carrying out the other part of our mission, which is reviewing agency policies, procedures and compliance. part of it is for a new office, trying to figure out the best ways to do that. certainly we work with agencies every day. we get a strong sense of what they are doing, where there are trouble spots. but frankly being able to do compliance government-wide with a small sfaff is probably -- staff is probably a bit of an expectation that leads me to another talent that we have, expectations, what we can do and what we cannot do. a lot of what we do every day with our facilitator's is just to open up communication. there is -- facilitator is just

to open up communication. we have to use communications, persuasion, and we rely on the professional attitude of most of the professionals with whom we work in the agencies. that is something we depend upon. we also have a hard time measuring our success. it will be made before we come up on our second anniversary of being fully staffed. we have six professionals and a staff assistant. we are a bit challenged in that respect. we know we have to make the most

of what we have because in this budgetary environment, we cannot expect anything different. we try to figure out how to be smarter about the way we work. we are looking forward to suggestions from our customers as to how we can measure what we are doing and the effectiveness of what we are doing. if you have ideas, please let us know. we depend upon our customers to do a lot of the oversight. we will talk about that a little bit with what our panelists, gavin baker, omb watch is one of those organizations where the government must depend upon to give us an affirmation of what we do and how we can do it better. the last thing i will mention is

technology. we in the federal government are looking always for how we can do disclosure and do its smarter and do it in a way that does not depend upon people making requests. i have actually heard people suggest that foia is going to become obsolete. i do not think that is going to happen. you really must depend upon people coming up with new things to ask for, serious demands about what the government should be disclosing in the way of information and data. we heard some good ideas about that. technology is our friend. that is what our big challenges, figuring out how to work smarter

and how to work better in using technology to make databases more accessible, more easily usable, and user friendly. parts of the future of foia 2 -- the change the congress made in putting in a statutory position for a public liaison. marianne manheim is one of our panelists who is a foia liaison. we will hear from her about how that part of the division is working. the foia public liaison is a big part of the way ogis works. we want to avoid disputes in the first place.

i will turn to kirsten mitchell, who is a ogis facilitator. she is one of the star ogis staff members who works day in and day out to make our work as broad and as accessible as possible dealing with requests from the agency's everyday to resolve disputes and also to help agency professionals figure out better ways to disclose smart. i am going to stop there. a atll have fsome q and the end.

i will turn it over to marianne manheim -- kirsten mitchell to speak and then we will hear from marianne manheim. >> we will talk about the culture change we would like to see happen in foia. i was wondering if we could talk a little bit about what we mean by a culture change. sue pointed to several things. we have four specific things that ogis has come out with for improving the administration of foia. these are not things that would require amending or changing foia, just things to improve the administration. they are in no particular order. the first one would be to professionalize the foia career

track. the office of personnel management has committed to creating a job series taking concrete steps to create the a job series just for foia professionals. it would help to fill foia's statutory intent. it would go a long way in increasing the likelihood that agencies could retain foia professionals. we would love to see a certification program for foia professionals. we have seen a lot of career professionals who end up in that job by default either as other duties as assigned or someone leaves and they get into that position. we would really like to see where they have more training or

where there is more of a career track. and another thing is incorporating performance standards for agency leadership. the second thing is top down agencies support. agency leadership should actively support foia programs, policies, and dennis it is. certainly we have some of that. we think it could go much broader, government-wide, things like senior officials to remind foia professionals of their duties to assist openly, accurately, and completely with the foia process. that happens in some agencies. in others, not so much. it should cut across the

government. the third suggestion we have for improving the administration of foia is standardizing agency web pages. i do not know how many of you have spent time on agency web pages. they can be dramatically different. they can be difficult with finding things. every agency's website should include information made public under foia. sometimes they can be extremely confusing. it takes many clicks to find things. we think standardizing agency's foia web sites would be any efficient way to reassure the public can find foia resources. when we were coming up with this idea, we thought, wouldn't it be

great to have been easy to use template, a design template, with shareholder input or agencies to customize. -- for agencies to customize. wouldn't reading rooms be a great resource? it is pretty basic. wouldn't it be great to have contact information for designated foia professionals on every web page? sometimes, that is not easy to find. sometimes when you find contact information, there are no names to go with it. sometimes, there is just a general number. the standardization of websites would go a long way to making foia easier for the clusters and agencies. >> we have contact information that would make foia to be a contact sport. >> i am suggesting there would

be greater communication. maybe not full contact, but better communication. we think it goes one way toward preventing [unintelligible]. finally, the last bit is training. there was a 2009 memo suggesting foia was everybody's responsibility. we would like to see regular training to insure all agency employees are up-to-date on the basics of foia. one thing we would love to see is day one training. every person who becomes a federal employee goes through an orientation service during their first day or so.

we would love to see 10 or 15 minutes spent on foia. it is everybody's responsibility what you are a foia professional or not. it is your responsibility. we would love to see that. so many government employees do not know that. we would love to see refresher training that all the employees would see -- receive annual refresher training. and foia professionals training, specific training to help people like chief foia officers and public liaisons carry out their statutory duties. in the 2007 memorandum that created our offense, in that bill, the role of the foia public liaison was put into law. it had been created in a

previous executive order. it was firmly established in the law. that person is mandated with helping resolve disputes, helping prevent disputes. we can do a lot of the things we at ogis do. we would really like to see those professionals more fully trained and better equipped to do their jobs. with that, i will turn it over to marianne manheim. she is the state department's foia public liaison. she is the first person we turn to when we have a case involving the state department. i will let you take it away and talk about what you do. >> what i do started in august last year. within a couple of weeks, i got

to know everybody at ogis. i learned my job pretty quickly. over time, i learned the extent of how much there was to do in this position. pretty much, what happens as the public liaison is, i get phone calls and i get e-mails. there are thousands of cases at the state department because we process in a centralized way. we do not have decentralized processing. everything is like a puzzle. my job is to listen. that is the key to so much of this. i have taken their training about three times. i have only had a few disputes. the key is staying quiet and listening and hearing. sometimes, our request jurors

have talked to so many different people already over years because there is a 30 day working day requirement. by the time it gets to me, it is long past that. trying to maybe calm someone down by listening is important. listening and make sure they know i am listening. once i have the facts, it is also figuring out what has been happening within the department and going through the file and talking to people are processing and finding out what is going on. i wish it were as simple as looking at its and figuring out what is going on sometimes, but it is not. i want to make sure when i go back to the requests are and i am able to help them and explain to them what happened, it is really what is happening. there are so many different

sides in our world that we need to make sure we are getting our facts straight. everyone gets trained every time we get one of these coming in. they have to go back and look at the case closely, possibly for the first time. there is a queue. something that has been sitting around for five years needs more attention than something for one year. we have to look at every single thing at the same time. we do not want that person waiting five years. we do not want them to be disadvantaged. we have our own little world every time something like this comes in. we want to stop and help. we should be getting it out. being in the middle of this means trying to get everything moving as much as i can. the hardest times have been someone saying, i will just sue.

what do you say to that? we can try doing something with ogis. if someone is that upset, you cannot talk them out of something. they have the money and they should file a lawsuit in do it. they are within their right to do that. one thing i have learned doing this -- i knew it before -- it is how much work we have on our side to do. we are trying our best. when you talk about the white collar people doing things that are wrong in the government, from what i have seen is how much we have to do. i do not know if we have the time to think of doing something that crazy. we are just kind of busy. if we are messing up your file -- if you have sued us 20 times and we messed up your other case, we did not intentionally do that.

discovering where we mess up and try to fix that -- one of the things i have also been trying to do is improve our foia processes in general from the program manager standpoint and look at what we are messing up on and try to fix these things and learn from these mistakes that we make. also trying to fix it as much as we can. ogis is nice and it is nice having them as someone to talk to rick clusters so they can get -- requestors so they can get the help they need. i will do my best to get the case moving. if there are disputes or problems, we will do everything we can to fix that. ogis does the same thing. i am also aware at how

understaffed they are. six people. there are times when i am thinking, what can ogis do in the future besides working as a public liaison. it would be nice for them to look at all of the things we need from the government standpoint to succeed, to look at our processes and say, ok, they are not getting any of this done in time. what can you change within that? getting bad advice would be helpful. -- that advice would be helpful. you are set up to come in and have that fresh view. you are in a better position to assist us to get there. that is something i would like to see more of, i think. and so, i think i am good.

