efforts to stand behind the humanitarian and political approach spelled out by the arab league. we should say with one voice that the killing of innocents syrians must stop and a political transition must begin. second, i was pleased to be here today when we renewed and updated the support mission in libya. last year, countries around the world worked to help libya in

its moment of need. the renewal of to date reflects our continued commitment to libya, and the recognition that our work, to help the libyan people achieve the future they aspire to is not finished. we held an informal consultation of the quartet, remaining committed to the objectives outlined last september. we reiterated our support for jordanian peace efforts and of the call to both parties to remain engaged and reframe from provocative actions. on behalf of the united states i condemn in the strongest terms the rocket fire from cows that into southern israel, which continued over the weekend. we call on those responsible to in that these attacks, and we call on both sides to make every

effort to restore calm. it is no secret that the pursuit of middle eastern peace is hard work, but the palestinian people, deserve dignity, liberty, and the right to decide their own future. they deserve a viable, independent palestinian state alongside a secure israel. but we know from decades in the diplomatic trenches that the only way to get their is through negotiated peace, that cannot be dictated from outside by the united states, the united nations or anyone else, one that we will continue to pursue from every productive ave. i will take your questions. >> a good morning. this morning, did you secure any

commitments or progress to getting the elements that you need for a cease-fire and getting humanitarian aid into syria, and did you discuss the russian arms shipments to syria? >> i did appreciate the opportunity i had to discuss with the foreign minister one week after the russian elections, and after his meetings with the arab league, the way forward. he has clearly heard how strong the feelings are in the region and on the security council and we expect all nations, including russia and china to join us in pushing the asaad regime to allow for humanitarian aid to enter and make way for political transition that will protect the rights of all syrians.

the alternative to our unity on these points will be bloody, internal conflict with dangerous consequences for the whole region. our message is clear, it is past time for action, to protect the dignity and rights of a proud people and to save lives, and to meet the obligations we have as security council members to protect peace and security. the foreign minister will take what he heard here back to moscow, and we are all waiting aboutar from kofi and nonnan the way forward. we will continue our efforts with the 70 plus members of to get humanitarian aid where this is so desperately needed, and to

tighten sanctions on the asaad regime and to strengthen the opposition. we want to support the efforts to end the violence, but we believe that we must act soon. we hope after the consultations today, after the meetings in cairo, and after kofi annan visits damascus, we will be prepared in the security council to chart a path forward. this is what we are committed to and what we are hoping and expecting the russians and others to support us in doing. >> thank you very much. on afghanistan and i was wondering how this affects your diplomacy, and how this affects

the negotiations with afghanistan? >> first, this was a terrible, awful, i cannot even imagine the impact on the family is to were subjected to this attack, the loss of children in this terrible incident. i join with president obama, secretary panetta and other members of the government and american people in expressing our deepest condolences. a full investigation is underway and the suspect is in custody, and we will hold anyone found responsible fully accountable. we have had a difficult and complex few weeks in afghanistan.

this terrible incident does not change our steadfast dedication to protecting the afghan people and to doing everything we can to build a strong and stable afghanistan. we remain committed to the goals that we and our partners have set forth. we remain committed to solid cooperation with the government and people of afghanistan as they strengthen their security and improve their democratic institutions. we recognize that an incident like this is inexplicable, and will certainly cost many questions to be gassed. i hope that everyone understands, in afghanistan and around the world, the united states is committed to seeing afghanistan continue its moved

to a stable and secure, prosperous and democratic state. the people of afghanistan deserve that. this is where we will continue to focus our efforts. >> can you spell out your understanding of the five points agreed to -- as he had said -- he sensed some ambiguity in that interpretation. what are the terms of reference as you see them, related to the political process, with kofi annan's mission? >> the five points that were discussed in cairo are not ambiguous. they are clear in the direction we wished to go but this certainly -- as it has been said

going to require a lot of work to put them into operation. the asaad government has to end the violence against their own people, and there is nothing ambiguous about that. there is no equivalent to that, either. the monopoly on deadly violence belongs to the syrian regime, and there needs to be an end to the violence and the bloodshed to move into a political process. and once the syrian government has acted, we would expect others to cease the violence. but there cannot be an expectation for defenseless citizens, in the face of artillery assault, to end their capacity to defend themselves before there is a commitment by the aside regime -- asaad regime

to do so. there is no question that these five points must move forward, and the reports we're getting from kofi annan is that he is meeting with the arab league and asaad regime to find a way forward to using this as a framework. the united states is clear, that there must be an ending of the violence by the syrian regime, first and foremost. and then we can move to ask others, who will no longer need to defend themselves because we will be in a political process to end their own counter- violence. we want to give kofi annan the time for his recommendations and we have the highest respect for

him. he has a proven track record of bringing parties to resolution. the goal is to listen to him and if he comes back with a slightly different organization that we believe will work, we will be very respectful of that. thank you very much. >> that afternoon, ladies and gentleman. as you can see, i have guests

with me. i am happy to have with me, the secretary of the interior, ken salazar, and a top advisor on energy policy to the president. they are here to talk about the blueprints for the future. what i would like to do -- when i have visitors like this, is to have them speak to you for a moment, and for you to address the questions you have on their issues. and we can allow them to exit and i will take questions on other subjects. i will turn this over to heather and we will get started. >> the president received a new progress report showcasing the historic achievements the of restoration has in achieving the energy future. this shows the efforts of six

federal agencies to _ the commitment of the administration, and their approach to american energy and building a more secure energy future. i want to discuss a couple of the highlights. one year ago, the president set the goal of reducing oil imports over the decade. thanks to more efficient cars and trucks and a world-class refining sector we have cut the imports by 10%, or $1 -- or 1 million barrels per day over the last year. we are on pace to meet the goal by the end of the decade. the obama administration has put in place the first-ever the efficiency standard for heavy- duty trucks, and we propose the toughest deal economy standards for passenger vehicles in u.s. history. requiring a performance of 55

mpg -- and this will save more than $8,000 for consumers over the life of the program. we also have advanced alternative fuels, supporting the research and development in energy technologies. for more on this is secretary salazar. >> it is important for all of us to note that the domestic oil production is 78-year high, and domestic gas production is at the highest level we have seen in recent memory. we are importing the lowest amount of oil that we have in 60 years. for my time as a u.s. senator, remembering back in 2008 when we were importing 57% of the oil from foreign countries, and now

we are only importing 45%, this is a dramatic development that we are proud of. we had a 55% increase in the number of oil rigs that were operating on shore, and a significant number operating in the gulf of mexico. oil and gas production is taking place. we have moved forward with a 13% increase in oil and gas production, and gas production in 2011 was one of the best years we have had in the last decade. the acres allowed to develop by industry include 72 million acres on land and in the sea, with 72 million acres that have been given by the oil and gas

companies, where they are not developing. we have the robust all of the above energy strategy. with the ouster -- outer- continental shelf. we offered to lease 44 million acres of area in the outer continental shelf. oil and gas companies only least 2.4 acres of that. in 200011, we offered 21 million acres, and it was highly productive with the amount of money that came to the american taxpayer. in 2012 we plan on moving forward with the lease sale over 30 million acres. just to make a quick comment about the efforts to lease out the millions of acres for the oil and gas production, the oil

and gas companies are sitting on the permits that have been offered for oil and gas companies, so they can produce those leases. a quick word on the renewable energy program, this president has been leading a renewable energy revolution that we are proud of, and the amount of renewable energy has doubled in the last three years. we are proud that for the public lands of america we have committed to 39 solo projects in the last few years, and on target to get to 10,000 megawatts of power, which will power 10 million homes by the end of the year. >> if you have questions for secretary salazar, let's do that now and i will stay around for other subjects. >> you have said all options on

the table in attacking the high gasoline prices. what would you consider for a release of the strategic petroleum reserve. >> if you look at the history of this -- used by president george w. bush during hurricane katrina -- if you look at these issues, all of these options are on the table because the president feels the pain the american people are facing with respect to gas prices. when you look back from the foundation of opec and before then, you have price shocks over one dozen times. every time you have this happen, you have all the political rhetoric, but this

presents plan is to move forward with the kind of energy policy and strategy that includes what we are implementing because this is the only way that we're going to get to a place where we stop having these kinds of price shocks and disruptions that we have seen since the formation of opec. >> the strategic threshold -- >> i will have him answer the question because he has been working specifically on this issue. >> as you know, the president -- the secretary has said that he looks set all options, and all of these remain on the table in terms of a strategy to deal with the near term issue of the high gas prices. we're not going to talk about the spr with any specificity and

the president is very cognizant of the impact that the high price of gas is having on american families as they struggle to make ends meet. this is a reminder of why it was so important to extend the payroll tax cut, putting an average of $5,000 in the paychecks of american families, it is helping those families deal with higher oil and gas prices. and he is making certain that the department of justice reconstitutes the working group to make certain that no price gouging is taking place in the country as air result of the high oil prices, and he will also review other options. he has said that any politician who pledges to the american people -- that anyone who says they have a three-point plan to

cut this price is not on the level. such a plan does not exist, at least, not a plausible plan. the global supply of oil is affected by factors that are well above -- well beyond the control of any one nation. this includes growth in china and brazil, and unrest in the middle east and other parts of the world. the president is focused on the things that we can control in terms of the energy approach. >> you said oil production is up and the republican line seems to be that this is up on top -- private lands but not in public lands. are you putting these stats together or do you have other stats? republicans say that production is only up on private land.

and how do you answer that these are the bush administration policies to increase drilling, and that this president has increased drilling as well? >> i would say that those attacks are simply wrong. the fact is that we are producing more from public lands with oil and gas, onshore and offshore, more so than any time in recent memory. when you look back to the year of 2009, 2010 and 2011, we make more and more of the public a state available. even after having dealt with the national crisis of the border horizon, the president and the nation have stood up with these programs to explore the sweet spot of america, and when you

got to the gulf you will find that there are more rigs working there than in any time in recent memory. within the last 12 months we have issued 61 permits to drill in the deep water, 100 for the shallow water and there is more of that coming. and when you think about alaska, where the national petroleum reserve has been kept shut because of bureaucracy, this administration has solved the problem and we will see development there for the first time in history. for those who say that they have turned back the clock on allowing our public lands to be used for oil and natural gas production, they are simply wrong. >> i may add to that by saying that the numbers speak for

themselves, and as the president has said it -- we are not at a place where we can grow our way out of this problem. that is why all the policies this administration has been working on from day one have been top-priority. >> the president says that there is no silver bullet to bring down gas prices, but he has called on congress to do away with subsidies for oil and gas companies. do you know how this would affect the prices at the gas pump, or is this just fairness? >> this is a fairness issue, at this time when we are making difficult decisions about the budget, the fact that oil and gas companies are bringing in record profits and getting $4 billion in subsidies annually,

those subsidies should be repealed. the president has called for that and the senate will be voting on these issues soon. >> and there would be a connection between that and the prices going down at the gas pump. >> if production is going up every year, why is gas going to five or $10 per gallon? >> this is the reality, and i think all of you in this room are smart students of history. when you look back at history, all the way back to 1857 -- price shocks that have taken place in this country in the different responses that are made, these have -- these have been going since opec and the first gulf war. the reality is that the oil prices and the gas prices we pay

here in the united states are set on the global market. we do not control them. we cannot control those prices on the global market. sales for the past four years -- no one has really embarked on an energy strategy with all of the above, because hopefully this will be the insulation against these price shocks. when we talk about this strategy, we mean that we will produce more domestically as we have done in the last few years. as we have done with the president's action, as we have done in the united states of america. we will move forward with alternative energies and alternative fuels, for the powering of much of the electrical units in the united states as we are doing with solar and geothermal.

the commitment to sustain, over time, this energy strategy that will ultimately help us deal with this issue, which is otherwise outside of the control of the united states. >> the president has talked about the strategy for awhile, but a new opinion poll shows that two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the president is handling the gas price issue, and only 26% approve of this. doesn't this say that people want more immediate action? >> i think that the fact of the matter is that the president and the administration is not focused on polling data. we know americans are paying a high price when they fill up their gas tanks and the president is focused on that and concerned about it. he understands the impact that

this has on hard-working american families. that is why he is focused on the broad economic policy that includes a payroll tax cuts to 160 million americans, to help make the ends meet. this increases employment and increases economic growth, and he is looking at alternatives and approaches that deal with the short-term and long-term energy -- long-term energy situation. and this goes to why the price of oil is up. if trilling was the answer, if the drilling was the answer to lower prices at the gas pump, we would see lower prices at the gas pump. we have increased, significantly oil and gas production.

what is also affected is the international price of oil -- what also affects the international price of oil is economic growth in emerging countries, and economic growth around the world. the united states is growing and other parts of the world are growing, which is increasing the demand for oil around the world. and this has an impact on the price of oil, globally. and uncertainty in east or syri. these are all factors we have to take into account. it only reinforces the imperative we do everything we can to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy, which is why the president is focused on and all of the above approach. >> you said the administration is focused on solving all the

problems. my question is a you feel confident the administration could resolve similar problems under this administration swatch and? >> let me say something about alaska up. -- under this administration's watch? >> let me say something about alaska. we expect conocophillips to take action there, and i think in the months ahead we are in the midst of reviewing what will happen, so those will be debated, but i think the administration has tried to look for oil and gas production for a lot of different specifics relating to the country and its energy needs but also the pipeline. the keystone project, the president never agree to a

judgment because they did not come here with the state department, and they did not read a judgment on merits. we had a republican who was opposed to the configuration of that pipeline, and we are waiting. i think if people were to put politics aside, they would say they should put the proposed pipeline on the table and have the process of formally and evaluated on merits. >> one of the things we were encouraged with is the fact that part of the pipeline will be going forward, and that is an opportunity to create jobs and also we will be able to move more effectively, and that as a part we can get started with.

the president has asked that we expedite the work we have, but again, that is one pipeline, and this the administration has approved a number of oil and gas pipelines, including one from canada, so whether it is oil and gas or with our infrastructure, this administration has a record of success. >> i was wondering what the administration calculates the uncertainty and the middle east to be on the price of oil today. >> i do not think i can tell you specifically what that number is, but what we are seeing today, and the president

recognizes what the families see at the pump when they are already struggling to make ends meet, but those resources as well as increase tensions in the middle east, we know that there is a driving up of prices having an impact on consumers, and that is where the president is directing his cabinet to take all our options available to address these challenges in the near term. good >> in a few moments, a forum on the constitutionality of the affordable health care law. in an hour and 15 minutes, the gop house candidates newt gingrich and rick santorum, and then a discussion on how u.s.- russian relations will be affected by the reelection of london near clinton as russian president. -- reelection of vladimir putin

as russian president. then the budget request and national security issues in north and south america. that is at 9:30 a.m. at 10:30 a.m., steven chu will testify about the loan guarantee program. also, coverage of the alabama and mississippi primaries begins tomorrow night at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you will see speeches by the republican presidential candidates and the results. you can also join by phone and by facebook as well as join us on which your. >> i hope as we move forward -- join on twitter.