you can ask me questions afterwards. not too specific, please. >> you mean you do not welcome questions about, where is my request and when is it going to go out? >> i would have to say which queue. >> we actually envisioned this as being a great opportunity to have some give-and-take with both of you who are here. i am certain you will get some questions. >> thank you, miriam. thank you, american university, for having me. i will tell you how government is doing and where it should be going. that is exactly what i would like to do. i will split the difference here between the topics dan wants and

the topics miriam wants. we will talk about ogis and foia. ogis plays an important and valuable role in our foia system. i will highlight some activities in particular. first is the request for services and facilitation that you have been hearing about. before i go on, i would like to get a bit of an idea of who is in the audience. it is always a diverse group of people. raise your hand if you have ever filed a foia request? >> and you are willing to self identified. y. >> raise your hand if you have used foia request your services. raise your hand if you are a

foia professional. raise your hand if you have been on the other end of ogis' request for services. for the rest of you, it is important to recognize that a value at the individual and the macro level. there were 500,000 requests filed last year. not everyone of those requests received helpful customer service. this is not to impugn the folks who do it day to day. not in all cases is the customer service message getting out. there was an amendment where congress clearly indicated they

wanted an increase emphasis on customer service. i see ogis as a sheep dog in a sense. congress is dragging the curb say, i want to go here. ogis is the dog that has to bring it back. the sheep that does not want to move, ogis has to convince it to move. we need to go in the direction that congress says we need to go. at the macro level, that is important. at the individual level, it is infuriating to not know what is going on with your foia request.

you know it is an odd game as to whether you will get the information you want. you should not have to wait and wonder whether your request is going to get an answer. ogis does an excellent job. i am a satisfied customer. ogis does an excellent job of facilitating a conversation between the request your -- requestor and the agencies. the second activity i would like to highlight our the better practices. if you are an employee and you have not read the best practices, you have to. so many of the longstanding requests of the government community -- most of these, once

you read them, they sound so obvious. you can correct me if i am wrong. every single one of the best practices is implemented by someone somewhere in government. it is just not implemented consistently across all of the agencies. these are things people have done. it is a matter of servicing these best practices and scaling them out government wide. -- surfacing these best practices and scaling them out government-wide. they are a brilliant set of ideas in terms of helping facilitate the process and making it more efficient and more effective. the next step for me is to learn more about whether agencies are

learning these lessons. omb watch has suggested the department of justice and is chief foia officer is to report about the steps they have made to comply with best practices. i would like to hear more about the evidence of what kind of impact these things are having. they are great ideas and i would really like to see them be more widely adopted. the third activity i will in theght is ogis' role foia porthole. it is led by epa and also with the commerce department participating. we want to build the next generation of infrastructure in a way that scales from the government, have shared

services, deficiency, and improves customer service. we really is so much information through the foia process. but communication is on an individual basis. you requested this and you get it. nobody else receive that information. in the 21st century, that is silly. we need to scale up the way information is released. foia is hard to process. it is time and resources intensive. if people are going through all of the effort of collecting these documents, reacting them, clearing them for release, by the time they are cleared for release, it is clear we are not making them fully available to the public. in many cases, we are not. in terms of tracking the status of the request, congress has said, you need to make it easier

for folks to figure out where they are in the process. in many cases, there has not been a huge leap in what the fed has done. clean them on line and making them fully automated, something foia was never able to do, is extremely important. kirsten talked about the web sites of the agency foia offices. in many cases, these websites do have a form for filing requests online. this is great. it is exactly what agencies should be doing. we should not have to do it 100 different times. in many cases, even within a single department, there are dozens of components, each of which has a separate foia office. it is outrageous that a requestor should have to deal

with so many different interfaces to seek information from more than one agency. bringing that together, providing that common interface and a common way to track where they are -- one of the things people aboard would do -- thinks the foia board would do is to help move that project forward. now i will talk a bit about the future. i will counter with another quote from yogi berra. he said, is hard to make predictions, especially about the future. there is some wiggle room for what others should be doing. beyond the existing statute, we need to think about what we need as a government and a country to

make foia work. within the statute, ogis has been tasked to make policy recommendations to the president and the congress. i would not put anyone on the spot. in april, there is a copy about the recommendations ogis has prepared and the difficulty they have faced in publishing them. unfortunately, it is something that should change. it is one of the things i look forward to ogis doing increasingly in the future. mediation is the term the statute uses in terms of the office's responsibility. all of you believe a more accurate term for what ogis does is [unintelligible].

there is room for increasingly moving in the direction of mediation. and a more active role for ogis. in addition, where mediation does not produce the results ogis thinks it should, the statute tasks ogis with issuing advisory opinions, which is to formally and publicly say, we disagree with the way the agency has handled this. that is a way i look forward to ogis doing more of that in the future. aside from the statutory authority, generally, the future is that it will receive increased resources. some of the ideas i have just

mentioned about specific statutory authority are an issue of resources and where the office has chosen to prioritize where it -- what they are going to do ogis is a model of the american commission. we need to keep moving in that direction. the american commission has the authority to issue binding decisions requiring government to disclose information. they have the ability to get the information forcibly if necessary and provide it to the public.

i am not suggesting that that is something we should be doing all the time. it puts much more heat into giving people an option rather than the complex option of going to federal court to make sure we have a way or the public to enforce the transparency foia is supposed to deliver. those are my thoughts. i will turn it back to the panel. >> i will respond to a couple of the points. let's have a give-and-take from the panel. gavin, i appreciate those kind

words, particularly words of encouragement. we do try very hard. i know there are people in the room who are not satisfied customers. we appreciate the opportunity to include some complex situations and we do our best. [cell phone ringing] sorry, i cannot sing along to that. what gavin was referring to, we

are happy to provide more information about that. we will talk about that at the hearing with the house next wednesday, march 21. this is a project that ogis is part of what our parents, the national archives, along with the department of commerce and under the leadership of the environmental protection agency. it is just beginning to build a one-stop shop portal for people to make requests and to easily find the records that are disclosed as a result of those requests. the plan is that this would roll out october 4. we are looking for more agency

partners. the more partners that participate, the better it will work. this is version 1. we are already thinking about version 2. we need input from both agency professionals and members from the requestor community. we think it is a great idea. it is only one of the efforts being made in the government to figure out better ways to use technology. we think it is a great idea and we appreciate your recognition of that. one other thing i would mention is in terms of the priorities. from the beginning, we knew that people who were coming in our door with letters by e-mail or by phone or with cases where

people are trying to figure out where to go or how to make a request, that has been our first priority. we cannot handle things really quickly. some things can be handled quickly. it is just a matter of getting people to the right place ticket if it is a complex case, it can take months to resolve. we are also building the capability of being able to do a formal mediation. we have that capability now. we have had quite a few requests. this had to be something that both parties agree to do voluntarily. we have had some cases where the agency has asked for mediation but the requestor has not. everybody has to agree to do it.

we are trying to build the capability to make that possible anytime it is asked for. kirsten, i will toss it to you to talk about the best practices and asked if there are any comments from gavin or marianne. we have time for a pretty good exchange of information from you all. >> i wanted to respond to a few things that gavin said. i don't think i have never been called a sheep dog before. i like the analogy. you mentioned requestor services. texas not just our requestor, but also for -- for requestors,

but for agencies. starting into our third year, we have had more and more agencies come to us for help with complex requests, difficult requestors, that sort of thing. we are not here to advocate for requestors. gavin talked about our best practices. we just came up with some best practices for requestors and best practices for agencies. we handled several cases dealing with databases. they can be difficult for both sides of the request.

we have those. unfortunately, we do not have them on the handouts. they are on our website. please look them up there. let us know what you think. i think i am going to end it there. >> either one of you. >> let me say something perhaps more complementary than miriam being modest wooden -- would not ordinarily highlight about ogis. if you would like to get an acute sense of what ogis is all about, you can look at four words in publications. on the 27 -- on january 27, there was a headline that said

striking down the foia requests. it says, even if you request -- even if you suspect the records will be exempt, make the request anyway, exclamation point. those four words, make the request anyway, are unprecedented on the foia web site and government publications. they tell you what foia is all about -- what ogis is all about. this is on an issue we will be getting into this afternoon. we have our congressional staff. it has to do with the decision that came down a year ago. now that the administration appears, after more than a

year, to say yes, we need to do something about that, miriam's testimony has a thoughtful and proper answer and well stated discussion of that issue. the concerns that agencies have because there are some things, such as [unintelligible] assessments, for which there is no existing protection as a matter of law. those two things in particular. i think they can make everyone feel optimistic about going forward. on that optimistic note, we have a question right there. >> delay in the air force.

-- i am in the air force. there is a schedule for foia requested records. the schedule for retention is two years. if it is redacted, it is six years. airforce has a foia reading room. we are holding to the schedule. the matter how success again -- significant a record, if it is released in full, after two years, it will come down. it is redacted, after six years, it will come down. these are not the record copies of the documents. the rules have been approved. i am wondering what the solution would be to the situation. we are demonstrating transparency, at least for two years or six years. according to what is mandated, we take the records out of the

electronic reading room. >> want me to take a shot at that one? >> sure. >> it is not really true. after the enactment of the law that created the electronic reading room and the concept of requested records of foia, the government had to confront for the first time -- something is required to be put in the reading room. what we are talking about is having it posted. the rationale for that is, make it available to the public if it has been requested more than once so that people will not have to make foia requests. the other question is, how long do we keep them up? back in the day, they said, the

answer is clear. 6 years. no one knows. i am not sure. it is a matter of individual agency judgment. i am not trying to usurp authority under the federal records act. the guidance from the justice department back then was, given the rationale that having something sealed up so as to achieve the results of a full request that would otherwise be made not being made, if it can still serve that public -- that purpose, it should stay up. it cannot serve that purpose, maybe come down, but you have to talk to them about that. i am sticking to it. >> i am not the records officer.

i cannot really give you a definitive view. my reaction is that it is an excellent question. i think it is a matter of determining whether or not the records are something that they will continue to have an interest in. what we are talking about is a copy of records release, not the record copy, just one copy that is available. the beauty of the web is that you can have copies available in lots of different places and be able to be released -- three -- released in different ways. the reading room on the web page is not the only place one could encounter those records.

>> where would you suggest i turn to to rectify the situation? >> go up there and say, i think something might be happening that you might disagree with. what might be happening is part of the federal records act. it might be under realistic. i am not sure. at a tech person check for the hits. just as a matter of ordinary common sense practicality, has there been a hit on that document in x numbers of months or years. house -- how much sense does it make to have bid up their? >> gavin? >> 3 quick responses to this question. for me, the priority is getting to documents posted in the first place. i cannot speak to the air force in particular.

in general, the top priority is to give a [unintelligible]. in general, we need to rethink records retention for websites. third, there is a responsibility for folks outside of government. there may be an important role. our libraries and our archives in sure that there is long-term access and preservation to important government information.

there are some interesting things going on now in terms of libraries and archives in the way they are assuring their information is available long term. we are in the midst of a transition as to how that role is played -- how that role plays in the digital age. a particular example is one when there is some room for new initiatives and improvement in the way that government and the library and archive community insure that there is transparency in the short term and over the long term. >> marianne? >> just one more thing to say. recently, i talk to someone at justice. they thought we were going to start calling them libraries. if they are going to tell us to

change things, this might be a good time to let them know about this since they seem to be telling us to change how we are keeping our libraries online. i recommend getting in touch with the department of justice as well. >> a quick comment. i work for a defense department agency as well. we maintain those records so that they are not subject to the same distance as others. record copies are kept for a period of time. >> i will give you some push back on that. if you are talking about something required by law to be maintained by the agency, i think they would have a hard time seeing that as merely reference copies printed it is a federal record and has to be subject to a disposition schedule because of the mandatory requirement of the foia subsection a-2-d.

>> national security counselors. before i get into my question, when we are throwing out titles to display what ogis does, there was a blog that put out a perfectly exhibits -- blog put out that perfectly exhibits what they do. it said, how to avoid a lawsuit. they were telling agencies, if you want to be sued, do these things. these are the things that most and your requestors. i advise everybody to read that. that being said, in a slightly be late in vain a response-- --

vein, i have a question about how to measure your success. success is not measured by getting agencies or requested to do something that they were already doing, but to get them to change their positions. that is where the mediation would come in. mediation does not accomplish anything if both parties proceed to doing what they were going to do anyway. i would ask you, how often do you see that a requestor has come to you asking for help with an agency position they have taken and the agency has changed that position or has come to you asking for help to get a requestor to change their position or where a requestor has changed their position? >> i think that could be one

measure. we certainly try to have a sense of that as we assess how we are doing. we can throw that into the mix. you are giving me a good idea for another round table, which is to really get some concrete and created for -- creative ways to improve the foia process that do not require an act of congress or going to the courts. anything that we can do to improve the way we are working, we are looking to that every day. we will pursue that and we will throw your ideas in. >> do you have a ballpark idea of, most of the time they do change their positions or most of the time they do not change their positions? >> it is all over the place.

we certainly do get requestors coming to us unhappy with the response they have got in. it looks like being response was entirely in accordance with the law. maybe there is something more we can give the requestor in terms of what the underlying wreckers look-alike even if they cannot get everything they want. that is providing some help. it is not necessarily changing the position. >> be careful how you define that. you do not want someone saying you did find that so loosely that it is almost like how agencies might -- i am sure you were -- you will beare that in mind.

that is what these conferences are all about. yes, sir. >> a local researcher. she mentioned the problem that can be encountered when you are searching to have a documentary least. -- released. they might change the label on the document. i was just wondering, in the era of big data in the cloud, there is a lot of talk in the area of universal identifiers for documents. if the document had a universal identifier, you would not be able to do that. would you comment on that problem? do you see it as a problem? hiding documents by changing labels. >> don't look at me. i am retired.

one of you two will handle that one. >> i am wondering if one of our fellow panelists would like to address that. >> [unintelligible] [laughter] >> i will speak in a general manner. i cannot think of a recent example that has come to us where that has exactly been the case. hiding behind a label is simply not good customer service, particularly if you combine that with directives to agencies to be making pro at the disclosures. if they know there are records they have that are repeatedly asked for, but they know they are of great interest, they should not be waiting until they

get a request and ask for them exactly the same way. they should be tried to make a proactive disclosure. that is not our interpretation of things. that is part of the government directive. >> this is probably a comment about the information commissioner. >> it is a serious question. it all rose in a few instances during the end of the bush 43 administration, the last year or two. there were some requests are -- requestors who went to extra lengths to broaden the raising of their requests to prevent a pass from-- phrasing -- phrasing to prevent that from happening.

it is not the way it always happens. it is a way it can be done. >> in general, some agencies are better at searching for records than others. this is an area that serves more exploration out of the annual report in terms of performance. for the most part, when people look at exemption use and withholding by agencies, they exclude this category of denials for reasons other than exemptions. those are good reasons to do that. there are also good reasons not to do that. the reasons why they deserve a closer explanation is that there seems to be some significant

variation in the way agencies turned down requests for reasons that are not based on statutory exemption, light -- like fee related reasons or no record was located. these are things that should not be discretionary. there is such a difference in the way some agencies perform compared to others. it suggests it is worth looking into. >> we have time for -- i want to check with the panel. we have time for a quick question. usually we have morse flexibility on our programs. the next panel is going to phone it in from california. we have a technical reason why we want to start that as close to the time as possible. >> i have a comment.

the comment is more important than the question. >> can i persuade you to hold that comment until after the next segment? i guarantee, we will have time to cover that. ok. thank you. >> coming up on c-span, the british prime minister's visit to the u.s. this week. then republican presidential candidate rick santorum in illinois and. the state's primary is tuesday. after that, a discussion about religion and the impact of mitt romney's mormon faith on the 2012 election. >> on news makers this week, va's attorney general discussing the importance of the 2012 presidential race. >> is president and his administration are the biggest lawbreaker's to run the federal

government in our lifetime. they are suffocating economic opportunity the way they are functioning. i do not think any of the nominees of are going to do anything but reversed that. the rules of the law and the constitution. >> you can see the entire interview of of the virginia attorney general on newsmakers sunday morning at 10:00 eastern and sunday afternoon at 6:00 on c-span. it is also available online at c-span.org. >> i was quite radical as a young person. we shall overcome was not a very effective way of gaining rights. i thought that more confrontation was needed. >> economics professor, columnist, and substitute host are rush limbaugh walter williams on being a radical.