>> i hope as we move towards there are a number of problems, a growing problem with iran. we have a lot oprle answer in te future as we start to deal with the problems coming. >> congressman donald payne was the first african american to serve in new jersey. he served on committees for education and foreign affairs. what is that online on the c- span video library -- watch that online on the season video library. >> the supreme court will hear about the constitutionality of the affordable care act.

up next, a debate on the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate. this is an hour 15 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> good afternoon, everyone. i think we will now proceed to the debate on this symposium. before introducing the moderator, i would like to make a quick announcement about the surveys that are distributed. a common of before and after format, so please fill out -- they come in before and after format, so please tell them of beforehand and wrap them up at the end. you can turn them into people who will be waiting outside after the debate.

the title is the constitutionality of the affordable care act your good -- affordable care either. we were considering vice- president biden's version of the act, but we do have an obscenity rule. it is my pleasure to introduce judge sandra ikuta. before becoming a u.s. circuit judge, california governor arnold schwarzenegger appointed her to be counsel of the california resources agency. good prior to her political appointment, she was a partner of the los angeles office. she previously served as a law clerk.

she received her jd from the university of california school of law. she earned her undergraduate degree from berkeley. nobody is perfect. in addition to her duties, she is currently an appointed member of the judicial conference of bankruptcy rules. most interestingly is prior to her legal career, she attended an unorthodox career path, which included serving as the first female editor and chief of the martial arts magazine. judge ikuta. >> i love saying that i took an

unorthodox career path. i am not sure if viscounts as the -- if this counts as a career path, but i am happy about the role. i am delighted the federalist society invited me to moderate this panel and very happy to be moderating this debate between such influential legal thinkers. did they say there is nothing so frustrating as arguing with someone who knows what they are talking about, so i think we have room for a lot of frustration in the panel. although neither of our panelists need an introduction, i have been asked to make one, so i will be brief. he is a professor of legal theory at georgetown.

is widelybarnett's read during good -- widely read. he is a frequent contributor. he was awarded a guggenheim fellowship in 2008, but that was not his greatest accomplishment in 2008. he also portrayed an assistant prosecutor in the film "inalienable." finally i should note he is an active constitutional i've never cared on the very issues wheat -- constitutional advocate on the issues we will be debating today. he is one of the lawyers

representing the national federation of independent business in their challenge of the affordable care act. our other debater is equally renowned. pamela karlan code directs the stanford law school clinic. she has published numerous articles and a leading constitutional law textbook. she writes a column on legal issues, and she is also an accomplished supreme court advocate, having worked on more than 70 cases, including are gearing -- arguing seven before then on and on court. she is also an inspiring

teacher. she has been selected twice to the graduating class of stamford. professor carlin is a member of law institute, the american academy of arts and sciences, and the academy of lawyers, but she has not been elected to a movie database yet, so let me briefly it set the stage before turning it over. congress passed the affordable care are in march 2010. that legislation was controversial, leading to some 30 lawsuits challenging the act, a conversation on the federal government and fully

booking the calendar for the next three years. today is our turn to add to that growing list of talks, and our debate today is especially timely, because 10 days from now, the last supreme court brief and the case will be filed, and on march 25 through march 28, for six hours the court will hold its own debate on the constitutionality of the affordable care at, but that will not be followed by a cocktail party. the court will consider the constitutionality of two major provisions, the individual mandate and the expansion of medicaid. we will be focusing on the individual mandates, which requires most americans to buy a minimum level of medical insurance and if not, to pay a monetary penalty and said. our discussion will begin with

two opening statements, first from professor barnett and then from professor karlan. i am going to lead off with a softball question, and then you can line up at the microphones and asked really hard ones, so let's get started a. >> thank you, a judge, and thank you for having me here. i asked the judge to allow me one minute of time for a point of personal privilege, and that is to personally thank the stanford federalist society for the role it played in my becoming a constitutional law professor today. 25 years ago the president of the society invited me to speak at the fifth national symposium

here at stanford and on a panel of freedom of association. i was a full-time contracts professor in those days with no interest in ever becoming a constitutional law professor, and i was reluctant to except this, and i was prevailed upon by the students i knew, and i really wanted to go to the federalist event, so i went and i was on a panel, so the punch line of my talk was about the ninth amendment, and it got a much more favorable rove euan -- favorable review then i thought it would, and i thought, maybe i should find something out about the ninth amendment, and that led to other conditions, and eventually i became a constitutional law professor, so had it not been for the society, i think there is an excellent chance i would never have become a constitutional law professor.

they're really got me into the world, and i say that so you realize the power you can have another person's life. you never know when something you do is going to go to someone else's benefit and change their lives, so i want to thank you for about. we can start o'clock. on march 26, the supreme court will begin hearing arguments in the constitutional challenge to the affordable care act brought by six states and my client your good spread over three days, this will be the longest supreme court argument in nearly 50 years. the unprecedented amount of time underlines the confident predictions of a multitude of law professors, but the challenges of the affordable care i were frivolous and that this would be an easy case for

the court if it were to get to the court. just last week the court extended arguments from five and a half hours to six hours. that is a lot of time to devote to any easy case involving a frivolous constitutional claim, so i think regardless of how this case comes out, i think it is fair to say that this assessment by a bunch of experts on constitutional law and the supreme court has been refuted as not an easy case. my job is to explain why the individual mandate is unconstitutional your gun -- is unconstitutional. i will not be discussing the original mandate. i will be happy to talk about those issues, but rather than getting into particular cases, i want to pull back in focus on the fundamentals driving this case.

i have attended oral arguments in all of the challenges as well as the original argument in the florida case, and last september i was mayor for the oral argument in the dc court of appeals. the d.c. circuit upheld the mandate over an opinion by judge cavanaugh, who contended the anti injunction act to deprive the court of jurisdiction to hear the case. during the argument, judge cavan not outlined an analysis that neatly summarizes the -- judge cavanaugh outlined an analysis technique lead summarized it to the reagan -- summarized it. here is the structure he laid out in about 90 seconds from the bench, and i was so moved by this, are reached for a piece

of paper and stock did these things down, and this whole topic is based around these things. first, in entering into a contractual relationship for the rest of their lives is literally unprecedented pure good the third district court judge wrote in his opinion -- literally unprecedented. the third district court judge wrote on this opinion that a health-care ipads note of equivalent in commerce clause jurisprudence. there is no factual they similar protestant -- president addressing the power to conduct an economic mandate of this magnitude. good night they charged the voyage into a chartered territory of constitutional law. good the fact of the matter is the commerce clause jurisprudence is the authority clearly permitting the

extension. that is judge conner your good -- that is judge conner. the fact of something in has never been done before does not make it unconstitutional, but judge cavanaugh observed this does raise a question about constitutionality. although judges should approach all acts of congress and with the object of constitutionality, given that in 20 years the congress has never claimed the attractive power to mandate the citizens send their money to new private companies, judges should be hesitant before endorsing such a power. this interpretive principle was invoked by justice scalia entrance vs. united states when he was a valuating the constitutionality of state governments. justice scalia wrote that if earlier congresses avoided use

of this hour, we would have reason to believe the power was -- use of this power, we would have reason to congress claimed the power to commandeer the people to enter private contracts with companies. the novelty of this power so just say it does not exist. during world war ii, congress could have mandated purchase of war bonds. rather than preventing farmers from growing beyond their quotas, congress could have simply mandated all farmers buy wheat. this tells us that something this attractive probably does not exist. and ultimately justice scalia rejected the reliance on necessary and proper clause by commandeering state power was improper.

however necessary it may have been, by the same token, however necessary it would have been, the power to commandeer individuals like this is also improper. in the second point the judge made was the observation that the power was un. during the argument in the case, they unsuccessfully pressed the attorney for 10 minutes to identify any economic mandates that would be outside the power of congress to act if this meant it was unconstitutional. the government's only real response to this challenge is some variant on the claim that health care is different.

even if it is true that on some factual basis health care is different, this does not provide a limit on done the power of congress, and this was a major concern expressed in their jointly authored opinion when they wrote as follows, "we are at a loss to how such criteria conserves as a limitation of the power the supreme court has emphasized as necessary to the enumerated powers. good were we to adopt delimiting principles, courts would say in judgment over every mandate issued by congress, determining whether the level of participation, the amount of cost-shifting, the unpredictability, or the strength of moral imperative were enough to justify the mandate. ultimately, this only reiterate

to the conclusion we reached today -- there are none." whenever the defenders of the mandate and says health care is different, and you need to ask, what constitutional limitation are you opposing on this power? and a recent debate, a professor claimed, we do not need lawyers and justices to limit the ability of congress to pass some laws, and limiting principle is vote teh bums out." this will not work in the supreme court, but it is highly revealing that this is the best answer a smart guy can come up with. in my view, the absence of a

constitutional limit thing principle on the power to impose mandates is a huge problem for the government. judge cavanagh noted congress could accomplish all it wanted to accomplish simply by exercising tight power in various ways, but it shows an -- exercising tax power in various shows not soup.ow -- chose not to. there were not 60 votes in congress for anything but a month into a tax increase or even a voluntary increase for anyone who wanted a public option. i do not believe the mandate scheme was intended to become law. it is intended to send the matter to a conference committee who would then write

the real bill, but when scott brown got elected on this issue, the democrats were forced to collect this in the house are not get anything done at all. they enacted a bill and were stuck with this dubious mandate, and even a couple of weeks ago, the acting omb director denied this was a tax, but the fact that congress has other powers it has failed to exercise for political reasons underlines the imperative to uphold this new power as a means of addressing new problems with the health care system. the fourth and final, given congress has an ample powers to address health-care reform without a mandate, the judge have not asked why open a new chapter by extending the power in such a dangerous wave? here he made a new argument, and

i have been involved for a year and a half, and it was a new argument against sustaining this power under the commerce clause. unlike the tax and spending power, that is unnecessarily limited, sustaining economic mandates under the congress power would allow congress to impose any penalty for violating economic mandates it may oppose on the future. congress limited itself to on monetary penalty or fine, but in the future, the full panoply of legal sanctions would be available to enforce legal mandates. judge cavanagh seems troubled by the dangerous manner of this federal power, so does the commerce clause really gives congress power to imprisoned in

america who does not buy a product itself might mandate. we need to distinguish three different senses of the word. first, we could mean whether it is unconstitutional according to a what the constitution says. to my mind, the power to mandate is simply not an authorized by the original meaning of the tax. second, we could mean it is unconstitutional according to what the supreme court said in the past. the supreme court has never ruled to uphold it, and finally, we could mean whether you could count to five justices for upholding a stature, so are their five justices to expand power to include the imposition of economic mandates? we all know judges typically bend over backwards to uphold our of congress. gardner -- too appalled at some of congress. recently they asked a question,

and you think of as they should be allowed to make all americans buy health insurance and pay a fine if they do not? 80% of respondents answered no to this question. only 16% answered yes. by a margin of 13 percentage points, american support the appeal of this legislation is is quite consistent over time, and a new gallup poll shows 72% of americans believe the initial mandate is unconstitutional, including 62% of democrats and 54% of those who think health care a lot is a good -- who thinks the health care law is good. this is my conclusion. i want to emphasize i do not believe the court would

invalidate the mandates simply because it is unpopular, but i do think and popularity of the mandate might make the court might region more open to an objection to the individual mandate they might otherwise find a way to avoid, and this is especially true if they can strike down the measure. this has never been done before to ago when in validating the mandate, the court need strike down and no other lot in the history of the region no other law in the history of the united states. although victory would reaffirm the of the government is one of limited and enumerated powers, and if nothing is done constitutional law will remain the way it has been, but if we lose congress will have a new and dangerous power.

all this explains why the challenges have the momentum they do, why the justices were granted three days to hear the case and why i am hopeful the supreme court will show the individual insurance mandate is unconstitutional. thank you. [applause] >> we will give you some extra time. good >> 30 years ago i stopped right here. i was one of the only people to actually attend the first ever convention of the federalist society, which was held at yale,

so it is a pleasure to welcome all of you to my backyard and continue a conversation where i am not sure we convince each other of much other them that we care about the constitution. this mandate assumes there is an implicit contract based on the notion health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. if a young man wrecks his porsche and did not have foresight to get health insurance, we may commiserate but not think the government should prepare his car, but health care is different. americans will care for him whether he has insurance or not. if we find he spent money on other things, and we may become angry, but we will not deny him services, even if more prudent americans and of paying his tab.

that is a quotation from a report in 1989 on insuring health care for all americans. that formed the underpinnings for what was called the consumer choice health security act of 1994 sponsored by republican senators. a similar set of ideas in form and -- set of ideas of what we might kovncall romneycare. it would be a mistake to think of the affordable health care at redefinition. a more expensive program funded

from tax revenues would have garnered fewer constitutional objections, so in thinking about what to say to you in my opening remarks, i want to discuss a possible flood of arguments against the affordable care ike was awful -- act as a whole. if you think congress is a subset of economic activity and that health care is not commerce, i have not much to say to you beyond what judge jackson said the the powers of congress are not to be decided by a reference to any formula and by what justice scalia says about bush vs. gore -- get over it.

the new deal premise is not going away, so this involves interstate commerce congress has the power to control. congress has the power to prohibit various restrictions preconditions or the like. article one gives the power to regulate commerce, and we no prohibition can be a subset. it is not clear why prescription cannot as well, so let's start about whether this can cover inducing someone to enter congress who would choose not to do so after gun regulation. as judge silberman wrote -- not to do so after regulation. as judge silberman wrote, at the time the constitution was fashioned to regulate man to adjust to rule or method as well

as to direct. to direct included to prescribe certain measures to mark up a certain course and to order or command. in other juan's -- in other words, to regulate can require action, and as a matter of constitutional lawyers as well, it can. one theme of the constitution was desire to encourage a more vibrant economy. the commerce clause was part of that broader commitment, so commerce can encourage individuals to enter into transactions they might not have other wwise chosen. most americans are like marijuana, think of yourself as t.e big joint sahara' you are never more than an

incident from the interstate market. most of us are never more than one unplanned incidents from the possibility but we cannot cover the cost of care we expect, so the argument for the mandate flows directly. the affordable care i this is a form of health care. congress concluded aspects would be undercut if individuals could refuse to purchase insurance. congress concluded that broadening the pool to include healthy individuals would help to lower premiums and in an -- and administrative cost secure a good -- administrative costs. maybe congress was wrong. the question was not whether it was correct, but whether the judgment was rational, but the constitution addresses means by congress, or as the court stated

in a 1994 decision, if it can be seen the means adopted are calculated to obtain the end, the extent to which they can reach the end, the close as between the means and the end are the matters of a congressional determination alone. there is evidence to believe that this is critical to regulating the health care act, so we come to the final objection. is there something wrong with making someone buy something they do not want? if there is, it is not that that violates the commerce clause. rather, it is that inviolate some other constitutional constraints. for example, if the government -- it is that it violates some other constitutional constraints. for example, if the government prohibited selling bikes to

jews, that would violate the first amendment. if cars pass a legislation to limit macadamia nuts, that would be a regulation of interstate commerce, since they are grown in hawaii. for congress to and forced people to control a substance without justification. could congress for its you to -- congress force you to vbuy a gm car? they forced all of us to buy a gm car. we just did not get the car. that is what taxation means the reaga.

what about this action in inaction law? congress can reasonably assume virtually everyone will spend money on health care during his or her lifetime. that is clearly an economic activity within covers costs to reach, but the individual mandate allows it to limit the timing, in essence, forcing people to pay up front rather than when they are needed or the society will pay for them if they cared. the great progress of justice brand said sometimes the most important thing we do is not doing. when you think about the affordable care act, it is driven home in a particularly powerful way. you're one of the original plaintiffs in the case before the court was mary brown.

she asserted she did not want to buy insurance for herself or the employees of her small business, but in december, her lawyers are the supreme court that she had filed for bankruptcy. you will find $2,700 worth of unpaid medical expenses. many americans, unpaid medical expenses can be a final straw throwing them under water. and we all pay mary brown some medical care -- mary brown's medical care, so when people ask could the government force you to buy insurance, you already have. in exercising its other enumerated powers such as

running the court system are providing national defence, congress has long required individuals to engage in activity they would not have other was performed. jury service and the draft are the best examples. you will find the government compels people who do not now own computers and who do not want to be drafted to buy something they do not like. this is from the website. you can register by mail at any post office. a man can fill it in, affix postage, and mail it. buying a stamp can be upheld. i am not sure why insurance scam. here is another example. the militia act of 1792 required white man to provide themselves with other muskets and the

equipment. presumably they had to go by uy muskets. congress required individuals to purchase goods from the market. sure the individual mandate is innovative, but i cannot do better than this quote. "if a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory. it is made for people of fundamentally different views and the accident of finding we ought not conclude our judgments based on whether statute's conflict with the constitution of the united states." thank you very much. >> we will now have five men and

rebuttals-- 5 minute triggered >> i always enjoy hearing her. let me go through a couple of the points she made in the order she made them. first to the point that this is not a radical proposal. it would not change the relationship of citizens to the .tate first, i happen to know the guy who promoted this, stuart butler, and i will say this one thing. he is a brit, so i would not expecting to be sensitive to the american constitutional system when he proposes something like those. it just goes to show the fight

someone is a conservative does not mean they have found constitutional judgment, and the fight someone is a republican might even have less correlation with having sound constitutional judgment. it is radical in this sense. i agree this is nationalizing insurance companies to administer a national health- care system by regulating public utilities, and that is probably a slightly more desirable to letting the government run it. give massachusetts gets to do this because massachusetts has a ways to power. the court is going to have to say congress has the power, su, and for the court sears said

records tuesday that the government has the power to do with the state's can do is very radical, and this reaffirms the proposition. the second point has to do with mandates and whether mandates can be included under the meaning of regulate. regulate means regulate commerce, and it does mean to propose that the ada to regulate commerce is the power to create commerce you would then regulate is somewhat of a stretch when it comes to constitutional affirmation, notwithstanding the fact of the word may be down the list of synonyms in johnson's dictionary and a fire -- and the fact it

had never included this mandate. a word regulation did not held to include the power to prescribe until the early 20th century. i think they are correct about the inclusion of the word regulate. the court has never decided the power to regulate is included your goo. it is not true congress has an unlimited set- of means. we know that is true because in the prince case of commerce was executing its power by mandating the state legislatures to pass laws of certain kinds

and as a result of our principal not stated in the constitution. the court held this was an improper means of executing regulatory power over congress to make a sovereign body exercise its legislative powers, but the power to enter into contracts is each one of our powers. normally contracts require intent. if i was a contract now professor, and they are not supposed to be coerced. -- i was a contract professor, and they are not supposed to be coerced. violates the 10th amendment, which protects the reserved powers of the people.