>> a radical is any person who seeks individual freedom and limited government. that makes you a radical. i have always been a person who believes that people should not interfere with me. i should be able to do my own thing as long as i don't violate the rights of other people. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a". >> british prime minister david cameron and his wife visited washington this past week on a three day trip to the u.s. on tuesday, president obama and the prime minister flew to dayton, ohio to catch the first round of the n.c.a.a. basketball tournament he was back at the state capitol wednesday. he was hosted by secretary of state hillary clinton and vice president joe biden. here is a look. >> ladies and gentlemen, the

vice-president, dr. jill biden, and the secretary of state, accompanied by the prime minister of great britain and northern ireland and mrs. samantha cameron. [applause] >> thank you all very much. please be seated. welcome to the state department. we are thrilled and so pleased to host this luncheon for our very special guest, prime minister and mrs. cameron. it is wonderful to see all of you celebrating spring with us and knowing that our relationship -- it is always spring. it is always being renewed.

it is always curable. -- durable. it is a cornerstone of both of our nation's foreign policies, and it has such a great resonance between our two people. i want to recognize our chefs today, a native of birmingham, england, not alabama. who made herself a home in new york city as the executive chef of a couple of very hip restaurants. one, the spotted paid. -- the spotted pig. the other the breslin. it is really a delight to have april with us. she was just talking with the prime minister. [applause] it was a very timely introduction because when the prime minister and president obama exchanged gifts, president obama gave the prime minister a barbeque. i mean, a real, down-home, american barbecue with a

smoking compartment and everything else. april stands ready to help, prime minister. we joke about the special relationship, but that is because we are so comfortable with it. it means such a great deal, not just because of a wide range of shared interests, but our deeply-rooted history and the unbreakable relationship between our country. of course the president did remind the prime minister at the white house that we are at the 200th anniversary at the war of 1812. [laughter] i was pleased to tell my counterpart and friend, the foreign secretary, that it was my predecessor in one of my other lives who actually saved the extraordinary portraits of george and martha washington, having received word from her husband, who has truly been a

commander in chief in the field, that unfortunately, the british truly were coming. so she rushed from the white house, taking some treasures with her, leaving behind e-mail -- the meal that she had prepared for her husband and his officers, and the british officers ate the meal before they burned the white house. [laughter] we are looking forward, but nevertheless, there are certain memories that are also of significance and how wonderful it is, here we are today, working together on so many important parts of the world, helping to bring peace and stability to afghanistan, helping to promote successful transitions and democratic reforms in the arab world.

we worked alongside each other to end a dictator's rule in libya. we are now focused on helping the people of syria to help them realize a better future for themselves. recently, i was in london for a conference that they sponsor. no matter what the issue, we stand together. i know, prime minister and samantha, that this is just a small measure of hospitality she tried to demonstrate our commitment and appreciation for this relationship. we were so well treated when the president and in our teams were on a state visit last year, sponsored by the government. it is now my great pleasure to welcome a dear friend, a great american, and a superb vice

president, joe biden. [applause] >> madam secretary, thank you very much. mr. prime minister, mrs. cameron, like you, we host a large number of dignitaries, but sometimes, we are greeted with challenges that require us to forge a whole new relationships, and sometimes, we are preoccupied with henry out -- hammering out agreements or producing what the policy wonks refer to as deliverables. this one is easy. the diplomatic engagement with the full agenda of critical

issues, but there is also something like a family gathering with very little disagreement. we sat in the cabinet room today, and it was like a cabinet meeting, not like a meeting with foreign dignitaries. together, we the united states and great britain, have the deepest international partnership. the bond between our countries and people has stood the test of time. we have weathered the political fortunes in each of our countries, and nothing changes. mr. prime minister, we are honored to welcome you on your first official visit to washington. we are also always anxious to welcome a british prime minister back to washington, even on the anniversary of the

war of 1812. i want to tell you, in my family it was not the war of 1812 that bothered anybody about the british. the biden's immigrated from liverpool in 1805. -- 1825. but the other side of the family -- the senate side of the family -- the finnegan side of the family -- [laughter] they had a different problem. the finnigan side of the family. to my grandfather, ambrose finnigan, please, things are fine. mr. prime minister, we are truly honored that you are here. you wrote, "what makes our relationships special, unique and essential asset, is that we join hands across so many

endeavors. put simply, we count on each other, and the world council on our alliance." -- counts on our alliance." that is absolutely true. the united states and united kingdom cooperate on a breathtaking array of issues, none more important than the six military campaigns we have waged alongside one another just in the last 20 years. as you said, the world counts on us. it was true in libya, and mr. prime minister, i would like to personally commend you for your leadership in championing an international effort to help drive the adoptee from power and give the libyan people a better future. no country made a greater sacrifice than yours in that endeavor.

it is true as well in the fight against al qaeda -- together, we have substantially degraded al qaeda, and we will continue to work toward its destruction, dismantling, and ultimate defeat. it is true that our efforts to strengthen the global economy after the deepest financial crisis since the depression had been remarkable. i remember when we first took office, with in the first weeks when the g-8 was meeting and then the g-20 was meeting. the question was could we get an internationally coordinated effort, and i remember the president said the brits would be with us. mr. prime minister, you are always there.

our efforts to end hunger and disease wherever it strikes. your country has always been there. to keep our sacred obligation to military veterans and those who have served us so well, you have been a stalwart, and we will see a strong symbol of that shared sacrifice when the british wounded warriors compete alongside american counterparts in the wounded warrior games in colorado in may. i commend you, mr. prime minister, on the new u.s./u.k. service personnel and veterans joint task force, which is helping our troops transition to civilian life, which has been a difficult circumstance for many of our veterans who have been deployed multiple times into got awful circumstances. the quiet american said and wrote french it is something in

the soul. -- friendship is something in the soul. it is a thing one feels. it is not a return for something. i think that is the simple best definition of the relationship between the united states and great britain, so to honor our friendship, please raise your glasses when you get them. please raise your glasses to the prime minister of great britain. prime minister cameron, the people of england, and the enduring relationship we have between us. [applause]

>> thank you so much for those speeches, and thank you for that warm welcome. of course, it is slightly embarrassing being here on the 200 anniversary of 1812, and because of that, i asked in a story and friend of mine before coming on this visit -- i said, "andrew, why is it that in britain, we do not properly commemorate and recognize this rather embarrassing episode in our history?" he said were coming up on the 200th anniversary of the battle of waterloo and we so much more enjoy talking about defeating the french. -- than anything that went wrong with our american cousins. it is great to know that the chef from birmingham, england, is here cooking our meal today. my political party did make a mistake at a recent election of putting out a leaflet, and the person who designed it took off the internet the city scene of

birmingham, but not being a native, actually put the city scene of birmingham, alabama, and the big shock and surprise was when the city councilman was reelected. so anything can happen in politics. you also mentioned the exchange of gifts between president obama and i. i think we got it slightly wrong because i had given him a table tennis table and he has given me a barbecue, but when you see us standing next to each other, it is quite clear that the person who needs the exercise is the british prime minister any person who needs a bar-b-que is the president of the united states. [applause] thank you also for putting together such an amazing guest list. we were looking through it last night in bed and looking through this guest list, and the star from my favorite movie is going to be here. ben kingsley from "ghandi"? no, it is chevy chase from

"caddyshack." thank you for this wonderful reception. we are thrilled to be with you and even more thrilled to be here in the ben franklin room. it epitomizes so much of what is good about the character of our two countries -- passionate, diligent, a man prepared to stand up for his values and that his words with deeds. in the best tradition of our two nations, he was also a straight talker. he once said guests are a bit like fish -- they begin to smell after three days. you will be relieved to know having a ride yesterday, i am leaving tomorrow. [laughter] i want to start by paying personal tribute to mr. vice- president. for your ouststanding

contribution as a statesman. i remember in the 1990's when you spoke out for the need of military intervention to stop the ethnic cleansing in bosnia. your right to do that, and in libya, i believe we showed we learned a lesson. we were able to intervene and act and change the course of that country's history, and we were right to do so, said today, we applaud your vision and your courage. [applause] also, a word of deep gratitude to you, madam secretary. you have been a great friend to britain for 20 years, and no one will ever forget your contribution in northern ireland, your incredible resilience, and your conviction --at he's really could be peace could really be achieved after so many decades of conflict, and i hope, mr. vice- president, with your relatives

are looking down, they will see that the relations between britain and the republic of ireland had never been better, and it is a testament to one woman, her majesty the queen, on her 60th year on the throne, that her visit to the republic of ireland did so much to restore relations between our two countries. [applause] in just three years, you've visited 95 countries. you have travelled over 700,000 miles. some people wondered how two british conservatives would get along with this great force of the democratic party. that is, we in britain say, quite simply, we have been bowled over. whenever we come together to discuss the most difficult issues, whether it is afghanistan, libya, syria, somalia, you always speak with the greatest precision and the greatest power. everyone of us is in all of the passion, the intellect, and the relentless energy you bring to every aspect of international affairs, and you also bring great energy and effort to something else -- to one of the greatest pieces of unfinished business in human history.