and finally, i want to talk about why mandates are substantially different. you can see that by considering the thought experience. suppose i tell you 100 things you may not do tomorrow. you may not ride a bike even. you may not eat broccoli. there would be 100 things you could not do, but there would be an infinite number of things you could do. suppose i have the power to mandate a 100 things you must do. you must buy a car and 100 other things you must do. if i have the power i would have the power to control your life, because you only have a finite amount of time and resources, so

mandates are completely different manner, in the final point i would make has to do with the other mandates. i have never claimed congress does not have the power to mandate to do anything congress has. it has the power to make you fight and die for your country. it has the power to make you serve on juries. it has the power to make you fill out a tax form, and it has the power to join. does that mean that the power of mandate is not problematic? no, because each of these mandates is director related to service of the government. each is directly related to the

government, and each constitutes one way or another of what the supreme court characterizes. it said it was the supreme and noble duty of americans to provide for the country in return of what the country and gives them. these mandates are for the government. they are part of what it means to be an american system. whether you agree or not, that is the way they are decided. because the congress has the power to make you fight and die for your country, it has the power to do anything less than that, and in a power cut has the power to do anything less than that is the power slaveholders have over slaves, and if the government does have the power over us, if i was ever upheld in those terms, would change the

fundamental relationship of the citizen to the state, and we would be better off to be called subjects rather than civil servantizens. [applause] >> let me start with the places we do agree and then get to the places we do not agree. and we both agree there are constraints on what the government can make you do, and we believe those come from important notions of liberty. where we disagree is on two other points. and one is whether this mandate deprives you of some important liberty, and the second is whether those constraints should be smuggled into the definition of what counts as commerce rather than standing on their

own, and i think that is an area of disagreement between randy and me. this is not the case of general police power. this is a case of regulating the economy. the health-care industry occupies a huge percentage of our gross domestic product. ghraib almost every american values health care of some point in the future, so regulating that activity is regulation of the economy, and for those of us who agree with the abandonment of the production of extraction distinction, it is commerce, so it is not a question of can government to regulate health care. of course they can. and the question becomes is this

a necessary and proper way of regulating it, and i think the answer is yes because the standard is asking whether congress can rationally think there's a connection between making people buy insurance and having a health care system that works. they might be right about that. they might be wrong, but everybody agrees our health care system faces a number of crises, and that is why i started with a reference to the earlier health- care plans, not because i was trying to play gotcha, but simply because people are struggling. people could say this was an appropriate way. many do not think this is the best way.

this is the regulation of the economy, and and and and is this the first step on the road to slavery? i think not. i think it is the first step regarding whether americans have access to health care, and it as a firm step making sure they do not force us to pay premiums so they can get health care that we feel they have to get and are unwilling to deny them if they make the wrong economic choices. >> i am going to ask a question, and you have an opportunity to go to the microphones and get ready to pepper our panelists, and my question is for professor karlan. you seem to suggest the

government can make you buy macadamia nuts under the commerce clause, and you would seem to suggest limiting the result can be the cause. is there a limiting principal? could we say it is fundamentally unfair to require us to buy macadamia nuts? >> let me clarify my answer. i think if the government says you must buy macadamia nuts, they are regulating commerce. the problem is not that it is not about commerce in some sense. i venting there are a variety of arguments. although -- i think there are a variety of arguments that they cannot make you eat them pure good -- kesse eat them. i think there are strong governments of the government

cannot make you in just a substance. we know the government in some cases can force you to ingest a substance because we have arguments about forced medication of prisoners. it is not the government cannot do it, but for three people, the government cannot do that, and i am confident there is not a judge in america but would make people eat macadamia nuts, they would not want to eat, so i am confident that is where the regulation is. good >> can you identify yourself and make sure you frame your question in the form of a question? >> this question is directed towards professor ckarlan. if congress can force you to buy health insurance, how do you make all of the rest of the powers superfluous, and

enumerated powers tug congress of bankruptcy law, and establish post offices -- it seems as they became so specific as to those subjects, how would they force you to buy health insurance to, maybe it is a commerce question in general, but how you prevent from rendering of the other powers superfluous. >> i do not think --those go to the power of congress, not the power to make you buy stamps, so i do not think those would be rendered superfluous by a requirement congress continue to buy something being sold by a market. >> i just had a question. did you mention -- you mentioned

obamacare and romneycare, and you talk about police power of the states versus federal government, so is there anything in the constitution that would protect us from state assertion of power? what are the benefits or drawbacks of having states a benefit or drawbacks of having states regulate health care in that way versus federal government? >> i think it is an important question. i think there ought to be a due process clause objection that you could make along the lines that pam said. i do not think it would succeed. this is all based on existing documents. it is not based on the original constitution. i think it shows the mandate is constitutional. i think states do have this power. one of the reason states do have a broader palette than

congress, -- a broader powers than congress is that when any state exercises the broader powers there is a competition between them and other states, and people who do not like it can move to another state without giving up their american citizenship. as a result, there is a constraint placed on the strains. the people who advocate those policies, which are not popular enough to be enacted state by state, are moved to be enacted nationally. they foresee to leave the whole country to avoid that paul -- they force you to leave the whole country to avoid that policy. even having greater power in the hands of states is checked by greater forces. the only check on those powers

to have our national elections review.icial it has not proven to be a robust check. >> that is a great question. there is a flip side to what we were talking about. the idea that some issues cannot be dealt with on the state level. if you are a state that wanted to create a really robust single payer health system, one of the problems you would face is the bill that system and it is the eight men out theory, if you build it, they will come. you will end up with a field of dreams with everyone moving to your state. part of the answer is moving to the head the of national solutions. state-level solutions -- to the idea of national solutions. state-level solutions would be

very hard. just like kelly moved to a national unemployment insurance. -- just like how we move to national unemployment insurance during the new deal. it is a delicate balance of whether it is better to have federalism or effective solutions at the national level. >> i do think this illustrates one of the many reasons why justice holmes is wrong. that is that the very existence of this competitive federalism does make the united states structure incompatible with certain kinds of political ideologies. we would say they are more all- embracing. to the extent the public does not want them, people are free to flee. that provides a structural check. it was one of the impeti -- is

that the word? one of the motivations for why the federal constitution had to be distorted in order to render it more powerful than it otherwise would be so as to avoid the construction of constraints built into our constitution. >> next. >> the question is for professor carlin. a big part of the justification for health care is that the market is special. is there any limit? is it going to be the case that once they except health care is special, they have to accept all markets as special. if congress says, cars are special, the congress will accept it -- the courts will accept it. >> i do not think it is so much that healthcare is special that supports my argument.

my argument is that this is a regulation of congress. congress, having decided to regulate, can decide to have an individual mandate as part of it. there are people who think health care is totally different. i think there's is a political check that you and not going to see congress passing a law and the other circumstances where they will say, to have to buy the car. they will use the tax power. we did all buy cars. we just did not get them. the government charged you for a car. somebody else bought the car. the health insurance thing, you get the health insurance. >> pam did not make this argument. the government has made that lly offered as a real, legal limit in principle,

then we who deny that health care is different would be entitled to a hearing. we would have to have a hearing. we could call witnesses and figure out what their health care is different than other industries. -- figure out whether health care is different than other industries. the very fact that there would be no such hearing, the government ought to make up why medical marijuana in california was important to them. the fact we would get no hearing, there would never be a determination, it indicates it is not a limiting principle. not of the kind which is being asked for, which is judicially administrable. >> i am from the university of florida. this question is directed towards the professor. you mentioned that the word

regulate includes the power to force people into transactions they otherwise would not complete. i think mr. barnett did not can see on your definition. even if he were to have conceded on that point, there remains the question of, what is being regulated? in your view, the failure to purchase a commodity, is it commerce or is it something else? if it is commerce, where would you find support for the proposition that a failure to produce a commodity constitutes commerce? >> i think there are two ways to answer that question. i have oscillated back and forth between them. one is that you regulate commerce in the sense that forcing someone to engage in commerce is regulating commerce. that is one way of answering the question. if i say, let's make a lot that

says a state will regulate education, it forces students to go to school. it forces them to educate -- engage in education they otherwise would not have engaged in. the other way, i oscillate back and forth, even if this is not commerce, the government is entitled to address things that and not the enumerated powers for the purposes of carrying out the enumerated powers. in the united states, the enumerated power goes to whether or not there is a regulation of commerce in the sense of regulating odometers in cars. the proper clause says you can criminalize something that interferes with that commerce. the clause also says you can use prison, put people in prison who

violate the law. having prisons will help to deter activities that interfere with interstate commerce. with that way of thinking about things, even if the individual who is being forced to buy the health care is not engaged in interstate commerce, it would be forcing someone to do something that is necessary for the regulation of the markets in health-care and insurance. >> do you want to respond? >> we can go on. >> do not jump. >> my question is for the professor. you had mentioned the draft as an example for why the individual mandate for health care is constitutional. as you know, there are certain

amendments that were added to the bill of rights, specifically to deal with the draft. it was discussed among the founding fathers when they drafted the constitution. my question would be, can you address the constitutionality of the individual mandate through the prism of the fact that it is not mentioned in the constitution that the commerce clause allows mandates? there is no protection for things, like making us by macadamia nut. -- buy macadamia nuts. why would that not be in the constitution itself? >> they did not even know there was hawaii. the first western people to land in hawaii lynn did the same year as the declaration of independence. part of this is a disagreement about just how much something

has to be expressed in the constitution. i do not think that the framers of our constitution could have foreseen the country became. i think the document they wrote is capacious enough to enable us to solve the problems of our generation in the same way it was capacious enough to solve the problems of the generation before us. it is not because i can find a health care costs or a mandate clause. i cannot do that. i think people who pretend to do that are disingenuous. the constitution was created in part to enable a national government to deal with unforeseen and unforeseeable problems in later generations. it is the oldest written constitution in the world by an order of magnitude. the average national constitution last 17 years and then they write it.

-- they rewrite it. our constitution is more like a redwood. it is, i will use the phrase, it is a living constitution. it is a constitution to deal with the problems of our generation. i think it is broad enough to do that. >> professor, he was saying that you agreed that there are limitations on what -- you were saying that you agreed that there are limitations on what the congress can force you to buy. it seems that could apply to other congress cases. you could have characterized lopez as the liberty to carry guns near schools. that should be its own due process argument. because regulating commerce is broad doc brought in, we defer to commerce.

-- is brought in, we defer to commerce. i am wondering if you think the isgument you are making reconcilable. >> i think it is consistent. the argument was, there is no commerce. there was no buying and selling of anything. i happen to think that the cases are unfortunate cases. i am not sure they were wrongly decided. i think a better case in one way is prince. that was a spending clause case restricted by the 10th amendment. you had to receive funds in order for you to run the checks. let's assume it is a straight up commerce clause. if it were, the argument is not the there is nobody engaging in commerce, people were trying to buy guns.

it is that the 10th amendment put a strain on it. liberty constraints should be called liberty constraints and not try to pretend that a particular constraint is not a regulation of commerce. to go back to the example i gave earlier, if the government denies people the right to engage in commerce that is necessary to their religion, that denies the free exercise clause. i think the same is true here. people are buying health care. the question is, whether they have a liberty interest in not being able to buy it in a particular way. >> i'm the federal society vice president from the university of idaho. you mentioned early on that there was no factually similar case or issue.

i was wondering how you would distinguish the fifth congress of the u.s. passed an act for the release a sick and disabled semen. is it simply -- seaman. >> that was about the regulation of navigation. the regulation of navigation was at the core of the main of commerce. there is all kind of evidence that is true. if you are operating a ship, you have to provide for insurance. you have to provide for health care for some of the people. this is a regulation of economic activity in the sense that -- we are having all kinds of panels

on all the millions and billions of economic regulations that say if you are going to do this, you have to do it this way. that is what that was. that example was actually misconstrued by the court of southeast underwriters when they found that insurance was commerce. they used this example -- they were regulated navigation. this was a means of doing that. the court never said the insurance part of that -- i think the underwriters were wrong. that is water under the bridge. we are not asking the court restored the regional meeting of commerce. >> there is a light in my eyes. i cannot see anyone up there. i will lead glenn lee. >>-- lead blidnly.

>>-- blindly. >> the regulation congress has imposed makes insurance companies a form of public utility. it would give congress the ability to regulate prices, things like that, based on the benefit -- the practical benefit of forcing everyone to get insurance. with that being said, is there a theory than that if insurance companies -- there a fear then that the government can control what kind of operations can be done just as the government can control which companies are in charge of electricity versus gas back? >> i think it is important to

know that what is going on here is insurance is being abolished. health-care policy people are well aware of this. they are in favor of this. insurance is a bet. you abetting you are going to die, the life insurance company is betting you are going to live. there is a risk. that is what your premiums are. that is what the life insurance company is offering you. there has been a lot of movement away from that. the affordable care act makes that illegal. it says you have to take everybody. it says he cannot vary the amount you charge. you can vary it somewhat. it is outlier in traditional insurance.

what it is preserving is the ability of insurance companies to make money. the point is to keep insurance companies in business so they can administer this government program. both because that would get them on board politically, they did not want the insurance company is supposed -- opposing this, it would allow them to continue to exist. they are still going to be able to make a lot of money. this is a transfer from help the citizens to the insurance companies. -- from healthy citizens to the insurance companies. it is not insurance anymore. it might be the best policy. we should not make any bones there. we should not be under any illusions about what the nature of this change is what seems to conceal the fact is that money is going out of your pocket into the pockets of private companies, rather than the

traditional way. the government has to be politically accountable. >> to follow up on part of your question, can the government regulate what procedures and policies -- a policy will provide? the answer is yes, subject to the constraint of equal protection and the first amendment. just to use a case i am sure you are all familiar with, another case with gonzales. they banned a second trimester abortion procedure. the act says it is anyone who performs the procedure. the government can do that. the disagreement would not be that the government is regulating commerce, it is that they are violating the process.

that is why claims about whether something is included or excluded have to be argued, not about -- on the grounds it is about commerce. >> the amazing thing is that in oral argument, justice stevens asked the defendant, what gives congress the power to tell free clinics what they are supposed to do? this was after the case. the solicitor general was too polite to say this, will it was your opinion. instead he said, we have not read it. >> -- briefed it. >> we did file a brief suggesting there was a commerce clause problem.

>> that is the final point i want to make. that shows how the structural constraints are protections of liberty. when the constitution was first enacted, they were the only protection of liberty. there were no amendments. it was sold to the people on the grounds that because congress only has enumerated powers, you do not need a bill of rights. that only makes sense if the congress does have enumerated powers. once you define the power of congress to regulate the economy, you have done away with that important first line of defense to protect liberty. now all you have are the life boats that the anti-federalists insist be put on congress. you are out of this structure that is defined by congress itself. we want to preserve what is left of the structure of the constitution that attacks

liberty. this is the case that gives us the opportunity to say this far and no further. [applause] >> i think we have run out of time. i hope you'll join me in thanking the panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> let us know what you think about the individual mandate part of the health care law. do you think it is constitutional? we are asking that on our facebook page. in a few moments, the alabama gop hosts nick gingrich and rick santorum. in an hour, a discussion of how u.s.-russia relations will be affected by the reelection of

putin. later, part of the white house briefing on the administration's energy policy. on tomorrow morning's washington journal, a look at the future of the u.s. military and diplomatic roles in afghanistan after the killing of 16 civilians over the weekend. a u.s. soldier is in custody. the guest is michael hirsh. then tim lynch and winnie stachelberg debate the merits of hate crime laws. then, we will hear from frank rusco. "washington journal," every day,

starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> sees ben's and cities tour takes our book tv and american history to be on the road the first weekend of each month. march featured louisiana. >> he was a local man who was born here and lived here most of his life. he started accumulating books when he was a teenager. he continued until he was in his 80s. he accumulated over 200,000 volumes. if we have a gem is going to be this one. it is one of the books we are must cut of. it is the original binding from 1699. it was once owned by a very famous scientist. you can see his name, i. newton. we are not pulling it out so

much. >> american history to be looked at civil war era and medical practices. >> pioneer medicine is a long stretch from what it is today. you consider the things that we take for granted today when we go to the doctor. things like the instruments being as germfree as possible. or, the doctor has washed his hands before he decides to work on us. we used the term cravaack is when we are talking early medicine. -- we use the term loosely when we are talking about early medicine. they would learn as they went. >> our cities tour continues the weekend of march 31 from little rock, arkansas on c-span 2 and 3. >> the mississippi and alabama primaries are tomorrow. the alabama republican party

hosted newt gingrich and rick santorum. ron paul and mitt romney did not participate. 15 delegates are at stake in alabama. this is a little less than an hour and a half. >> we are excited about this opportunity in participating in the nominating process that will produce the next president of the united states. all four candidates were invited to participate tonight. we are honored that newt gingrich and senator santorum have accepted our invitation.

as i said before, this is the first time we have ever done anything like this, so we are privileged to be able to host this presidential forum. i want to thank the local media, the national media. i know it has been an inconvenience for some of you to get here, but we really are a staple for you being here, thank you for the coverage you are giving this campaign. thank you for showing the good side of alabama. thank you so much. [applause] all eyes are going to be on alabama tomorrow. they will be looking at you. i am sure we have a diverse opinion here. that is what makes america so great. i want to encourage everyone of you to please go out tomorrow and vote for the candidates of your choice. that is what this process is all about. [applause] so if you want to replace barack obama in the white house and you want to take alabama,

let's hear it. [cheers and applause] i think we have some enthusiasm here tonight. this is going to drive our turnout up tomorrow. i predict we will have a record turnout at the polls tomorrow. just to tell you a little bit about the format tonight, we do have the two presidential candidates here. they will come out and speak for 15 minutes. after that will have a series of questions by a team of panelists that we have selected. they will be joining us over here in just a few moments. representing approximately 10,000 independent businesses, on their behalf, she is

representing elected officials. rose mary serves on various boards and commissions including the department of human resources, welfare and reform tax force and alumni board of directors. daniel moss is a 16-year-old sophomore at good old high school. he is an officer of teenager publicans and for the last three years, daniel has hosted his own television show called the freedom report. >> for the last three years he has hosted his own television show, called, "of the freedom report." -- "the freedom report." ird guest is michael smith, who oversees the colelge and thege trading plan" alabama g.o.p.

richard john santorum is a native of virginia who grew up in pennsylvania and west virginia. his father -- he received a law degree from honors. rick santorum and his wife have eight children. he was elected to the united states house of representatives from the 18th congressional district, and was elected to the united until 2007. he worked as a consultant and contributor -- and now, will you help me welcome -- santorum?