the emancipation and the empowerment of women. [applause] there are a generation of young women out there in the world today who owe you much more than they will ever know because they can live safer, more dignified, more fulfilling lives than the generations that came before them. you are also a great champion of smart power. that is why i wanted to just say a word about today. after two years of working hand in glove with the united states, i know we are at our best when we are not just strong but we are smart, when we deploy everything we have at our disposal. in a world of complex problems, there are no simple, easy solutions. take somalia where there is a vicious circle of state failure, economic collapse, piracy, terrorism, kidnapping, famine. as our conference in london showed last month, a credible

solution cannot just be about military action or even aid and isolation. we will only succeed when we bring together all of our military, diplomatic, political efforts to achieve peace and prosperity. that is also why we in britain do not just see our increased spending on aid as doing the right thing morally, although we do believe that -- we also think it is the right thing diplomatically and politically as well. it enhances our ability to get things done. this kind of smart power is one of the great strengths that britain and america have in common, and i think it is very much on show looking around the room today. this morning, once again, british and american men and women in uniform got up to serve to get there. in the persian gulf, afghanistan, the indian ocean, and we honor their incredible service and their sacrifice, but we are not just strong because of our military alone. we are strong, too, because of the power of british and american diplomacy. as secretary clinton put it,

the tide of war is receding, but its troops come home, civilians remain to carry out the critical missions of diplomacy and development. across the world, specialists are working to understand and influence countries in shaping the big issues, including in very challenging and very dangerous locations. minute by minute, hour by hour, there are phone calls between london and washington as our diplomats work together to assess the latest intelligence and work out the best ways forward. in fact, our national security advisers last year talked so often that i think the president was beginning to believe that there was someone called rick donovan who was just one individual rather than two working together. our smart power comes from more than our ability to defend our security. it is rooted in the intertwining of two people and two communities. britain and america continually shape the world because whether you are scientists, innovators, businessmen and women,

athletes, or stars of fashion, art, or music, all of you look across the atlantic in both directions to find kindred spirits with the same big ideas and the same big ambitions. so at this, the home of smart power, in the midst of this memorable visit, let me end with a tribute to all of you -- to the people who day in and day out make this the essential relationship that it is today and what it will be tomorrow and the years to come, and let me ask all of you, please, to raise your glasses to the vice- president, dr. biden, and the secretary of state. [applause]

>> later that evening, the president and first lady welcomed prime minister cameron and his wife to a state dinner. the president and prime minister later exchanged toast at a tent set up on the white house lawn.

"mr. george clooney.

mr. terry mcauliff. mrs. dorothy mcauliff. mrs. carol thrillman. mr. charlie rose. mrs. amanda --

mrs. annabelle james. mrs. meredith dewitt. mr. terry dewitt. mr. james schneider. mrs. tracy schneider. senator claire mccaskill.

mr. joseph shpherd. mr. hunter biden. mrs. kathleen biden. the honorable chris -- mrs. catherine thompson.

the honorable hilda -- mrs. rebecca -- the honorable anthony miller. mrs. carol miller.

mr. rory mcilroy. mr. connor ridge. sir richard branson. >> what do you think -- >> i think it is wonderful. i think our relationship has never been stronger. we thought it was incredibly strong. it is very flattering. >> [inaudible] >> it is lettering to be invited.

-- flattering to be invited. i'm looking forward to it. my wife is at home. >> what expecting? -- are you expecting? >> very good food. brussel sprouts are my favorite. >> mr. tom bernstein. mrs. andrea bernstein. lady ruth rodgers. mr. rodgers.

mrs. virginia -- mr. nick booth. the honorable matthey bargain -- matthew barden. mrs. brooke barden. the honorable heather a. higgenbottom. mr. daniel -- sepulveda.

the honorable mark grossman. ms. mildred patterson. mr. david phonet. mrs. deborah -- mr. lauren schneider. mr. joseph faulk. mr. mark scott. mr. chad griffin. mr. jerome fallon.

mr. andrew sullivan. mr. aaron tone. ms. april holmes. ms. estee -- mr. richard wolf. dr. paulau cuello.

mr. damien lewis. >> [inaudible] >> what do i want to tell them? [inaudible] there was that moment in the new york times op ed, it seemed we crossed into the cultural zeitgeist. president obama's foreign policy -- when does he watch tv? that is what i'm going to ask

him. [inaudible] >> mr. warren buffet. mrs. buffet. -- mrs. astrid m. buffet. the honorable tina chen.

mr. john w. thompson. mrs. sandy thompson. dr. amy -- dr. michael doyle.

the honorable eric holder, attorney general. the honorable kathleen sebilius, it secretary of health and human services. the honorable rajiv shaw. mrs. shaw.

mr. joe lamont. mrs. andra lamont. mr. anthony gardner. mrs. alejandra gardner. mrs. carol penske. mr. david penske.

mr. raj fernando. mrs. jennifer -- the honorable martha johnson. mr. steve johnson. the honorable camilla harris. mrs. mike harris. -- maya harris. the honorable wendy sherman. mr. stokes. -- bruce stokes. the honorable brooke anderson. mr. james --

ms. ann windosr. -- anna wintour. mr. shelby bryant. mr. harvey weinstein. ms. georgina chapman. >> i have not seen her yet. [inaudible] [laughter] [inaudible]

i am very excited. >> [inaudible] >> too humble in his accomplishments. people will learn. >> i am very excited. >> [inaudible] that was a surprise.

>> ready. forward. >> very pretty. they look better. >> they do.

>> present arms. ♪

ladies and gentleman, the president of the united states barack obama and mrs. obama accompanied by the prime minister of britain, david cameron and his wife, samantha.

>> good evening, everyone. please have a seat. welcome to the white house. i was just telling the prime minister that so far, the evening has been successful because i have not stepped on michelle's train. my main goal this evening. michelle and i could not be more honored that you could join us as we host our great friends, the prime minister of the united kingdom, david cameron, and his remarkable wife, samantha. give them a round of applause. why not? [applause] as i said this morning, this visit gives us an opportunity to return the gracious hospitality that her majesty, queen elizabeth, as well as david and samantha and all of the british people showed us during our visit to london last year.

i know michelle looks forward to returning because, as she announced yesterday, she will be leading the u.s. delegation for the opening ceremonies of the summer olympics in london. [applause] i am jealous. now, i am so grateful for all of the time that david and i have had together. as we have learned, you can never tell how things will get reported as a consequence of our interactions. when we met two years ago, we exchanged beers of our hometowns. one news story said david cameron and barack obama cemented their special relationship by hitting the bottle. [laughter] when we had a barbecue for some of our service members, we decided to roll up our sleeves and flip some burgers ourselves. one reporter called it a brave

and foolish move. another expressed surprise at our confidence. michelle remarked the same way. when david and i got beat badly in table tennis by some london kids, one newspaper asked the head coach of the british olympic women's team to critique our performance. he said obama talked a lot and david overhits the ball. both of them looked a little confused. [laughter] but in moments like that and in all of our interactions, including today, i have learned something about david. in good times and in bad, he is just the kind of partner you want by your side. i trust him. he says what he does and he

does what he says. i have seen his character and i have seen his commitment to human dignity during libya. i have seen his resolve and determination to get the job done, whether righting our economies or succeeding in afghanistan. i will say something else. all of us have seen how you, as a parent, along with samantha, have shown a measure of strength that few of us will ever know. tonight, i thank you for bringing that same strength and solidarity to our partnership, even if you do overhit the ball. we are by no means the first president and prime minister to celebrate the abiding bonds between our people. there has been no shortage of words uttered about our special relationship and i was humbled to offer my own last year when i had the opportunity to address parliament in westminster hall. i would like to leave you

tonight with two simple images from different times and places, decades apart. but they are moments that reveal the spirit of our alliance and the character of our countries. the first is from the blitz. month after month, the british people braved the onslaught from the sky. one of the enduring images from those days is of the london skyline, covered in smoke with one thing shining through, the dome of st. paul's cathedral. tall and proud and strong. the other image we know from our own lives. that awful september day, the unforgettable picture of the manhattan skyline covered in smoke and dust with one thing shining through, our statue of liberty. tall and proud and strong. in those moments, i think you

see all you need to know about who we are and what brings us together tonight. in war and in peace, in times of plenty and in times of hardship, we stand tall and proud and strong together. as free peoples committed to the dignity of all human beings, we will never apologize for our way of life nor labor in its defense. -- waver in its defense. that is why david's grandfather fought alongside us yanks after d-day. why my grandfather marched across europe in patton's army. that is why both american and british soldiers are getting ready to go on patrol in afghanistan like generations before them, shoulder-to- shoulder. it is why our diplomats and development workers are side- by-side, standing with the activists.

for the right to save a child from drought or famine. while leaders of our countries can embrace the same shared heritage, the promise is our alliance, even if we come from different political traditions, even if the prime minister is younger than nearly 200 years of his predecessors. even if the president looks a little different than his predecessors. and that is why tonight, our young children and children across the country can sleep well knowing we are doing everything in our power to build a future that is worthy of their dreams. i intended to make history tonight. i thought i could be the first american president to make it through an entire visit of our british friends without quoting winston churchill. then i saw this great quote and i thought, come on, this is churchill.

it was december and the attack on pearl harbor had thrust america into war. these were the words that winston spoke to his american partners. "i will say that he must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked here below of which we have the honor to be the faithful servants." i would like to propose a toast. to her majesty, the queen, on her diamond jubilee, to our dear friends, david and samantha, to the great purpose and design of our alliance. may we remain, now and always, faithful allies. cheers, everyone.

david. [applause] >> president obama, the first lady, ladies and gentlemen, it is a tremendous honor to be here this evening. i want to thank you for putting on such a great dinner and for making our visit so special over the last two days. thank you also for all of those strong and beautiful words that you have just spoken. michelle, i am sure that, like sam, you wonder what happens when your husband goes out for a night with the guys. maybe i should come clean about last night. we went to basketball and we had a man-to-man chat.

barack tried to confuse me by talking about bracketology but i got back at him by running through the rules of cricket. so often we find we are completely overshadowed by our beautiful wives. [applause] as i rolled into bed last night, i said, samantha, and do you want to hear what i was up to on the guys' night out? she is not too impressed by these things. she said, everything you did was on television. you were surrounded by the presidential bodyguards so presumably, you did not get up to anything. both barack and i have said a lot about the importance of the relationship between our countries and people. like my predecessors, i am proud of our essential relationship and of britain's

strong national bond with the united states of america. i feel it in my bones. there is a great history of close relationships between u.s. presidents and british prime ministers. importantly, these have been regardless of the political parties they happen to represent. her majesty, the queen, is a great authority on the matter. she has seen, and she likes to tell me this, no fewer than 12 british prime ministers and 11 u.s. presidents during her time on the throne. i am sure everyone would want to pay tribute her incredible service and selfless duty in this, her diamond jubilee year. [applause] her majesty's first prime minister was winston churchill, a regular guest at the white house. i am not going to quote from churchill but about churchill. it seems his visits were not

the easiest for the american hosts. "he drinks like a fish, smokes like a chimney, he has irregular routines, sleeps days and is up at night and turns the clock upside-down." for those who know why the prime minister does not stay at the white house anymore, we all know the winston churchill was found naked in his bath by president roosevelt. [laughter] this happened in 1941. the federal government bought blair house in 1942.

for every genuine presidential- prime ministerial friendship, there have been some total disconnects. edward heath and richard nixon took personal issues with each other to new heights. richard nixon arranged for someone to pay for the swimming pool at the prime minister's country residence of checkers. incidentally, this swimming pool now has a serious and possibly terminal leak. i hope you will not find it a myth, as i say here in the white house, for the first time in 40 years, it is time to call in the plumbers. turning to obama-cameron, michelle and barack have been very kind to sam and me. we have struck up a good partnership. we talked through issues and do not need to remind each other of the basic threats that we face. but there are three things about barack that really stand out for me.

-- strength, moral authority, and wisdom. strength because he has been strong when required to defend his national interests. under president obama leadership, america got osama bin laden. [applause] together with supporters of america has weakened al qaeda. the president says what he will do and he sticks to it. i will never forget the phone call on libya. he told me exactly what role in america would play in libya. he delivered his side of the bargain to the letter. we deliver our side of the bargain, too. but as all agree that the world is better off without of some of the latest. the world is better off without

khaddafi, too. [applause] moral authority because he understands that the means matter every bit as much as the ends. america must do the right thing. to provide moral leadership in america must do it in the right way, too. the first president i studied in school was theodore roosevelt. he spoke about walking softly and carrying a big stick. he has pressed the reset button on the moral authority on the entire free world. wisdom because he has not rushed into picking fights but has courted the resources of hard and soft power. he has taken time to make considered decisions drawing down troops from iraq. he has found a new voice with the arab people. at home he is recognized that in

america as in britain, the future depends on making the best of every citizen. both of our nations have historically been held back by any quality. there is a determined effort through education reform to a major opportunity is available for all. half of a century ago the amazing courage of rosa parks, the leadership of martin luther king did, and the actions of the civil rights movement led politicians to make equality the promise of america for all her citizens. in the fight for justice end of the struggle for freedom, there is no end. there is so much more to do to insure every human being can fulfill their potential. that is why our generation faces a new struggle. a feature that is open to every child as never before.

in this way. it is an honor to call you an ally, a partner, and a friend. you do not get to choose the circumstances you have to deal with as a president or a prime minister. you do not get to choose the leaders the you have to work with. all i can say is that it is a pleasure to work with somebody with moral strength, a clear reason, and with fundamental decency. with that, i propose a toast to the president, to the first lady, and to the people of the united states of america.

cheers. [applause] >> republican presidents attended rick santorum at a campaign rally in illinois. then weekly radio address as. a panel discussion on religion and the impact mitt romney's faith to play in the election.

sunday on washington journal, susan ferrechio and ken rudin. then a look at the latest developments at the u.s. war in afghanistan. our guest is jere van dyk. erica newland from the center of technology about recent claims that google bypassed security settings. 7:00 eastern sunday on c-span. >> they would wear garments made of homespun cloth. this clause would be much more rough textured. it would be much less fun than the kind of goods they could import from great britain. by wearing this cloth, women were visibly and physically

displaying his their political sentiment. >> ended at 9:00, george mason university professor rosemarie zagarri on the role of women in the u. -- in the revolutionary war. >> a few days ago when we were in the nub amaountains moms are dropped on a village. we found a nine-year boy who had his hands blown off. as we travelled further north we were greeted by hundreds of villagers carrying signs reading "stop --" we were met with 3 300 millimeter rockets overhead. we witnessed hundreds of people fighting for their safety. that happens every day. these people are not the cave people of a new boss -- nuba,

they live and farms. they have the old society in the world. yet, now are forced to fight -- now they are forced to hide and caves. >> search the c-span video library for actor and watch other celebrities and their causes. >> republican presidential candidate rick santorum held a rally in illinois on saturday and butcher block manufacturing facility. [applause] >> thank you very much.

what a great day. thank you, illinois. what a great turnout. i am overwhelmed by the people here. this is awesome. it is great to be here were the heartland really begins in illinois. what are we going to do on tuesday? regard to have a big win? what the sake? -- what do you say? thank you for being here. i appreciate the hospitality of the company -- do we need to get closer? is that better? let me know what i need to do. the obama. is that something you are

saying? let me tell you. the best chance to be barack obama is to nominate somebody who can actually take it to barack obama on his horrible record as president of the united states. the best way to do that is to make sure we do not have somebody who agrees with the horrible record of president of the united states. [applause] that is why i decided to get into this race. karen, i apologize she is not here with me. i know. stick, getting me and not my wife, karen and i have been married 21 years. we have seven children. we are very glad. [applause] as you know, at the age of 53 and with seven children ages 20

to 3, it is not exactly the best time to go out and decide to run for president of united states, but we just felt like as we thought about it, prayed about it, that we had no choice. because this country is in a very difficult position right now. this country is facing one of those critical junctures in our history. this is the most important election of your lifetime and maybe since the election of 1860. this is the election where big things are at stake, and we cannot have candidates talking about little things. we cannot have candidates talking about this bill or that vote, minor things that are not really the core problems of this country. you will be getting lots of robo-calls. have you gotten any of them yet? and they will all be negative, tearing the other candidate

down, all about little issues that are not at the heart of the problems that face this country. see, we are going out across this country, and the reason we are standing up in the face of 10 to one or more spending against us is we are out there talking about things that americans are talking about. we are talking about issues that are of concern to them because they know that big things are at stake not just here at home but around the world. and we need a presidential candidate to take on this president, who can talk about those big things, who can paint a vision for this country. not just tear down the other side, but paid a positive and hopeful and optimistic vision about where this country has been and where it needs to go if we are going to be successful in the future. [applause] that is what i have been trying to do in this campaign.