>> is great to be here in alabama, thank you. thank you very much. i appreciate that wonderful southern hospitality. we have had a great few days in the state of alabama. this is an important time, as i say in every speech i give, this is the most important election of your lifetime, and i don't care how old that you are. importance of this economy,

getting jobs created again in america, where we have a president who has put forth an agenda that robs you of your freedom and new taxes and trust to regulate every aspect of your life, passing more regulations than any president in the first four years of his term. this is an economy that isdown here on the gulf coast in alabama and mississippi and louisiana, how important it is that we have drilling in our gulf and we explore for energy in this country, and we have a president who is absolutely crushing it. he has a two-letter energy policy, n-o. when it comes to drilling in deep water, he said no. he has said no to alaska, federal lands, no. in my backyard, a come from western pennsylvania. we did not own any oil or gas wells, but my grandfather was a

coal miner. we see there, even with private lands and gas being explored there, and oil coming out of the ground in eastern ohio, we have a government who is putting that at risk by brent and regulations over something called hydraulic fracturing, and we have been doing in this country since world war ii. now that it is driving down the price of natural gas, the president wants to think of regulating it. the only place he has said yes is helping the brazilians drill off their shores. when it came to the keystone pipeline, what did he say? no. we need a president that will say yes to energy development in this country, that will create tens of thousands of jobs, lower gas prices, lower natural gas prices.

we need a president who understands what gets this economy going. we have put forth a plan that will get this economy going and other key areas, not just energy but manufacturing. i come from western pennsylvania. i grew up in public housing. the first 18 years of my life. i can tell you working in that town in pennsylvania, i know what about the people employed in gave them the opportunity to rise, and the tremendous knitting together of a community when everybody, no matter what your skill level, has an opportunity to get a job and provide for themselves and their family, have the pride of going to work every day, participating organizations. that is how america works. a big part of that for small town america was manufacturing. the only person in this race who has put for the bold plan, not

just for energy development, but for manufacturing, to create an opportunity for small town and rural america to get the resource based economy going, get the manufacturing based economy going. we see an aggregation of people into big cities because the economic opportunities just not there across america as they once were. we are going to change that. we will bring in jobs that were shipped overseas. we will cut the corporate rate for everybody in half, but for manufacturers, we would say bring those jobs back to america and employ people in small town america. [applause] we need someone who is serious about shrinking the size and scale of federal government, right? [applause] we want someone who has actually put forth a plan that will get us there.

five trillion dollars in cuts over five years. a balanced budget in five years. i pledged to spend less than a year before every year until we get to a balanced budget. [applause] big glass tower in going to do it? you do it the way i did it when i was in the house and led the fight on the floor of the senate. in the entitlements and the federal level and get them back to the states where they belong, not at the federal level. [applause] we did it with welfare reform. i authored the bill that was in the house as a member of the ways and means committee. i managed the bill and went up against ted kennedy and daniel patrick moynihan and bill clinton. harry reid is nothing to deal

with. [applause] we can get it passed. we just need to go out to the american public and tell them, we don't need 72 assessments that the federal level. let's get it back to the state and local level. let's do what works. the amazing thing is with welfare, when you cut the welfare rolls in half across the country, poverty rates went down and employment went up. that is exactly what we want. [applause] we have a track record on the big issues of the day and the social issues of the day on the domestic front. obamacare is the reason i am in this race. [applause] karen and i decided to enter this race. it was not a rational decision. we have seven children, ages 20-3. not the best time in our lives to be out running for president, but we decided to do it because we could not look our

children in the eyes and realize what kind of country we would be handing them if obamacare is implemented, and every single american, not 40%, but every single american will be dependent on the federal government for benefits, and not just any benefit, the benefit of your help and your life. once that happens, once every american now has to look to washington and pay tribute to those in power, you see what happens. it already see which of some of the regulations that have been put in place. the government telling you, we are going to give you rights. be careful. when the government says they give you rights, they can take that away. [applause] they can threaten to take it away, and they can tell you how to exercise that right, whether you want to purchase insurance and what they sell you, they

make you buy, they tax you a certain amount, they tax your employers a certain amount, they pay doctors a certain amount. if you don't like some of the benefits, even if they are against your religious convictions, too bad. you will do what you are told with this new right that you have. you see, the problem is, government is not the source of rights in this country. [applause] ultimately, that is the most important issue in this race. where do our rights come from? who is that that should be in control of this country? i decided to run for president, along with my wife karen,

because we believe that obamacare is the game changer for america. it is game changer on the very foundation level of one word, liberty. liberty is at stake in this election. economic development, yes. jobs, yes. energy, all of those issues, vitally important. but at the core of its, we have a president who believes in ruling you from the top down. that he knows best how to run your life. but that is not what made america great. it is in the eyes of president obama.

nine months ago reacting to paul ryan's budget, he was waxing eloquent, reading from a teleprompter -- my teleprompter is way in the back, you just cannot see it. he said americans, look at all these entitlement programs that paul ryan would propose to cut back. he said america is a better country because of all the entitlements. he said, i will go one step further. america was not a great country until these entitlement programs. that is how the president sees america. he sees america as a country

that is great when government takes money from some and gives it to those who know best how to spend it, and know what is fair and allocating it and giving it to other people. that is what the president believes makes america the greatest country in the history of the world. ladies and gentlemen, that is not the reason my grandfather came to this country back in 1925. there was no social security. there is no medicare, food stamps, no housing programs. there were not any government benefits except one, freedom, and it was enough. [cheers and applause] ronald reagan in his farewell address that a caution to everyone. the final word she said as president of the united states to the american people, the last two paragraphs of his speech, he talked about the concern he had for the future of our country, because institutions like schools, higher education, the media, the popular culture, were teaching a very different story about who we are. he was concerned that america would forget what made us great. the greatness of ronald reagan

was not just his policy. the greatness of ronald reagan is he knew where we came from. he understood what made america the greatest country in the history of the world. i want to thank the tea party, because what they have done -- what they have been able to do over the past couple of years is resurrect a document that many consider to be a dead letter in washington d.c., something called the constitution of the united states. [applause] a constitution is a great and important document. it is the house of america, the operator's manual, something we have not paid much attention to. we need to get back to our constitutional balance, but it

is only half of the story. the constitution alone is insufficient. it is potentially dangerous, as we saw when countries like france adopted a similar constitution at the very same time. but their constitution, unlike ours, was not anchored to another document, a document that anchored and tethered it. that of course is the declaration of independence. [applause] people ask, what makes america exceptional? why are we different? you can go to the constitution, but that is not it. it is these words that you all probably were taught in grade school and memorized, but we

don't really remember or even recognize as americans how transformational they were. we hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. [applause] when the boy read the constitution and say we get our rights from the constitution, that is wrong. the constitution does not give us rights. it recognizes rights that are written on our hearts because we are creatures of god. that is where we get our rights from. we had a country that was based on a constitution that was constructed to protect those rights. we are going to believe in limited government and free people. never before in history of the world had that happened, that we would allow people to have radical freedom. our founders believed with god- given rights, with all rights

come responsibilities. [applause] and if we exercise those rights consistent with his will, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- happiness at the time of the revolution was to do the morally right thing with god's will, because that is what leads to true happiness. that is what our founders believed. [applause] and so we had this great experiment of building of great society was limited government from the bottom up, and we changed the world. winston churchill said the debate is not about the future, it is about the past. we have a president of the united states who is trying to redefine america's past, giving speeches that capitalism doesn't work and individual liberty leads to greed and unfairness and misallocation of resources.

written in all our hearts, people who came to this country and the ancestors who followed them is in fact an understanding of who we are, of what made us great bid for 2000 years pri the world was 35. in 200 years, it has more than doubled, because we unloosed the spirit of the individual, the family, the church, of the civic and community organization and the small businessman. we build a great and just society and family, one church, one school, one business. we believed in it. in 2008, the american public was sold a bill of goods.

there were lots of problems and so we had a candidate that went around and try to convince you that you needed to vote for someone you could believe in, someone who would solve the problems, pay your mortgage, as one person even suggested. but after four years of looking at what put your faith in government can do, we as republicans need to step forward and nominate someone different, someone who can tell the american public that no longer do you need to look to washington d.c. and its president you can believe in, but you need to look at a leader that believes in you.

[applause] thank you very much. i appreciate it. thank you. [cheers and applause] [inaudible] >> thank you, senator santorum. please welcome our panelists. please be seated. [applause] >> the first question will come from our teenager.

he has his own television show. >> senator, it is an honor and privilege. we as americans agree in the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. we live in a country that has had 50 million abortions since roe vs. wade. how will you lead our nation back to god?

>> there has a lot of criticism of me in the press because i am public about my christian faith and my beliefs. one of my favorite sayings is, preach the gospel, and if you have to, speak. and part of your responsibility as a public figure is to go out and behave in a way that is consistent with what you profess to believe in. one reason i was so upset about the way the obama administration has dealt with this issue, and the supreme court case, the obama

administration tried to force a religious organization to hire someone who did not believe in who they were -- in the religion they were to serve. not to hire someone who, as a minister, they did not believe in the teachings of the church. we have to have a president who articulates a vision, that is not just, freedom of worship, they're starting to say this in the state department for freedom of worship. for those of us who are people of faith, we know that worship is not everything of our religion. what we do outside of our worship services is just as important as what we do inside.

as i have done throughout the course of this campaign, we talk about the importance of faith in public life, and people of faith being involved in public life, and speaking out from their religious convictions or from their non-religious convictions. this is what james madison referred to as the perfect remedy of the first amendment, freedom of speech and conscious -- conscience and religion. people of different faiths can come into the public square and make their arguments. i wear a wrist band like a piece of barbed wire, for religious liberty.

this is what all of our freedoms stand upon and if we do not protect that in this country, in the public square, as well as the ability of those at the pulpit to speak the truth, we are not a free country. if you can't say which you believe, then why speak? >> thank you, senator. >> welcome to alabama. many major job creation decisions were made through a competitive bidding process. in recent years, labor unions have been able to sway the outcome of these decisions. critics have pointed out the issues with special interests having an effect on this. how will you keep special interests from interfering? >> i feel blessed to be running

the campaign i am running. i have always felt this way in every race i have been in. i was elected against a 13-year veteran. i was outspent, three-one, and yet, i was able to win, without a contribution from anyone in washington. they put me in a district they never thought that i could win, again. i was given no chance of winning, against a 24-year democratic incumbent. in all of these races, almost every race, i have the blessing of not being the establishment candidate, not being someone everyone got behind and everyone saw me as someone who was going to win.

and they wanted a piece of meat. i was able to come to the united states congress and to what i thought was right. this was a great blessing, and a very liberating thing, not to worry about what your leadership believed, because it is what got you elected. one of the candidates has done contributions from four or 500 lobbyists. we have 11. the beauty of the race is that we can go there with a very clean hands, not having looked at or relied upon anybody but hundreds of thousands of donors and volunteers across the country. this is a blessing. it is a blessing to go there and not feel any kind of tether. one thing i learned from my years in office is that if you just focus on doing the right

thing and you don't focus on building relationships, with people outside of government who may or more -- may or may not be helpful to you, you focus on trying to do what is right. we left all of our belongings at home, and we lived off the land. the people in this country have an absolutely marvelous in giving us enough of what we needed. and so, when i am and hopefully blessed -- when i am hopefully blessed to be in that office, those who helped us across this country, average citizens with no lobbyists and no voice except the voice of wanting to be free again. >> thank you, sir. the last question from the panel

will be for michael smith. >> thank you for coming to our great state of alabama. the national security of our country is an issue that is dear to me. our children are going to inherit -- with the lot -- with iran on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, the poor support of israel, what issues -- what would you do to make certain that tomorrow is more secure than today? >> i will work on the way to defend against the greatest threat we face, iran. overthrow that government, to put sanctions on the government so they can't have nuclear programs and develop nuclear program. when i spoke at apac, i was very

clear. given prime minister netanyahu's speach, israel is that it's wit's end. iran has the uranium for nuclear weapons, and they continue to enrich and purchase new centrifuges. the most sensitive areas are buried deep in bunkers in the mountainside. we know what they're doing and yet this president goes out and misrepresents what they do and who they are to the american people. there's one thing i will never do. i will never lie to the american public about effects of this country for my own political gain. i will tell you the truth and i will tell you the whole truth. [applause] >> and the whole truth is there is a group of radical islamists, radical, if not more

so than al qaeda and bin laden who run one of the most richest countries in the world which is iran. and unless we're able to stop that government from developing these weapons, those weapons will be used one way or the other, they'll either be used directly against targets which they've already identified, israel being one of them. they will be used indirectly by getting those nuclear materials in the hands of terrorist organizations, to be used all over the world, or they will be used indirectly in the sense they will be protected because they now have nuclear weapons and the ability to retaliate. they will be able to pervade terror of the nonnuclear type, all over the world, including here in the united states, without fear of being defeated. eight years ago i put forth a bill that said we need to work with the persian people. that's right, the persian people. the people in iran are not arabs. they are persians. they have a proud and great

civilization. if you go back and read your bible, it's not a civilization that is hostile to jews. and yet we have them taking over by a bunch of radical islamic thugs. what we need to do is what i've been doing eight years, try to encourage the persian people to take their country back from these radicals. i passed a bill that was fought by barack obama and joe biden in 2006 that would have funded these groups, that would have helped them to carry on a revolution. joe biden and barack obama fought that. eventually it was passed right before the end of the session at the end of 2006. but neither george bush nor barack obama gave main to those who wanted to overthrow the current government because they were afraid it might upset the iranian government. and when the time came for a revolution which did in define where they were bleeding in the

straits holding the signs, saying please, president obama, help us overthrow these people killing americans with i.e.d.'s, overthrow the folks that have been holding americans captives almost continuously since 1979. overthrow the people who threaten the state of israel with annihilation. overthrow the funders of hamas and hezbollah and the funder of assad in syria. and barack obama said no, we're going to join with the radical islamists and legitimatize this election. ladies and gentlemen, in this race, we have one person, served eight years on the armed services committee, has a track record on iran that got it right on what to do to avoid a war in iran. over the last eight years. and we have a president who has gotten it wrong on every call. [applause] >> i don't know what the most

important issue is going to be this fall, but if it's national security, the best candidate by far to go up against barack obama and show the american public how pathetic his foreign policy and how dangerous his foreign policy is, not just for israel, not just for the middle east, but for every american is rick santorum and that's why i'd like your help. [applause] >> thank you, senator. senator, i know that you have a very tight schedule. i know you're supposed to be in montgomery shortly but i want to take a point of personal privilege and ask you a question. the founder of our republican party, i should say conservative movement in the country, william f. buckley jr., made the statement many years ago and he said this, when you go to the polls, vote for the republican that's most conservative and can win the election. would you explain to alabamians why you're the most conservative who can win in november?