outcrossing the planes. we drove through illinois several times, back and forth to iowa. we talked to the folks all over this country about that positive, hopeful, optimistic vision, be leaving in what made america great. and, of course, what makes america great is not a big, powerful central government. what makes america great is a limited government that believes in the unlimited potential of each and every one of you all across this country. [applause] that is what we have gone out and talked about the issues, the fundamental issues at stake in this election.

i talk about my grandfather when he came to this country in 1925. he came because he was being ruled by a fascist dictator in italy. he was ruled by that dictator and having fought in world war i, he understood those people in power, authoritarian figures. he did not want his children to grow up there. he wanted his children to have something he never had. he went to the only place where they had it. that place was a beacon for the rest of the world. he did not go to the united states, to agree coal fields of pennsylvania -- to the coal fields of pennsylvania, or of southern illinois, but the same kind of people came to those coal fields, people who wanted not government benefits, they were not looking for handouts from the government, they were walking away from a government that was giving them things and making them do what the government wanted to do in exchange for the gifts that the government was giving them. he did not come here for any of that assistance, except one, freedom. [cheers and applause]

what is at stake in this election is that torch that is so bright here in america and around the world, lighting the path for those who wanted to be able to pursue their dreams, live their faith, pursue their dreams to start businesses, and employ people, and work, and participate in community activities come and participate in church, and practice their faith. that is what america has always been about. it is a very simple concept, one that transformed the world.

that is what is at stake, that beacon, that torch of freedom is at risk because we now have a group of people in washington who would try -- who have been trying for years, but finally succeeded in taking fundamental freedoms from you, and making you less and less free, and more dependent upon them. i will never forget when i was still doing some work at fox news, this was the time obamacare, public enemy number one against the freedom of this country. [cheers and applause] i remember going into the green room at fox, shortly after president obama decided to ignore the results of the senate race in massachusetts where

scott brown won and decided to shove the obamacare bill through the house of representatives without amendment, when a vast majority of americans were opposing it, the tea parties or in the street, voicing their concern about government taking away their freedom, and yet, the president pushed on, broke every rule you can think of to get this bill through the house of representatives, and about two days before, i was in the green room and in walked juan williams. i looked at him and i said, you folks are committing political suicide. you'll get creamed in the next election. you are doing everything the public does not want you to do. you are ignoring rules. you're shoving it down the throats of the american people.

you are not allowing any amendment. you are acting like tyrants. [applause] you will pay for it dearly in november. [cheers and applause] of course, they did pay for it dearly last november. juan said to me in response, he just talked to the people in the white house, and this is what they said. we believe americans love entitlements. [boos]

you can see evidence of that with the explosion of food stamps and housing programs and ssi and all of these medicaid, all of these highs in usage in our country. juan williams continued. he said, we believe americans love entitlements. he went on and said this. he said, once we get them hooked on this entitlement, they will never let it go. see, that is what they believe. they believe in seeing each and every american not as a free person, not as someone that can provide for themselves, or even wants to provide for themselves and their family, not as someone who sees the responsibility to care for their neighbor, to form groups and associations here in the local community, to build strong communities of families and churches and schools and businesses were everybody looks

out for everybody else, because that is not how they see the world. they see the world as that type of free association and bottom- up solution to problems. it is a broken model. it is a model, in their mind, that never worked. the only thing that did work is for those elites in society to be able to pass laws -- [no audio] [inaudible] [cheers and applause] ok. to take their freedom and my microphone away temporarily, to take your freedom away, because they are better able to govern you and to tell you what is best.

that is what they believe. i am not saying they are evil people. i am not saying they are bad people. but, they have a fundamentally different view of what is best for america and for americans. that is what this race has to be about. it has to be about that the big issue, of those big issues, as to who we are and who we will be as an american people. [applause] every one of my speeches come i talk about these issues of government control of our lives. you want to try to bring people together? one of the things i hear all the time, we are so divided. the country is so divided. how can we possibly come back together? how can we possibly get a

consensus? i think it is important that we talk about those big things. we talk about who we are. ronald reagan in his farewell address, the last thing he said to america, was that he was concerned about the future of america. he was concerned because, through our civic institutions, through our media, through our culture, through our schools, we were not being taught about who we are as americans, what made us the greatest country in the history of the world, and if we have a version of history taught to ourselves, it is out of step with what really happened here, what really made us great, if they re-educate us, then we will lose our way and lose the freedom that we have. winston churchill said the debate is not about the future, the debate is about the past. how we define what works in

america, who we are, will decide what vision we will cast in the future. one of the great concerns i have in what we have seen is this an attempt by this president to redefine america, when he goes to kansas and talks about how capitalism and free markets don't work, and never worked, that it created great inequality of this country, and that this inequality is the scourge of our nation, america is economically unfair, individualism does not work, free enterprise does not work, we need a heavy hand in the government, and when the government comes in, we were better. that is his vision. that is him telling a news story to you here in america, his story. not the truth.

his story. you remember the old soviet union? every time a new leader would come into power, they would tear up the old history books and write new ones. those of you too young to remember, that is what they did. they would rewrite the history depending on who was in favor and who was not. think about that. we think about to america really is. president obama about america -- about a year ago is responding to a budget that was -- paul ryan is going to put it in his budget next week. i immediately support it last year. i have spoken to paul this year and he has told me what is in store. i have no doubt i will support what he wants to do this year. president obama would have none of this. he castigated paul ryan for trying to cut entitlement programs, entitlement programs like food stamps, and medicaid, and unemployment insurance, and medicare, and social security, although he did not touch social security in his bill. he castigated paul ryan and said this. he said, america is a better

country because of these programs. i will go one step further, he read, america was not a great country until these programs were put in place. [boos] that is his story. that is barack obama's history. that is how he sees america, through the eyes of someone who believes that america is great when the government is powerful, takes money from some, redistributes the other, based upon what he believes is fair. that does not make america the greatest country in the history of the world. that does not make america different from any country in the world.

that makes america like the country's your ancestors left to come here for the freedom not to be given those choices by the government. [cheers and applause] we need someone who understands that what barack obama has done and what republicans and democrats together have done over the past six or eight years threaten the very foundation of our country. when -- we need to go out and talk about them. we need to talk about obamacare. every speech next week is the anniversary of the passage of obamacare. the week after, there will be a debate in the supreme court about whether the federal government can force every person in america to buy a product from a private-sector vendor that the government says you must buy. obamacare will be front and center over the next week. i know this is going to shock you when you hear this. the congressional budget office came out with a new cost for obamacare.

i know you'll be surprised to hear this. if there is anybody around that is faint of heart, please catch them if i say this, but obamacare is not going to cost $900 billion, as the president said it would. obamacare will not dramatically lower health care costs, as he said he would. believe it or not, and i know you will have trouble believing this, it is going to cost almost twice as much as president obama said it would over the next 10 years. i know you are shocked to hear this. twice as much, almost $2 trillion over the next 10 years.