>> go back to the issues we know are at the heart of this election, and that is the role of government in your lives, the role of government in business, and government usurping your freedom, your taxes, your money. and look at the key issues that motivated republicans and conservatives across this country that was able to get swing voters to join us in droves to win the 2010 election. there were issues based upon that, none bigger than obamacare. the wall street bailouts where wall street walks away with bonuses and americans sit in homes that are still under water. and of course, barack obama's attempt in the past and attempt in the future, rest assured, to take over the energy and manufacturing sector of the economy with cap and trade, or cap and tax. [applause] >> if you look at those key issues that were the motivators for the conservative movement,

that draw the clearest contrast between president obama and our vision of free people and limited government, there is one candidate that draws that clear contrast. we're not going to win this election because we're going to outspend barack obama 10-1 in the fall. we're not. or 5-1 or 2-1. we'd be lucky to be 1-1. so the person who has the most money, it doesn't matter in a general election because you won't have the most money. you better have the person who has the best contrast, the best ideas, the best vision for our country to remind us who we are. and if you look at all of those issues on health care, how many people familiar with health savings accounts? when bill clinton was trying to impose hillary care, john kasay and i, now the governor of ohio, we were in the house budget committee and came up with the idea of now health savings account.

for 20 years i've been arguing for public sector health care, from the bottom up, individual control, not government mandates. [applause] >> frankly, the other people in this race are just wrong on this issue. both have supported government mandates at the federal level, one for 20 years. the other put forth on a state level a template for obamacare and advocated for it and then told republican audiences through 20 debates he didn't do that when in fact he did. it's one thing to have bad policy in the state, it's another thing to advocate for it and a third thing to not tell the truth about what you did. and we need someone willing to tell the truth to the american public. we have a clear contrast on the biggest issue of the day between me and president obama. we don't. why would the republican party give that issue away, the most salient and important issue. 75% of voters in the swing states oppose the individual mandate and oppose obamacare.

why would we put up anybody who supported both? why do we put up someone who supported the wall street bailout. i didn't. the other two in this race have. why would we support someone who supported cap and trade when the climate was right for everyone believing we need to do something about co-2 emissions. i didn't go along like a well-oiled weathervane but stood tall and said this was bad science, this was political science, not climate science. [cheers and applause] >> we want to elect the most elective conservative, first elect a conservative because that's the one that's going to be most electible. vote not -- >> ron paul! >> vote not with what the pundits say. don't vote with what the pundits say. trust your own heart and your

own head. if you would have voted what the pundits say we would have had george h.w. bush in 1980 and not ronald reagan. and where would we be as a country? someone would have forgotten to raise their lips 10 years sooner. we need someone who can stand up and unapologetically talk about what made this country great, encourage people to believe in themselves, believe in the greatness of the american people and our institutions, not the government. there's one candidate that can do that, and i ask for your support. thank you. >> thank you, senator. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> los angeles, >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome karen santorum, senator santorum's wife. and john. >> thank you. thank you.

thank you.

>> ladies and gentlemen, are you enjoying tonight? [cheers and applause] >> it's certainly exciting to see all the enthusiasm here tonight, and i'm confident this enthusiasm will go all the way to november because there's one thing we all have in common and that is we have to defeat barack obama as president of the united states. well, listen, it's been great to hear from one candidate and we're about to hear from another candidate. i know that you all have been anxiously anticipating having all the candidates with us tonight and we're so fortunate we have two of them. so at this time i'd like to tell you a little bit about our next speaker. newton leroy gingrich. [cheers and applause] >> better known of newt, is of german, english, scottish,

irish descent. that should reach everybody. gingrich received a b.a. degree from emrit university in 1965. he then provided to earn an m.a. in 1968 and a pmple h.d. in 1971 in modern european history. both from tulane university. gingrich has two daughters, kathy gingrich lubers and kathy gingrich cushman. he represented georgia's sixth congressional district for 20 years and elected speaker of the house from 1995-1999. speaker ding rich has remained active in debates and worked as a political consultant and now as you know, he's running for president of the united states. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome speaker newt gingrich. [cheers and applause]

>> he's on his way. he's on his way. i didn't talk long enough. thank so you much for your enthusiasm. please be seated. you can rise again and roar again when the time comes. so when speaker gingrich is behind this curtain, he can open it up and come on through. hope you enjoyed the beautiful music on the organ tonight. [applause] [cheers and applause]

>> thank you for that very warm welcome. as somebody who went to high school in columbus, georgia, right next to alabama and taught at west georgia, college, right next to alabama, i kind of feel relatively at home here. in fact, this morning when i had grits, i thought it was a very normal thing to do. although i have to confess i was down along the coast so i had grits and shrimp which is exactly not the atlanta version. but i'm delighted to be here. we're thrilled by the very warm reception we've gotten everywhere. and i want to take a couple minutes of your time, if you

don't mind. most of you know i almost never use written stuff and don't own a teleprompter so i have to do a lot of stuff off the cuff. but the president's press secretary today basically attacked me because as many of you know, i've been talking about the need if for an american energy policy and the idea that we should develop our capacity for oil to a point where no american president would ever again bow to a saudi king. [applause] >> and i have suggested that if we developed our energy capacity to the degree we could , that that would bring down the price of gasoline. on the theory that supply and demand works. this is not something obama is very used to. this is not a bureaucratic

trickle-down, shovel-ready, selendra, let's go bankrupt together policy. [applause] >> and the president has made three speeches in a press conference recently in energy which i'll come back to in a minute but today i'm taking particular note jay carney said the following, talking about the president, what he's not willing to do is look the american people in the eye and claim there is a strategy by which he can guarantee the price of gas will be $2.50 at the pump. any politician who does that is lying. because that strategy does not exist. it is a simple fact there is no such plan that can guarantee the price of oil or the price at the pump, close quote. that's been interpreted by the news media since i'm the only person talking about $2.50 as probably being an attack on me. so i want to take this moment to respond to the president and to his press secretary and say

first of all, mr. president, i would be happy to debate you anywhere in the country any time on energy. [applause] >> i believe your energy speeches have been so patently incoherent that they are indefensible. i would be glad to meet you at a oil rig somewhere. i'd be glad to meet you at a refinery. i'd be glad to meet you at a gas station. i'd even be willing to go to a university campus where you'll feel comfortable. and i would be happy in advance to agree that you can use a teleprompter. but by pure luck, there's a column over the weekend in the "wall street journal" entitled "newt is right on gasoline." that column actually outlined the case pretty well. but this morning, steven moore had something in "the wall street journal" that is so astounding that i want to beg

your indulgence. this is not a standard political speech but i've never been a standard politician anyway. this is what steven moore wrote. in 1995, the u.s. geological survey estimated $150 million technically recoverable barrels of oil from the balk and shale, that's north dakota, in april of 2008, that number was up to four billion barrels. in 2010, geologists and continental resources, the major drilling operation in north dakota, put it at $8 billion. this week, given the discovery of a lower shelf of oil, they announced 24 billion barrels of oil are in north dakota. current technology allows for the extraction of 6% of the oil trapped one mile to two miles beneath the earth's surface so as technology advances recoverable oil could eventually exceed 500 billion

barrels. this is north dakota. there are bigger plays under development now at eagle forge shale in south texas and wolfe camp texas. i'll give you examples. the monterey formation may contain 80 billion barrels. let me start with something washington doesn't want to deal with and in particular liberals don't want to deal with. the idea of peak energy is a stupid idea and does not exist and is a technologically limited model that has been the basis for american energy policy for 40 years and is wrong. the president will never learn this. for a variety of reasons, one is ideological and the other is his choice. he appointed as the secretary of anti-energy dr. chu. and dr. chu said before he was appointed, his committee -- he's an academic physicist, research scientist. his commitment was that the united states, americans, should pay the same price of gasoline as europeans.

that's $9 or $10 a gallon. dr. chu was asked last week what he thought the right price -- was he willing to try to lower the price of gasoline? and he said no. he is not in the business of lowering the price of gasoline. he is in the business of developing replacements for gasoline. he then explained about some breakthrough in battery research, which i suspect in 15 to 20 years' time will be useful. but most of us don't have 15 to 20 years to fill up our cars. now -- i believe -- so first of all, i believe the lesson of where we are is that we should abolish the department of energy as a grotesque failure. [cheers and applause] >> i simply want to start with the premise no more solindras,

no more boondoggles, now let's talk about energy. the president said there's no silver bullets. he's right. but there is a presidential panel. he could sign three documents and change the oil trajectory of the united states. first, he could approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. [cheers and applause] >> that is 700,000 barrels a day of canadian oil coming to houston and it opens up and improves delivery of north dakota oil, delivery of kansas, arkansas, oklahoma, and east texas oil so it lowers the price of all of them. in oklahoma they told me it's probably worth $68 a barrel by lowering the cost. second, he could approve the reopening of areas off texas and louisiana in the gulf. that's 400,000 barrels a day .

third, he could approve designated areas in alaska for about 1,200,000 barrels. that means in those three steps we've added 2,300,000 barrel as day and over 800 million barrels a year to the u.s. oil supply and kept that amount of oil at home to create jobs here rather than sending it to saudi arabia. now, the president in his speech emphasized drilling is not the answer, and the president offered an answer. anyone here know what the answer was? >> no. how many of you new the president's answer was algae? raise your hand. i believe in science and technology and i believe in biofuels and think the research is terrific and i think some place down the road eventually

alge will probably be helpful. i do not think this summer we'll be putting algae in your cars. [applause] >> i think i am the one candidate who can win this race because i'm the one candidate who is the only one to design a very big choice campaign and i worked with reagan in 1984 and redesigned it for george bush in 1988 when he was down by 19 points and won by six. one in every four americans switched their position between may and november. the 1994 campaign was a big choice, the 1996 campaign, even while a moderate was losing the presidency, we were getting re-elected to the house for the first time since 1928. so let's take an obvious big choice. i want to run this on the following energy policy, you can elect president algae and have $10 a barrel and elect president drilling and have $2.50 a barrel.

you decide which future is better for your family. now, this is why i want to debate obama this fall, if i become your nominee, i will challenge him to seven lincoln douglas style three-hour debate with a timekeeper but no moderator. [applause] >> i think the difference is so wide. he believes in the righting of saul olinsky, i believe in the declaration of independence and the constitution of the united states. he believes in apologizing to those killing our young men and women. i will never apologize. [cheers and applause] [applause]

[crowd chanting "newt"] >> need a candidate who is capable, first of all, of running a campaign that eliminates obama's billion dollar ad campaign by proving to people, for example, on gasoline. you can't buy enough ads to convince the american people they're not paying too much. [laughter] >> and that's the kind of campaign you have to run. i watched ronald reagan, i worked on the reagan campaign in 1980, i understand how you pick the right fights at the right level and how you make the choice vivid. but you also need somebody to work with the congress to get something done. we are not just in the business of defeating obama. we're in the business of replacing the bureaucracyys, correcting the laws and replacing judges to getting a country back on the right track.

that requires far more than just having good consultants, negative advertising, and the ability to read somebody's notes. that requires understanding the constitution, understanding how to take 435 house members and 100 senators and how to work with the american people, because in order to change washington, you have to be active as citizens. we can impose change in washington, but washington will never voluntarily change itself. [applause] >> so if i become the nominee with your help tomorrow, if i end up as the nominee, i will ask every candidate running on a ticket with me to pledge they will stay in office on january 3 and before i am sworn in on january 20, they will repeal obamacare. [cheers and applause]

>> they will repeal the dodd-frank bill. they will repeal sarbanes-oxley. and on the very first day of the new administration, i will sign all three of those repeals to clear the slate and focus on getting positive things done to create jobs in america. and on the first day, about two hours after the inaugural address, i will sign a series of executive orders. the first one will abolish all of the white house czars as of that moment. [cheers and applause] >> we will on that very first day move the embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem in defense of israel's right of sovereignty.

we will on that first day reinstate ronald reagan's mexico city policy and no taxpayer money will be spent on abortion outside of the united states, period. [cheers and applause] >> the obama administration apologizes to radical islamist religious fanatics while attacking the catholic church and right to life institutions to the united states. on the very first day i'll issue an executive order repealing every anti-religious act of this administration. [cheers and applause] >> and to go back to energy, on the very first day, i will sign the pipeline for canada, and i'm telling the canadians every

day, don't cut a deal with china, help is on the way, we want the pipeline in the united states. [applause] >> i can only do all of these things with your help. the primary tomorrow really matters. and your vote really matters. and i hope you will decide that having an experienced leader who's actually helped do these things before and who is capable of taking obama head on is what we need as a party, and more importantly, what we need as a country. and i look forward very much to the questions. [cheers and applause]

>> i had to see if he was done. he was getting so many applause, i cannot tell. we got daniel moss, the 16- year-old 10th grader, michael smith is a banking software analyst. you have the first question. >> president lincoln's proclamation for a day of national prayer it. we have grown in numbers, wells, and power than any other nation has grown before. we have forgotten god. bless

it is the nation who's god is lord. live in a country that has seen over 50 million abortions since roe v. wade became law. how would you like lankan lead our nation back to god? >> that is a very powerful and important question. you have to have a president that believes that is part of their responsibility, something which obama does not. you have to have a president that is prepared to pray. i had a project to have franklin delano roosevelt's d-day prayer. franklin roosevelt went on national radio and 46 and a half minutes he prayed. he did not say god bless america. he said, would you join me in

prayer? the country joined the commander in chief in pricing. it is powerful and poignant. we have to center the country around this. we have to bring the federal judges back into enforcing the constitution, not rewriting it. we have a 54-page document that outlines how to bring the judiciary back into line and eliminate this long position of elite values by anti-religion bigots. there is a new show that has christian in its title and his anti-christian. if you imagine the same show with the word muslim in its

title, you would not imagining it. it shows how bad the anti- christian bigotry has become. you need a national leader that says this kind of behavior is reprehensible and should not be calibrated -- tolerated in polite society. >> mr. speaker, welcome. many major job creation and decisions were made through a bidding process. labor unions have been able to sway the outcome of these decisions. critics have pointed out the flaws of enabling special interest groups to determine the investments. what actions will your administration take to ensure that special interests will not be able to interfere with administrative or legislative decisions?

>> we need a whole new generation of appointees. one of the major proposals is to eliminate 130-year-old civil service law laws and replace them with a modern management system. we are going to have to take the public employee unions had on. they have become a very destructive force. there is a reason that president roosevelt was always opposed to public employees having unions. their ultimate employee -- employer was the tax union. you could not have them negotiating against the people. there is a notion that government unions are dangerous. if we are truly serious about saving money, we have to revisit davis and-bacon. it artificially raises the cost for every city, school board, every state that if the build something with federal funding,

they spend extra to meet a union wage that may not exist in the area that they are building. there are a number of steps that they need to take. >> thank you for coming to the great state of alabama. as the son of a marine, my beautiful wife and father of our children, the national security of our country is something that is dear to me. the world in which we currently live in is currently falling into chaos. pooradministration's support of israel and ongoing destabilization in iraq and afghanistan, what would you do to make sure we are more secure than today? >> that is a very powerful, important question. my dad spent 27 years in the infantry. this is a place where

differences are pretty wide. obama it clearly believes in appeasement, apologies, and weakness as a national strategy. i believed in strength, honesty, and firmness as a national strategy. we could not be further apart. i want to give you three examples in this administration. the first is intellectual coherence. when we picked up a moroccan man that was trying to bomb the u.s. capitol. under the obama administration's rules, the fbi could not write down what motivated him because it would be politically incorrect. they do with terrorism as if it was a psychotic behavior where it is a fanatic behavior. they deal with that as if it was isolated, when it is a network of the papers. it is an enormous problem. we had an army major at fort

hood that shot and killed 14 americans and wounded 33. he had in his wallet a car that said soldier of allah. he had regular contact with a cleric in yemen that urged the killing of americans. you have to deal with religious motivations, which are clearly at the heart of what he is doing. we have to develop intellectual honesty about what threatens us. the president's proposal to dramatically cut the defense budget is suicidal. it is absolutely suicidal. [applause] let me say in passing that one leon panetta at testified in the senate that he believed that a nato agreement or united nations agreement superseded the congress, he should resign as

secretary of defense. [applause] he has forgotten, he is not the united nations secretary of defense. he is the united states secretary of defense. we have yielded none of our constitutional authority from the congress to the united nations or to nato to authorize use of force without the congress approving. he is 100% fundamentally wrong. all of us should be alarmed at the idea that the congress that we elect no longer matter and a group of foreigners are now the group of people that decide whether young americans will be at risk. it is a fundamental mistake by panetta. in terms of iran, we should have a short-term and long-term strategy.

our long-term strategy should be based on ronald reagan, margaret thatcher, and pope john paul ii and it should be to undermine and replace the government's by using every non-military means possible. we defeated the soviet government without any warfare. we broke their capacity to resist. we can defeat the dictatorship in iran decisively if we have a real strategy to do so. [applause] in the short run, we should say to the iranians. no israeli prime minister will run the risk of a second holocaust. no israeli prime minister would allow an overt enemy to have nuclear weapons. if you processed on what you're doing and the israelis decide that they cannot take the risk, they will bomb you. when they do, we will understand

why they do that. you should quit doing best if you do not want to get bombed. if you do get a bond, it is your fault because you were being provocative. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. that completes the questions from the panel. that great conservative icon william f. buckley jr. said that we should go to the polls and vote for the most conservative republican that can win in the election. can you tell al -- alabamans what you are that person? >> sure. i did not come here to speak ill of anybody. there are fundamental differences. you look at governor romney's ratings when he left massachusetts. you look at santorum's defeat.

i helped found the georgia republican party. i worked there when there was no georgia gop. i worked five years to win a congressional seat. it took 16 years to create a national majority. i held to resign the first capitol steps event in history. we won the senate when nobody thought that we could. in 1984, i set a record. we picked up 33 house seats. in 1988, we were behind. we designed a reagan-style campaign. we did not try to go to the middle. as he ran over here as a reagan conservative promising no new taxes and standing for national defense ad attacking the kind of massachusetts liberalism that

dukakis represented. we switched 25% of the country. one out of four american switch their view. in 1984, nobody thought it was possible. we went to the american people on a positive basis. i would offer paychecks rather than food stamps. i would offer the constitution. i would offer $2.50 a gallon gasoline. people want real choices. this has been a hard race. we jumped in in june and july. all of the elite money said that we were dead. it is pretty tough to raise money when you are dead. we were the front runner. we came back from iowa. we won south carolina.

we carried 156 out of 159 counties in georgia because they knew me well enough that they repudiated the negative advertising. with your help, we stayed in the race for two reasons. i do not believe the other two candidates can be obama. i believe this is the most important race in our lifetime. i will not leave the field. what we whitney, we cannot just be obama. we have to win in a principled way that we can actually change washington decisively or we are not calling to get this country on the right track. i think i am the only candidate who can do that. thank you all very much. [applause] >> speaker newt gingrich.

thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, panelists. thank you, ladies and gentlemen for being here. mrs. gingrich's down on the front row. she will be down to visit -- agreed visitors here. let me give you a couple of things are but like to say in conclusion. tomorrow please go to the polls and get all of your friends and relatives to go to the polls. work hard for the cabinet of your choice. when we get our nominee at the convention this august, please get behind his nominee, whoever they might be. work like your life depended on it because it does. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> c-span's wrote to the white house coverage of the alabama and mississippi primaries begins tomorrow night. you will see speeches by the republican presidential candidates and the results. you can join in the conversation by phone and facebook. you can watch the latest video of the republican presidential candidates and president obama anytime on mine. you can engage in the candidates on the issues section. on the economy, national security, and other issues. that is at c-span.org/ campaign2012. in a few moments, a discussion about u.s.-russian relations could be affected by the

election of putin as president. later, secretary of state clinton on killings in afghanistan. then a white house briefing on energy policy. later, a debate on the constitutionality of the affordable care health law. on tomorrow morning's "washington journal" a look at the future of the military after the killing of 16 civilians over the weekend. a u.s. soldier is in custody. our guest is michael of the national journal. then we have tim and winnie that will debate the merits of hate crime laws. this is ahead of secretary cu's testimony about the program. we will hear from frank with the

government accountability office. "washington journal" every day starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. c-span's 2012 cities toward takes our book tv "" and american history on the road. >> he was a local man who was born here and live here most of his life. he started accumulating books when he was a teenager. he continued until his 80's. he got over 200,000 volumes. >> this is one of the books we are most proud of. it is in the original binding. it was owned by a very famous scientist. you can see he has written his name, i. newton.

we are not pulling it out so much because it is starting to flake on the title page. >> pioneer medicine is a long stretch from what it is today. you consider the things that we take for granted when we go to the doctor. things like the instruments being asked germ-free as possible or the doctor washing his hands before he talks to us. we use the term dr. loosely. a lot of them were self-taught or they had worked under as somebody that was self-taught. they would burn as they went. >> artwork continues from march 1 until april 1 in little rock, ark. on c-span2 and 3.

>> our ancestors came across the ocean in sailing ships you would not go across a lake in the period when they arrived, there was nothing here. they build their tiny little cabins. they did it by helping one another. >> we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website to see video of the contenders to have a lasting impact on american politics. >> this is the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to the rebuilding of our own nation. america must be restored to her proper role in the world. we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> a discussion of relations

between the u.s. and russia. the pearson institute hosted michael, the u.s. ambassador to russia. this is an hour. >> as you might expect, he is under very tight time constraints while he is here. he thoughtfully carved out an hour for us. he brought friends to catch up on the recent an important events going on in russia at this time. i have introduced him several times. he is an outstanding academic. he has been professor of political science at stanford, a senior fellow at the hoover institution. among other things in his distinguished academic career. i think it is fair to say that he is the key architect of the reset policy. he served for three years as the

assistant to the president. that is at the national security council prior to being ambassador. he was sworn in on january 10. just about two months ago. he has attracted considerable attention since he arrived in moscow. we are delighted that he joins us today. two or three questions are foremost in all of our minds that we want to discuss with him. no. 1 is what the election of vladimir putin, what does it mean for the future of russia and future a u.s.-russia relations? how will the administration and banished the hot current upcoming issue? you have a draft study from us on that topic that we will be releasing formally in the near future and discussing widely. you might also ask the

ambassador how he and the administration view the act as it is being proposed in the congress. with no further ado, it is great to see you back. we look forward to you. [applause] >> i was not short if i would get introductory remarks or i would just take three questions. i will do this as fast as i can. quite a great turnout on a lovely day. i almost did not come because i have not seen so much son recently. i will take this as a sign that there is still interest in u.s.- russian relations.

the main reason i am here is to talk about this. if i was here a while ago when you had a very important meeting here to discuss these things. that was before russia had agreed to join the wto and before the agreement was done. i remember standing up here and saying that we are going to get it done this year. i've heard lots of people saying, you come and go. we have been doing this for 20 years and it is not going to get done. >> we think it is a great deal for the american economy, for american businesses, american farmers, american workers. we thought it was a great deal. i think there is a misperception that russia joining the wto is a gift to

russia. is an incredible misperception that terminating the application is a gift to russia. it is nothing of the kind. that is why we fought so hard to get the deal that we did. this is only a gift to our farmers, our industry. there may have been a different scenario. people said that we should left jackson first. then do wto. we are in a different world now. i jumped on your second question before your first. let me say a few words about the first and then let's get the questions. >> in terms of what the elction in russia means for the reset, i

want to start very quickly. tweeting like. 140 characters like as opposed to the usual 150-minute lecture. i want to remind you what the theory behind the policy was about and remind you where we were acting -- we were at regarding relations. it was a tough time. when the president met president medvedev in 2009, he used a phrase that there has been a dangerous drift in u.s.-russian relations and it is time to end that draft. the reason he wanted to end the draft was thought to have better relations with rush shots or to have happier relations, as he looked out the problems that we were addressing as we came into

office, i look at afghanistan, i look at iran, i think of north korea, i think of the wto. we look at those issues. why is this not in our mutual interest? we gave a list of reasons of why we had not reached an agreement. his idea was born in engagement of the government. first at the highest level. second, across the government. that is why we have a bilateral presidential commission. we have a better chance of realizing win-win outcomes that it if we were occasionally communicating with them. engagement is a means to this end. the second part is very important. as we engaged with the russian

government, we were going to strip -- try to increase engagement with russian society. we meant engagement of american government officials with society as we practice from the very beginning including when president obama was in moscow as creating more connectivity between russian civil society and others. we do both of these things at the same time. third, we rejected approaches from the russian government and our side, too. we rejected the concept of linkage. in order to get a stark treaty, we have got to cooperate with our partners in georgia. to get the sanctions on iran in 1929, the most comprehensive

sanctions ever passed. we rejected that in order to do that, we are going to check our values at the door and not talk about human rights abuses or problems that we see in russia. that is the reset in five minutes or less. our view is that it has achieved real results that are good for national security and our economy. we are proud of those issues. the northern distribution network was a tiny fraction of how we applied our troops in of canada stand in 2009. that number keeps going up, not down. that is a good thing for american national interest. the start treaty is a good thing, to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. to continue to have the inspectors and transparency that

goes with that. that allows us to be in a stable relationship. the third is iran. we started in a very creative and cooperative way to make offers to iran about this impact. the russians and the french did some very creative things to change that dynamic. tehran rejected us. we put together a creative overture. the tehran reactor deal. they rejected russia as well as the united states. therefore, we cooperated with russia to pass u.n. security council resolution and 1929. russia cancel the contract and sent tens of millions of dollars back to iran, which had been paid as a down payment for that military system. north korea, wto, the last

tension between russia and its neighbors. if you look at where we were at the beginning of the a administration and where we are now, i think there is less tension across the board. to what extent we have anything to do with that is less complicated. whether it is georgia or the baltic states or other countries in europe. we have been engaged with the russians on that. i would just point you to our website. every day, we are doing things that we think is good for our national interest in russia. whether it is our visa agreement, terrorism, the business deals that have been done, trade is at the highest level it has ever been at. the deal we were just talking about, fantastic cooperation between the russian private sector and the california

government to restore an important park. there is a lot more going on as a result of the strategy i have done. the challenges are real. syria, we have a fundamental disagreement. we have been working this for a long time. we are still not closer. i would mention missile -- missile defense as another one. disagreements about the pace of political change in russia. those are front and center in terms of changes in russian relations. the way to deal with all three of those is not disengagement or a return to containment or to put away from our general strategy. we would say that even on tough issues like syria, it is better

to engage and try to find common space, even if it means we have to adjust. that is what secretary was cleansed it -- secretary clinton was doing. i should remind you, do not let our policy be defined solely in terms of what we're doing cooperatively with russia. that is a big misconception that i hear. we do not get a security council resolution on syria, and we are not doing anything else. that is not true. we have a very comprehensive policy in which one area of policy we are working with is to have cooperation of the security council or elsewhere. the second is i want to make it very clear, i do not want to go into that. this is a no-brainer. the economic interests are obvious.

you should read the draft report soon to be released again. senator baucus has read it. my colleagues brought a bunch of fact sheets that are outside lighting there that show you the arguments for why this is good for the american people. pick them up there and go to their website if they run out. it is an argument that is overwhelming on the economic side. do not forget the negative consequences of holding onto jackson. if we do that, we will be a non-applications. we will be the ones on the outside. hearing the wto rules. the russian government has made it clear that they are going to not give us special privileges because we have worked this out. i know there is hope for that. no, we won't.

we will still get the lower tariffs because the russians like a so much for what we did to get them in the wto. we pulled them in to do a lot of things. that was a difficult set of negotiations. there are some forces in russia that would be delighted to see that go to other countries. on economics, this is a no- brainer. others would argue that we need this for democracy and human rights. this is over on capitol hill earlier this morning. our answer is the following. we are not going to have an argument on the diagnostics with anybody on the hill. we will not claim that russia is more democratic than you think. we are not born to get into that kind of argument. russia has problems with these issues. we disagree with the

prescription. we do not believe that holding onto jack said the advances the cause of democracy and human rights in russia. what is the causal relationships? there is no causal relationship. we believe we should work with congress to do other things. in parallel, to do things that can help the rule of law and accountable government and to strengthen civil society in russia. we posed to the u.s. congress to propose a new civil society fund in russia. this is in terms of new money. that is what i hear in moscow. you talk to human rights organizations and that that does not exist from russian sources. it does not exist in congress

right now. if you want to do something constructive, that is the area where we should be focusing our attention. this is not going to make russia a more democratic or helpless with syria. there is no link. if you do not believe me, ask him. he put out a piece with his colleagues that made the argument as emphatic as you could want. i think you'll be seeing more and more organizations in russia tried to explain to us that you are not helping them by holding on to jackson. even a more sophisticated issue. those who work on rule of law, the great people in moscow who work at that place. they argued very forcefully that wto constrains bad behavior from

their government. if you are interesting in fighting corruption, that is a good thing, not a bad thing. it is not a silver bullet. our argument is that we need to use everything that we can to fight corruption and help open up society and constrained bad, non-market behavior. we believe that constraining the wto, they have a most favored nation status. it gives us more leverage than on the outside. let me just remind everybody, we took very seriously what happened. i peronally met with his mother. i met many times with bill. i met with senator cardin.

two or three times. we agree that the gross human rights offenders should not have the opportunity to travel to the united states. we have agreed so much that we have taken actions. we first, it was not exactly a sequence. the president signed a new executive order to give the executive branch more authority to make these kinds of decisions about gross human rights violators. we believe this should not be a russia-specific thing. this should be a universal principle. we have taken that action. we agree with the diagnostics

and we have taken action. in other words, we can have a serious conversation about democracy and human rights in russia. we should. we should continue that. i suspect that we will. i dare somebody to stand up and tell me how not repealing, lifting, terminating jackson, how that helps the cause of promoting rule of law, democracy, and human rights. we do not see it that way. we want to use other mechanisms, and venues, instruments. we want to listen to those on the ground in russia. i will stop there. i bet you that is not the last we heard of that question. [applause]

>> thank you very much for leading off at addressing some of the hot-button issues. let me throw you a high hard one to start off. you mentioned playing basketball out in moscow. already have three injuries in eight weeks. >> you are going to the boards too hard. you mentioned the statement put out. calling for the abolition of jackson. making the point that failure to do so plays into the hands of those who are anti-american.

specifically it those with president putin. the closest i am aware of it is when the u.s. had the famous helms-burton legislation. that was against cuba. the congress sent a study team to havana to assess the impact on u.s. interest of the legislation, which tried to it tighten the embargo and limit the economic exchanges with cuba. we came to one main conclusions. the cubans that are on our side want to get rid of castro and see democracy. they tell us that that legislation in cuba is largely

called the helms-burton-catro legislation. it strengthens the hand of castro. even his opponents have to oppose that. it rallied more support to castro. in our interest, it should be abolished. do you find that same kind of phenomenon in russia? that the continuation of jackson hurts our interest in the country? >> absolutely. let me talk more about what the russians say. they are saying house opposed to an intermediate -- intermediaries like me saying it. remember what it was for in the press plays. it linked higher levels of jewish emigration to most favored nation status. it was a tremendous successful

piece of legislation. the problem with jewish emigration since 1994, every year there is a process that we go through to authorize that. what happens to the debate inside of russia, these americans okayed russia at this issue that went away 20 years ago is still there. they are out to get us. they are out to destroy us. it is a burden on human rights activists. it is a burden on the jewish community. i went around to talk to many leaders of the jewish community. not a single person and that supports jackson being on the books. it is not a useful argument for them. they would assume get rid of it. have a useful, modern,

contemporary conversation about the real issues as opposed to having their opponents just roll out these americans are so irrational. they are withholding this for something that is no longer the problem. let me remind everybody that it used to be a different debate. before russia had agreed to join the wto, that is going to happen, before that happened, there was an argument we disagreed west, the obama administration. you could defend the rationality. let's hold jack said that as a way to put pressure on us to get the right deal. russia did care about wto. it is a hotly debated issue.

the pro-market folks wanted it. it did create leverage. we heard those arguments on poultry and pork. those are the ones i remember in particular. we think we got the right kind of deal. there was a lot it back then. with russia joining the wto, they have no leverage on us. that train has left the station. it is hard to understand who is holding this on. >> it is clear what you just said. jackson makes no sense. our study is there for you to pick up on the way out. if you are right and that is a no-brainer in economic terms, then it comes down to linkage.

people want to link the abolition with something else. you are obviously close to what is going on on the hill. what is your prediction? what is the likely strategy to avoiding linkage of that type? do you think you can succeed? what strategy? >> i like the courses on democratization and revolution that at stanford. that is true. the one thing i have learned about the future is to never predict the future about democratization. i am not qualified to do that. i am not an expert on the u.s. congress. i do not know how to predict that. it is the highest priority for the obama administration. it is our top trade issue for

this year. the president last week meeting with the business roundtable made that crystal clear. we have a very active engagement strategy with both sides of the house. we are delighted to host the senator out in moscow. it has jurisdiction on the se nate side. i think he had a very successful trip. we had him meet with people on the political side. we had him beat with human- rights activists and people to fight corruption. they are way more persuasive than we can be. we are doing that. on the timetable, we would like to get this done before russia joins the wto.

we do not want our company to be adversely affected. it is not just a one-time thing. people say that it is a busy year. it is an election year. that may be fined in the abstract. if you lose that market, especially for our exporters that have tough competitors, you lose it one year, you are fighting for the next tend to get back to where you lost it. it is a at specific blow against companies if we do not get this done. >> let me talk about senator baucus' trip to moscow. >> i am from montana. >> in particular, it seems like the u.s. senate -- so many top- level ministerial meetings.

at the same time we are seeing in the media, a massive anti- american campaign which engages the prime minister. how do you make sense of these two contradictory things? >> i would say you are right about senator baucus' visit. he met with the president of russia. across the board, -- a very productive meetings by the way. it was not just the fact of the meetings. serious meetings. the anti-americanism, which had included me from time to time was something that we did not expect. it was somewhat shocking to us,

especially because the kind of relationship that we thought we had been developing with the russian government over the last three years. what i was told many, many times at the highest level of the russian government, they seek continuity in relations. that was the message i got from every person i met with. i met with the opposition the first day i was there. the first day i met with about a dozen russian government officials. everybody's at the same thing. that has been a message that they communicated to us. it does not mean that they will not have differences. that is not a trend thing. we have some principles that were clashing. in the context of wanting that

continuity, they treated senator baucus the way that they did. the spike in anti-americanism is linked to the presidential campaign. somebody decided that there are votes to be had by increasing this stuff. social scientists and used to do survey work in russia. we are going to try to collect some data on that. i want to have a discussion on that. somebody had the hypothesis on that. the election is over. we will see if there is something more fundamental. >> the floor is open for questions. please identify yourself. please go to the standing mic in the back. we only have about 20 minutes. be succinct. >> right here in the front row.

>> it is great to see you in washington. i am at the center for strategic national studies. we had one of our meetings with the executive branch and congressional staffers last week. two things emerged out of that. the efforts to educate the hill need to be ramped up significantly and quickly. a lot more has to be donw. one point in support was applied to the broader u.s.-russia relationship. if the united states cannot do something that is so obviously in favor of this , how of thisputin trust us to do things on the issues that we disagree on?

my question has to do with the larger u.s.-russian relationship. we have accomplished a tremendous amount. as you look out on the hub by issues, they seem to be ones that we have fundamental disagreements on. iran i would add to that. could you talk about what you expect to get from the russians? >> at first on your comment, i take the point. we have an agency team that engages with the hill on a pretty rapid pace. we have been doing that for a year. others in the business community have been doing the sameg. o to the ustr website. they also represent the american

people. there are jobs that are going to be lost. there are farmers i cannot sell their stuff. this is not as big businesses. there are a lot of different companies involved. they are going to lose a big market. i take the point. i also want to be clear that all of the argumentation is out there. we have been engaged in what i think is pretty proactive. i see my colleagues in the back. they can jump in. i am in a different set of negotiations with the russians. i think we can do more. i encourage anybody that thinks about this to take the time to educate. with respect to iran, i do not see it yet as a fundamental issue of disagreement.

i see our cooperation on iran as being one of the successes both being in the first period when seeking a diplomatic solution, it is a creative idea to work with the russians. in terms of sanctions, to work with russia. russia has real economic interests that were lost. politically, the damage to their bilateral relationship was much greater than the damage that we faced. that was a big, important achievement that we did. we drifted a bit over the last several months because of the unilateral sanctions. and because of the sanctions that the u.s. congress put in place. particularly with the national defense authorization act. that created some tension. dealing with those set of

issues. i am more impressed with the unity than the disunity. missile defense, we have cut some disagreements. i am an optimist on missile defense. we do not have a missile defense cooperation with russia in the year 2012. we have only been trying to do that for several months. this was an issue of confrontation, fierce confrontation, for three decades. why should anybody be surprised that we have not been able to get this done in a cooperative way in a year? we have public statements about this, that, and the other. when you talk about that and physics as opposed to politics, i think that this is a place that with time and effort, we

are going to be able to cooperate with russia. even today, there were signs that there were some things that we can agree upon. we are still in the middle of that negotiation. incremental progress. it is hard. welcome to the real world. people say that it is such a hard time to be ambassador. i am interested in the hard jobs. what should anybody have expected otherwise? we are partially a victim of our successes. probably half a dozen others here. and go back and read what you said that we were supposed to do and check off those boxes. what is left on the table are

the harder issues. we are going to continue to work on them. without accepting linkage or throwing our values out the door and excepting trade-offs with our relationship with russia and our relationships with other countries with which we have vital interests. >> and i am west "foreign-policy magazine." have been watching what seems to be an increasing trend of civil unrest inside of russia. do you see that movement as growing and continuing? were the presidential elections of last week's free and fair? how is the overall trend of human rights in russia? what about russia's continued arming of the syrian regime?

what about statements by president elect prudent electputin -- putin saying that you are undermining the russian government by supporting the opposition? >> you know better. sign up on twitter. every single one of those questions have been answered on my twitter handle. i have forgotten all the questions. civil unrest. civil unrest.l it i would call it civil society renewal. this is not seeking the

overthrow of a regime. they seek to engage through peaceful actions to reform the existing system. they want you to understand that they are different and that is what they are trying to do. i just said, i used to teach courses on these topics. predicting where these things will go, i am very bad at it. i think predicting concontinuingences -- contingencyies and agencies is hard to do. there's real politics in russia. >> society is taking their constitutional rights more seriously, and the state is responding to that. not always in the ways, you know, we would like. i tweeted out last week that as

they arrested 400 to 500 people, that didn't seem like a good way to respond to peaceful protests. and the m.s.a., represented here, i see, they responded right away. reminded me of, you know, the wall street demonstrators, by the way, occupy wall street demonstrators. i think that's healthy. i think that's good we're having that kind of conversation. a, between the state and society, and b, between our governments. i don't see anything wrong about that. where i do think it's wrong is when it's not a conversation based on facts, right? so when we heard and i heard time and time again that, you know, mcfaul is paying for the political opposition in russia, that is not true. that is not true. everybody, that is not true. you have to say it five times

because people don't want, you know, others have a political reason not to allow that truth to get through. you know, we support civil society. we support the electoral observers. we're proud of that work. they did good work. but we're not getting involved in those kinds of things. with respect to the attacks on secretary clinton and me, all i would say is our strategy for dealing with that is to engage directly and as smartly and comprehensively as possible. now, it's difficult in the environment that we work in, and that's why things like twitter and facebook are tremendously interesting tools for me. i only got on twitter six weeks ago. i never had a twitter account, not allowed to when i worked at the white house. and i was given very explicit instructions to use whatever means available to do what we

call public diplomacy, right? i used the media, i've been on russian television on state channels, "russia today" as well as opposition. i think engagement is the right policy because we don't feel like we have anything to hide in terms of what we're trying to do. and i found twitter to be a really interesting way to engage with russian society. if you're not on twitter, and i'm not going to ask for a show of hand because i don't want to embarrass people that are closer to my age than josh's. but i got to tell you, i felt like i knew something about russia before i moved to russia. you know, i worked on it for a bit, written some books, working at the white house for three years. the amount that i have learned in the last eight weeks by just being on twitter is just shocking to me. i never, ever expected it. i encourage you, if you want to know what's going on in russia, you have to be engaged with that part of society, not just the other parts.

and by the way, you know, it's very useful to do the work you guys do. i frequently am using work that you guys do to push that into the russian debate. it would be great if you had a russian edition, by the way. so work on that. but that's important, too, because you got to push that kind of information to open up the debate. that's all -- when i retweet other journalists, i'm doing it to open up the debate, not necessarily taking a position. that's how we deal with those kind of attacks. >> were the elections fair? >> we put out a statement, i'm sure you saw, and that is -- that reflects exactly what we thought, including the endorsement of the o.s.c. report which we thought was very professionally done. ok. young lady in the back. >> hi, claudia rosett. you know russia very well, i know from years ago. i have a question i do not

expect you can answer honestly or in full but to mangle dofieski, this is about russia's relationship with iran and the sanctions regime that's been expanding and tightening on which the u.s. administration has been relying to deal with the iranian threat. in the last sanctions push they put together on iraq, russia was the leading violator even sitting on the council. the subcommittee found corruption reaching up to the kremlin. there was never a single investigation in russia. there were prosecutions in france and the u.s. and a great many -- never in russia. and here we are again, we've just seen, and i take it as perhaps an emblematic sign, the ship, the chariot that delivered weapons to syria in january made the news, has just called in iran. i'm told carrying ukrainian

generators. my question is, in this context, if there is any prayer of russia not repeating with its remarkable talent and skill, the sanctions evasions, the violations that have gone on before, who exactly in russia is minding that store? where does the buck stop? is there any authority at all you see trying to track this down, willing to prosecute violators, doing anything? thank you. >> i don't know the story of iraq, i don't know details of that so i can't comment on that. but i would say russia's relationship to 1929 is very different, the u.n. security council resolution of 1929 is very different -- well, i don't know it's very different because i don't know the iraq case. let me say this -- >> today is fine. it's just to say they have experience in -- >> we do not see that happening

right now. president medvedev took very serious that resolution and they deliberately carved out things they did not want to have come under those sanctions, and we don't -- i mean, you know, you should investigate it, and if you do, send me a copy. and i'll tweet it out. but no, seriously, i'm interested in that. we do not see that as a serious problem right now. and moreover, yet even more striking, the sanctions that we did and that we adhered to by law with the national defense authorization act, that russia did not sign up for and did not support and has emphatically argued with us, went beyond 1929 and was not done in good faith. those companies that are affected by those sanctions, they're adhering to those sanctions. and the reason is not because they love america or love iran

or hate iran, the reason is called the american dollar and the american system. and those that are affected by those don't want to be subject to losing, you know, access to that system. so they're doing it not out of a policy but out of self-interest. and i would say that is not yet a problem. doesn't mean it might not develop to be one in the future but i don't see this as a problem right now. >> ok. next. >> bill jones from executive intelligence review. given what i would call the kind of in your face introduction to moscow as ambassador to the united states, do you think that -- where some circles consider you something of an enemy of the state virtually, do you think that this has significantly damaged your ability to create the bonds of trust that is

always necessary for a chief diplomat in another country with the powers that be, given the fact that president putin, whether you like it or not, has been elected by a large majority in what were generally i think fair alecs and you're going to have to deal with him, do you think you're damaged now as a result of the initial stages of your ambassadorship? >> no. i don't. and here's the reason. i worked for three years for the president of the united states on a policy called the reset. and in that job i worked with all those high-level officials every day, all the time. on some very, very hard issues. 1929, this resolution we keep coming back to, that was an effort -- that was a nine-month set of negotiations of which the president of the united states was intimately involved, new start treaty, another giant negotiation, very difficult negotiations that i was a part of. the last big one we did,

w.t.o., worked with mr. suuvalis and the entire russian government to get that deal done along with our counterparts and wasn't just me, it was a team. they know that. they dealt with me three years and in my personal meetings with people, i have no problem what is over. -- whatsoever. it's one thing for campaign organizers to say orange revolution, but at the very highest levels, and i mean the highest levels, i've had personal conversations to say we're delighted you're here because we know, we have somebody that is intimately involved with the execution and development of the policy. so for me personally, i've had -- nobody's canceled any meetings, none of that whatsoever in terms of the russian government. what happens on, you know, the internet and television, that's a different matter. although, i got to say, you know, i say engagement is our policy, so mr. pushkov did a program on me, he's a guy with

a television program, now the chairman of the international relations committee for the state duma. if you saw it, you know it was pretty tough. there were a lot of inaccuracies, in my view. i had him over for dinner the next week. and, you know, we're not going to agree, but we as an administration are not going to be the ones that allow this to go back to a cartoonization cold war, tit for tat, black and white world. we're not going to do it. it's not our policy. if they want to do that, maybe they will and we can't control what they do, but it's not what we're going to do. so i'm going to meet with mr. pushkov and met with at guy that set tough things about me, mr. rozgosiv and i exchange tweets all the time. i'm there to execute and edge gauge our policy.

that's what i do. another thing, i'm not there to be anyone's friend. i know that sounds weird and shocking but i'm there to represent president obama and the obama administration and our national interests. sometimes there's a little bit of confusion about that, you know, and the discussion, u you know, your russian has an accent and you don't really understand our traditions. i'm trying. i got lessons. i'm learning again. i'm trying my best to learn all that stuff. but at the end of the day, i'm not there to be a student of russian culture and history and friend with everybody. i'm there to advance our national interests and our policy. and i think given the background i have before and the backing i have from the president and secretary clinton, i think i'm a good representative, a highly qualified representative to continue to do that even if it means at times there's going to be some heated exchanges, not just all, you know, lovely exchanges and lovely dinner parties and, you know, the diplomatic stuff that i'm also doing, by the way, i'm having

dinner parties and doing that stuff, too. don't misread me. >> mr. ambassador, we're conscious of your time. we've reached our witching hour. i think most of us in this room certainly concur with what you just said. we're all delighted you're there. we thank you for taking the time to share your experiences with us. we look forward to working with you and your colleagues on trying to get pntr through quickly and successfully. we'll have several meetings here at the institute and we'll continue to push hard and work with you a lot and we thank you very much for all you're doing, and particularly for joining us today. >> thank you. [applause] >> in a few moments, secretary

of state clinton on the civilian killings in afghanistan over the weekend. in 15 minutes, part of the white house briefing on the administration's energy policy. then a forum on the constitutionality of the affordable health care law. and later, the alabama g.o.p. host presidential candidates newt gingrich and rick santorum. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable cat light corp.2012] >> a u.s. soldier in custody after the afghan killings over the weekend. our host is tim lynch of the national journal and winnie stachelberg debate crime laws. and the loan guarantee program,

and now from the bankrupt solyndra and here from frank rusco. washington journal every day starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> congratulations to all this year's winners of c-span's student cam documentary competition. a record number of middle and high school students entered a video on the theme "the constitution and you" showing which part of the constitution is important to them and why. watch all the winning videos at our website at studentcam.org and join us on the mornings in april as we show the top videos on c-span and talk with the winners during "washington journal." >> our ancestors came across the ocean in sailing ships you wouldn't go across the lake in. when they arrived, there was nothing here. they built their tiny little cabins and they did it with neighbors helping one another, not federal grants.

>> at the campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website at c-span.org/thecontenders and see videos of those who had lasting impact on american politics. >> this is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to the rebuilding of our own nation. america must be restored to her proper role in the world. but we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves. , c-span.org/thecontenders. >> while secretary of state hillary clinton was at the united nations today to call on members to back the arab league approach ending violence in syria, she condemned the killing of afghan villagers over the weekend allegedly by a u.s. soldier. this is 15 minutes.

>> good afternoon, everyone. before i begin, let me say that, like many americans, i was shocked and saddened by the killings of innocent afghan villagers this weekend. we send our condolences to families who have lost their loved ones and to the people of afghanistan. this is not who we are, and the united states is committed to seeing that those responsible are held accountable. i've had a series of productive discussions today with my counterparts, focused largely on challenges and opportunities facing a fast-changing middle

east and north africa. first in private and in public meetings, we continued our international efforts to stop the horrific campaign of violence that continues unabated in syria. five weeks ago, we were blocked at the security council from even condemning the violence and endorsing a peaceful plan developed by syria's own neighborhoods. but we have refused to let that stand in the way of our support for the syrian people. the united nations believes in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all member states but do not believe that sovereignty offers a grant of immunity when governments massacre their own people. threatening in the process, the peace and stability we are collectively committed to protect. how cynical it is that even as assad was receiving former u.n.

secretary-general kofi annan, the syrian army was conducting a fresh assault on idlib and continuing its aggression in homa homes. i had a constructive conversation today with the foreign minister slaff love -- lavrov and we discussed this weekend in cairo where he agreed on a necessity to an end on violence, full, unimpeded humanitarian access, and a political process led by former secretary-general kofi annan, and based on the terms of the arab league and u.n. general assembly resolutions. now is the time for all nations, even those who have previously blocked our efforts to stand behind the humanitarian and political approach spelled out by the arab league. we should say with one voice as an international community that

the killing of innocent syrians must stop, and a political transition begin. second, i was pleased to be here today when we renewed and updated the u.n. support mission in libya. last year the security council, the arab league, and countries around the world acted to help libya in its moment of need. today's renewal reflects our continued commitment to libya and our recognition that our work to help the libyan people achieve the future they aspire toward is not yet finished. finally today we held an informal consultation of the quartet. we remain committed to the overall objectives the quartet outlined last september and agreed to meet in april. we reiterated our support for jordanian peace making efforts and our call to both parties to remain engaged and refrain from

provocative actions. i also on behalf of the united states condemn if the strongest terms the rocket fire from gaza into southern israel which continued over the weekend. we call on those responsible to take immediate action to end these attacks, and we call on both sides to make every effort to restore calm. now, it is no secret the pursuit of mideast peace is difficult work, but the palestinian people, just like their arab neighbors, israelis, and all people deserve dignity, liberty, and the right to decide their own future. they deserve a viable, independent palestinian state alongside a secure israel. but we know from decades and the diplomatic trenches the only way to get there is through a negotiated peace, a peace that cannot be dictated from outside by the united

states, the united nations, or anyone else, and one we will continue to pursue through every productive avenue. with that, i will take your questions. >> good morning, madam secretary. this morning with mr. lavrov, did you secure any commitments or progress towards getting the elements you need for a cease-fire and getting humanitarian aid into syria, and two, did you discuss the russian arm shipments to syria, did you ask them to stop that, and what did he say? >> well, first, i did appreciate the opportunity i had today to discuss with foreign minister lavrov, a week after the russian elections, and after his meetings with the arab league the way forward. i think he heard clearly how strong the feelings are in the region and on the security

council, and that we expect all nations, including russia and china, to join us now in pressing the assad regime to silence its guns, to allow humanitarian aid to enter and to make way for a real political transition that protects the rights of all syrians. i pointed out my very strong view that the alternative to our unity on these points will be bloody internal conflict with dangerous consequences for the whole region. so our message is clear, it is pastime for action to save lives, to protect the dignity and rights of a proud people and to meet our obligations as security council members to protect peace and security. now foreign minister lavrov will take what he heard here back to moscow and we are all

waiting to hear from former secretary-general kofi annan as to his advice about the best way forward. in the meantime, we will be continuing our efforts with the other 70-plus members of the friends of the syrian people to get humanitarian aid where it is so desperately needed to tighten sanctions on assad and his regime, and to strengthen the transition planning of the opposition. we want to support the efforts of kofi annan and the arab league to end the violence, but we believe that we must act soon. so we are hoping that after the consultations today, after the meetings in cairo, after kofi annan's visit to damascus and his follow-on consultations, that we will be prepared in the security council to chart a path forward. that is what we are committed

to and that is what we are hoping and expecting the russians and others to support us in doing. >> madam secretary, thank you very much. on afghanistan, i was wondering how unfortunate events like this and the koran burning affect your diplomacy there and how might that affect the negotiation with afghanistan? >> well, first, this was a terrible, awful, i can't even imagine the impact on the families who were subject to this attack and the loss of children if this terrible incident. i join, of course, with president obama, secretary panetta, and other representatives of our government and the american people in expressing our

deepest regret and condolences. a full investigation is underway. a suspect is in custody, and we will hold anyone found responsible fully accountable. now, we've had a difficult and complex few weeks in afghanistan. that is obvious to everyone. this terrible incident does not change our steadfast dedication to protecting the afghan people and to doing everything we can to help build a strong and stable afghanistan. so we remain committed to the goals that we and our partners have set forth. we remain committed to solid cooperation with the government and people of afghanistan as they strengthen their own security and improve their democratic institutions. but we recognize that an

incident like this is inexplicable and will certainly cause many questions to be asked, but i hope that everyone understands in afghanistan and around the world that the united states is committed to seeing afghanistan continue its move toward a stable, secure, prosperous, democratic state. the people of afghanistan deserve that. and that's where we will continue to focus our efforts. and yes, go ahead. >> madam secretary, kindly, can you spell out your understanding of the five points agreed to between mr. lavrov and in cairo with the other ministers, as has been said, he sensed ambiguity in interpretation of the russians on that. what are the terms of reference as far as you see them, particularly related to the political process and

references from mr. kofi annan's mission? >> well, first, we think that the five points that were discussed in cairo are not ago -- ambiguous, they are clear in the direction that we wish to head. but it is certainly, as foreign minister jupai and others said will certainly require a lot of work to put them in operation. first and foremost, the assad government has to end the violence against its own people. there is nothing ambiguous about that. as i said to foreign minister lavrov today, there is no aequivalence to that either. the monopoly on deadly violence alongs to the syrian regime, and there needs to be an end to the violence and the bloodshed in order to move into a political process. now, of course, once the syrian government has acted, then we

would expect others as well to cease the violence. but there cannot be an expectation for defenseless citizens in the face of artillery assaults to end their capacity to defend themselves before there is a commitment by the assad regime to do so. so i think that there's no questioning that these five points all must move forward, and certainly the reports we're getting from former secretary general kofi annan is that he is meeting with parties starting with the arab league and with the assad regime to try to hammer out a way forward using those five points as a framework. but the united states for one is very clear, there must be a cessation of violence by the syrian regime first and foremost. then we can move towards asking

others who will no longer need to defend themselves because we will be in a political process to end their own counterviolence. so we want to give kofi annan the space and time to develop his recommendations. we have the highest respect for him. he has a proven track record of bringing parties to resolution. so our goal is to listen to him. and if he comes back with a slightly different formulation that we think will work, we're going to be very respectful of that. thank you very much. >> the first part of the white house briefing included an overview of the administration will energy policy. this part of the briefing is a

little more than 20 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp.2012] >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thanks for coming today. as you can see, i have guests with me. i'm proud and happy to have with me on my left, secretary of the interior, ken salazar and on my right, heather zikele, top advisor to the president. they're here to talk about the blueprint if a secure future. the one-year progress report that was provided to the president today. what i'd like to do is, you know, when i have visitors like this is to have them speak for you for a few minutes at the top for you to address questions you have on their issues at the top and then we can allow them to exit and i'll

take questions on other subjects. and with that, i think i'll turn it over to heather and we'll get started. >> thank you. as jay said, the president today received a new progress report showcasing the administration's historic achievements in securing our energy future. the accomplishments in the report which represent the efforts of six federal agencies underscore the administration's commitment over the past three years to promoting an all hands on deck, all of the above approach to american energy and building a more security energy future. i want to discuss a couple of the highlights. a year ago the president set a bold but achievable goal by reducing oil imports by a 1/3 in a little over a deak. thanks to booming u.s. oil and gas production, more efficient cars and trucks, and a world class refining sector, we've already cut net imports by 10% or one million barrels a day in the last year alone. and with the new fuel economy standards the president

announced last year are on pace to meet our goal by the end of the decade. speaking of those fuel economy standards, the obama administration has put in place the first ever efficiency standards for heavy duty trucks. and as many of you know, we proposed the toughest fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles in u.s. history, requiring an veanch performance of 55 miles per gallon by 2025. over time, these new standards will save consumers over $8,000 over the life of the program. we've also doubled renewable energy, developed advanced alternative fuels and supported cutting edge research and development in clean energy technologies. to speak more about our roles in expanding oil and gas production is secretary salazar. >> thank you very much, heather. i think it's very important for all of us to note the domestic oil production is at an eight-year high in the united states of america, domestic gas production is at the highest level that we have seen in

recent memory, and as heather just said, we are importing the lowest amount of oil we have in 16 years to the united states of america. for me, for my time as a u.s. senator and watching this debate now over the last 30 years, remembering back in 2008 when we were importing 5's 7% of our oil from foreign countries to today where in 2011 we're importing only 45% is a dramatic achievement and one we're very proud of. on the level of activity that we have underway in the united states, we have a 55% increase in the number of rigs operating onshore for oil and gas, as all the significant operating including in the gulf of mexico, where it's back to work again and oil and gas production is taking place there. on federal lands and water, we've moved forward in the last three years with a 13% increase in oil and gas production just from the federal lands themselves.

gas production in 2011 was one of the best years that we've had in the last decade, and the acreage that is being allowed to be developed by industry now includes about 72 million acres both on the land and in the sea where they currently are not developing, that is 72 million acres that have been leased to oil and gas companies where they currently are not developing. we've moved forward to continue the robust, all of the above energy strategy which the president directed us to do so by continuing to lease in the outer continental shelf as well as onshore in 2010. we leased over 34 million acres -- we offered to lease 34 billion acres of area in the outer continental shelf, oil and gas companies only lease 2.4 million acres of those offered acres in 2011 at a lease sale i conducted in new orleans, we offered at least 21 million acres. it was a highly productive lease sale in terms of the amount of money that came in to

the american taxpayer. at the end of the day a million acres were released by the oil and gas companies and by 2012 this summer we plan on moving forward with the additional lease sale over 30 million acres. onshore just to make a quick comment about our continued efforts to lease out the millions of acres of the public estate for oil and gas production, oil and gas companies today are sitting on 7,000 permits that have been issued to oil and gas companies where they could move forward immediately and start producing those leases. just a quick word on the renewable energy program which heather spoke about for just a minute, this president has really led a renewable energy revolution which we are very proud of the amount of renewable energy that's been produced here in the united states has now doubled in the last three years. we're proud that in the department of the interior and through the public lands of america that we have permitted 29 solar geothermal and wind projects in the last three years. we're on target to meet the president's direction that we

get to 10,000 mega watts of power which willpower over three million homes by the end of the year. with that i'll turn it over to jay. >> what i'll do is call on folks. if you have questions for secretary salazar, heather ziegel, do that now and then i'll stick around for other subjects. allister? >> you said that all options are on the table in attacking the high glass lien -- gasoline prices. can you discuss the continues under which you consider a release from the strategic oil preserve? >> i will just say when you look at the history of the s.b.r., it was first used by president george h. bush in the gulf war one, again used by president george w. bush during katrina. i think when you look at these issues and jay can speak more to this, but i think all options are at the table because the president obviously feels the pain that the american people are facing with respect to gas prices.

but i would say again this is probably the most important point, when you look back from the formation of opec and even before then, that you've had price shocks that have occurred in this country now over a dozen times. and every time that you have oil and gas price shocks occurring, you have all the political rhetoric in the country rising to the highest volume that could be raised. but this president has done from day one is move forward with the kind of energy policy and strategy that includes the all of the above energy program that we're implementing because that's the only way we're going to get to a point where we stop having the kind of price shocks and disruptions we've been seeing since the formation of opec and since the forming of opec. >> does it meet the strategic threshold? >> i'm going to have jay answer the question because he has been working more specifically on that push. -- on that issue.

>> as you know, the president has said, as the secretary just said, that he looks at all options and all options remain on the table in terms of strategy to deal with the near

term issue of high gas prices. but we're not talking about it with any speaksivity -- specifics but i know the president is very cognizant of the impact the high prices are having on american families as they struggle to make ends meet , a reminder why it was so important to extend the payroll tax cut by which putting an average of a thousand dollars extra in the paychecks of the average american family is helping those families, 160 million americans helping them deal with higher oil and gas prices.

>> all of you in this room are smart students of history and when you look back to 1857 and bring it into the post world war ii era, you see price shocks for both oil and gas have occurred in this country. and you see the responses that have been made and those responses have been going on since the formation of opec and world war i and other things that have happened. what the reality is, is that the oil prices and the gas prices that we pay here in the united states are set on the global market. we don't set them or control them. this. and congress can't control the prices because they're set on the global market but has failed over the last 40 years is no one until president obama came into office embarked on all of the energy strategy but ultimately is what will be the insulation against these ups and downs and these price shocks. so when we talk of an all of

the above energy strategy, what we're talking about is yes we will produce more domestically as we've shown we've done in three years but use less in the way we've done with the president's action and creating a much more fuel efficient fleet system here in the united states of america and yes, we will move forward with alternative energies and alternative fuels by oil refineries or the powering of much of our electrical needs in the united states with what we're doing with solar, geothermal and other forms of renewable energy and it's the commitment to sustain over time that all of the above energy strategy that ultimately will help us deal with this issue which otherwise is outside of the control of the united states. >> talking about this long term approach and all of the above strategy for a child now but a poll from the abc news shows 1/3 of the public disapprove with the president's handling of the gas price issue and that

only 26% approve of the way he's handled this. you guys continue to say options are on the table but doesn't it say people want more immediate action and what do you tell those folks? >> the fact of the matter is the president and administration is not focused on polling data. we obviously are aware that americans are paying a very high price when they fill up their gas tanks and the president is focused on that and concerned about it and understands the kind of impact that has on hard-working american families who are trying to make ends meet. that's why he is focused on a broad economic policy that includes payroll tax cut to 160 million americans that give them extra money in their pockets to help make ends meet.

and approaches to deal with you are long term energy solution. but if drilling were the answer and increasing drilling were the answer in the united states to lowering prices at the pump, we would be seeing lower prices at the pump because under president obama we have increased significantly domestic oil and gas production. that is a fact. what else affects, obviously the international price of oil is the economics in china, india, brazil, other emerging countries, economic growth around the world. the fact is the united states is growing, other parts of the world are growing and that increases the demand for oil around the world and that has an impact on the price, globally. of course, also, unrest and uncertainty in the middle east, whether it's iran or syria or

libya last year has an effect. and these are all factors that we have to take into account as we make policy and only reinforces the imperative that we do everything we can to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy which is why this president is focused on all of the above approach. >> can america solve some of the problems that take place in alaska. and do you feel confident the administration can resolve similar problems and impediments so keystone could take place under this administration's watch? >> let me say something about alaska first, let me say we've been able to move forward and expect conoco phillips to start a play there in the not too innocent future in the oil

being the npra and we're in the midst of reviewing what will happen in the arctic seas as well. but those have been debated for a very long time but are indicators of the administration has tried to look for oil and gas production for a lot of specifics really for a country's energy needs but also to alaska and the alaska pipeline. and the keystone pipeline, i would just say this, the president never reached a judgment on the merits because they didn't come here with the state department and they didn't reach a judgment on the merits. you had a governor who was very opposed to the configuration of that pipeline and we're still waiting to receive the application on a new pipeline, so i think if the people were to put politics aside, what they would say is yes, canada should come forward with the proposed pipeline route on the table and then have the process engaged so it can be formally

evaluated and a decision with be made on the merits. >> i would just add to that, one of the things we were encouraged by is the fact the cushioning, oklahoma to port sure section of the pipeline will be going forward and is an continue to create jobs and address an energy challenge in curbing and have a glut of oil and can move it more efficiently and effectively and that's a portion of the pipeline that's not controversial that we can get started with. the president has asked where the federal government has a role that we expedite the work that we have to do and we're committed to doing that but again that's one pipeline and this administration has actually approved a number of oil and gas pipelines including one from canada. so, you know, whether it's oil or gas or what we've done in the renewable sector or our infrastructure, this administration has a record of success. >> yes, sir. distinguished gentleman in the

back. >> yeah. >> yes, i was wondering what the administration's -- how can the jitters premium, uncertainty in the middle east be in the price of a barrel today, the a.p.i. says it's 15%. i hear it's much higher. >> i don't think that i can tell you specifically what that number is, but as jay has mentioned, what we're seeing today and certainly the president recognizes the pain that families are seeing at the pump when they're already struggling to make ends meet that those outside forces, including, you know, what we're seeing in terms of growth and demand from emerging economies, china and india with millions of drivers on the road, as well as the increased tensions in the middle east, we know those are driving up prices and know it's having an impact on american consumers and why the president directed his cabinet to take all actions available to help address these

challenges in the near term. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp.2012] >> a discussion of u.s. russia relations. several live events to tell you about tomorrow. the senate armed services committee will hear from the heads of the northern and southern command about the administration's budget request and national security issues in north and south america. that's on c-span 3 at 9:30 a.m. eastern. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, energy secretary steven chu will testify about his department's loan guarantee program, the solar company solyndra which filed for bankruptcy last year received loans from this program. also on c-span, our road to the white house coverage of the

alabama and mississippi primaries begins tomorrow night at 7:00 eastern. we will see speeches by the republican presidential candidates and the results. you can also join the conversation by phone and on facebook as well as follow us on twitter. c-span's 2012 local content vehicles cities tour takes our book tv and american history tv programming on the road the first weekend of each month. march featured shreveport, louisiana, with book tv at the noel memorial library. >> mr. noel was a local man who was born here and lived here most of his life and started accumulating books when he was a teenager and continued until he was in his 80's. over his lifetime he accumulated over 200,000 volumes. if we have a gem in the collection, it is probably going to be this one. it's one of the books we're most proud of. it's in the original binding from 1699, and it was once

owned by a very famous scientist. you can see he's written his name, i., newton and we're not pulling it out so much anymore because it's starting to flake away on the title page. >> they looked at civil war medical practices at the pioneer heritage museum. >> pioneer medicine is a long stretch from where it is today. you consider that things that we take for granted today when we go to the doctors, such as instruments being as gern-free as possible or the doctor washed his hands before he decides to work on us. and we use the term loosely for doctors talking early medicine. a lot of the doctors in our region were self-taught or they had worked under somebody else who had been self-taught and were getting ready to retire so they would just learn as they went. >> our city's tour continues

march 31-april 1 from little rock, arkansas, on c-span 2 and 3. >> i hope that as we move forward in this world, there are a number of problems that we have to resolve, problems with genocide and darfur, problems with a growing people's republic of china, a growing problem with iran. we have a lot of problems to deal with and i think diplomatic solutions are going to have to be the answer in the future as we start to deal with the problems coming. >> congressman donald payne who passed away this week was the first african-american to seven the house from new jersey. elected in 1988, he was a former head of the congressional black caucus and served on house committees on education and foreign affairs. watch his speeches from the house floor and other c-span appearances, all archived and searchable online at the c-span video library.

>> at the end of the month, the supreme court will hear three days of oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of the affordable care act. that will be the longest argument in nearly 50 years. up next, a debate on the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate on the health care act. from the stanford university law school, this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> good afternoon, i see people are still trickling in and that's fine but i think we'll now proceed on to the debate for this symposium. before introducing the moderator, though, i would like to make a quick announcement please fill out the surveys as

much as you can beforehand and wrap them up at the end. then you can turn them in to people that will be waiting outside after the debate. the title of the debate is the constitutionality of the affordable care act. when we first conceived of the title, we were considering maybe using vice president biden's description of the health care act. it is my pleasure to introduce our moderator for the debate, judge sandra kuda. she is a judge of the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit and has been since 2006. before becoming a u.s. circuit judge, california governor arnold schwarzenegger appointed her to be deputy secretary and general council of the california resources agency.

prior to her political appointment, the judge was a partner at the los angeles office of omelveny and myers. she previously served as a law clerk to u.s. supreme court justice sandra day o'connor and judge alex kacynszy court of appeals from the ninth circuit. she received j.d. from the university of california school of law and master of science from the columbia university school of journalism. she earned her undergraduate degree from the university of california at berkeley. nobody's perfect. in addition to her duties as an active u.s. circuit judge, the judge is currently an appointed member of the judicial conference of the u.s. advisory committee on bankruptcy rules. most interestingly, and this is something the panelist debater should keep in mind if case they run over, prior to her career, judge