$2 trillion of taxing you and then telling you how to spend the money that they took from you. that is what they are going to do. with these regulations, they will not only tell you what product to buy, you'll be taxed, and businesses will be taxed, but then they will tell you what benefits you will get, and if you don't like them, if you have a religious objection to them, too bad. when the government says they give you a right, they can tell you how to exercise that right, whether you like it or not, and you had better like it. that is barack obama's freedom in america. [applause]

we needed someone who can go out and take president obama on, someone threw out the time that i have been in public life that has stood for free markets. anyone familiar with help savings accounts? i was the author 20 years ago when i was in the house of representatives. it is a system that believes in bottom-up, believes in free people having their own resources, being able to make health care choices themselves, having the flexibility and freedom, because they control the money, not the insurance company and not the government. that is what works in america. 300 million consumers controlling it, not one board put together by barack obama to ration care to everybody. [applause] i believe in the american people, barack obama, and unfortunately, barack obama and

the other person competing against this year in illinois, does not believe in free people making their health care choices. as governor of massachusetts, he instituted romneycare, which mandated every person by healthcare, which mandated an insurance policy that everyone had to have. you get four choices. it mandated you, it taxed businesses, and used your tax dollars to pay for half of that. it was a model the barack obama used. how do we know that? look at the two bills and listen to president obama. he said he listened and watched what happened in massachusetts, the romney-kennedy health care bill. yes, 10 -- ted kennedy and mitt romney signed that bill.

when you have ted kennedy behind you applauding something, you know this is not a freedom bill. [applause] governor romney was at the heart of the debate without an advocate for for the massachusetts plan, not for other states, but for the federal government to adopt. then, during the debate, he said, i never did it until we found out, yes, he did do it, again and again. why would the republican party even contemplate on this most central issue of the day, the issue that got the tea parties

and millions of americans of their couches and into the streets, help us win the election, is the central issue, a constitutional issue whether the federal government can force you to do something, and yet we would possibly here in the state of illinois put forward a candidate who was for that unconstitutional authority? when he was asked a question by fred thompson in the 2008 debates about mandates of health care in massachusetts, governor romney responded, i love mandates. mandates' work. he defended mandates. why would we give that issue away? why would we take an issue that is at the heart of what is going on in america, robbing you of your freedom, making you dependent upon government for your lives and for your health,

and nominate someone who will not be able to talk about that issue, and listen to governor romney's speeches. how long does he talk about obamacare and the fact that he would repeal it? he puts out the one-liner. does he get into the core issues? no, because he can't. we take away the biggest issue in this race with someone who is uniquely disqualified to make the case against barack obama. it is not just health care. on the issue of energy, we all know about energy and how the prices are skyrocketing. it is skyrocketing because we have a president who sees coal and oil and gas, those fossil fuels in the ground, as liabilities, not assets. things that will harm the environment, that will make the oceans rise. remember, the president said he

would have the oceans received -- recede. [applause] he said, i try to put my faith out in the public square. president obama is going to have the oceans recede, because he was going to be the one to waive his hand and stop all of the carbon pollution in this country. you saw here in southern illinois with the coal fields like we have in western pennsylvania, and ohio, west virginia, and kentucky, the

permits for coal, for oil, for gas, anyplace that you are drilling now is on private land, not federal land, because the president will not allow it. he is denying permits in the gulf, causing unemployment in the gulf coast states and in the coal fields of this country. two-letter energy policy, n-o. he has denied permits, denied opening up offshore, on the intercontinental shall come in alaska, and of course, building that pipeline from canada. the president says no. we need a president that will say yes to energy development in this country. [cheers and applause] you see, i've always been for energy, for drilling, for mining. i stand for producing more fuel in this country.

i know, as the grandson of a coal miner, that we have a better standard of living a more available and the cheaper the energy is. look at the cost of living in the last couple of months. you see it at the grocery store. you're seeing it at the gas pump. if prices stay high for energy, use of the consumer price index hit a 10-month high, and you will see it even more with the cheap dollar policy continuing. we will pay more and more when we go to the gas pump now. you see those figures go flipping by, and instead of paying tw-digit -- two-digit dollars, you are paying three digits. it gets into the $100 range. think of "o" for obama. that is why you are paying that extra amount of money.

believe it or not, the same man who gave us romneycare and advocated for obamacare is also the person who is not for mining and drilling, who bought into the climate change, the climate science, of man-made global warming, who advocated for cap and trade, and as governor of massachusetts, put the first c02 cap on coal-fired prior -- power plants in massachusetts and spoke about how this was a great advance for society, when the climate was favorable for democrats and even some republicans to buy into the climate science of man-made global warming, mitt romney led the charge, saying, we have to worry about fossil fuel development, we have to have clean energy alternatives, but

as the climate changed, so did mitt romney change. i knew this was not climate science from the beginning. i knew it was political science masquerading as climate science. [applause] it was all the rage and governor romney was right there, marching lockstep with al gore. ladies and gentlemen, we need someone who is going to stand tall, who is not going to be a weather vane, but will. true north -- point true north and stand up for what is right. why would we nominate someone who has the same position of

president obama with respect to the use of fossil fuels? why would we give that issue away in this election? people ask me why i am the best candidate to run against barack obama. it is because i feel like come in many respects, i am running against barack obama here in this primary, because mitt romney has the same positions as barack obama in this primary. he was for the wall street bailout, like obama.

another almost $1 trillion act. i can go on with a laundry list of the support of planned parenthood. he wrote personal checks. he said he had a conversion. well and good. after his conversion, he provided tax refinancing for a planned parenthood clinic in massachusetts. the list is long. his policies are out of step, not just with the republican party, but with america, and provide no clear contrast. we are not going to win this election in the fall. governor romney has tried to win every race in every state, like he has tried to win illinois. we will not outspend barack obama 10-to-one. we will not run nonstop tv ads. imagine a campaign that is just about negativity, where there is no vision.

we need to have someone that can paint that positive vision, that can rally people to get off their couches and working. [applause] we don't have all the money from billionaire's giving you the super pac. what we have is more important. i am looking at it. my secret weapon here in illinois and across this country -- [applause] this campaign will be about freedom. it will be about economic opportunity, energy, manufacturing jobs. i'm the only person out there that talks about a plan that

will get this economy turned around, not just by a lowering energy costs, but by taking a one-two punch to try to bring the jobs that allow people of all skill levels to rise in our society. [applause] i grew up in a steel town of western pennsylvania. i know the opportunities that manufacturing creates coming here and across this country. this country was built on the back of hard-working people making things here in america. [applause] some people believe those days are gone. they are not. the only reason we lost those jobs is because government made manufacturing uncompetitive. the highest corporate tax in the world. the most onerous regulatory environment. on day one, we will repeal every high-cost obama regulation that was put in place in the last four years. [cheers and applause]

we are going to work with democrats and republicans from the industrial states to eliminate the corporate tax on manufacturing until every manufacturer from all around the country and all around this world come to america to build your business, grow your business, make things here in america. [applause] we are going to say america is going to be a place where you can be secure. we are going to put this government on a big-time diet, the biggest losers. [applause] we will shrink this government.

we will get a balanced budget in five years. we will cut five trillion dollars and five years. i will spend less money each year until we get to a balanced budget. [cheers and applause] finally we will have a president who understands where the budget problems are. they're not where the president has focused his attention. his focus has been in one place and cutting the budget. he refuses to cut it anywhere else. the military. the people who go out there to defend our freedoms. that is where the president says we need to cut. you would think by the president's rhetoric that is the area that has exploded under his term or under president

bush's term. we have seen this dramatic expansion of our military and we need to shrink because it is causing the deficit. let me share with you a couple of facts. when i was born, the defense department, military was 60% of the federal budget. it is now 17% of the budget. when i was born, entitlement spending was less than 10% of the budget. it is now 60% of the budget. that does not even count obamacare which takes that number to 70% of the budget. i will not cut the defense department. we will have the strongest military in the world.

i was the author of the bill and amendments that bill as a freshman senator against 10 kennedy and two lines in the senate and a 31 freshman senator from pennsylvania. we want. -- we won. we won because our ideas were better. it coincided with the vision of our country. these welfare programs have no business. none. most of them are run by the states any way. what we need to do is what paul ryan suggested and what i did in the senate. take all of these programs, 40 of them, cut them. in some cases cut them

dramatically. send the money to the states with two conditions. time limits and work requirements. we are not doing that because we are mean. we are not doing that because we care. welfare reform is not about hurting people. it was about understanding long- term government depended -- dependency does not help people. believing in the dignity of people to provide for themselves helps people and it turns lives around and makes this country a better country. the last issue -- this is what i do not know what the situation will look like in november. it may be about something that

is just anxiety creating. we have had a president who will make neville chamberlain look like an aggressive confront her of people. -- aggressive confront her of evil. he had an opportunity to join the green revolution in 2009 to overthrow the radical theocracy that is killing our troops and was killing our troops. he was building a nuclear weapon and threatening our ally israel, and the president said, no. let's negotiate. then we see recently the prime minister of israel coming to the

united states and speaking in washington, d.c. the day before president obama says, i have your back. the prime minister stood up and said, time is running out. we have been patient with the games your plane. we cannot allow nuclear iran that is threatening to wipe out not just israel but all jewish people. we have been down this road before. we will not let this happen again. [cheers and applause] i spoke from the same podium the next day and said, president obama does not have his back. he has turned his back on

israel. that very day, the president announced it would begin negotiations with iran. this is what is the big deal. series of old un resolution say there will be no negotiations until they see is developing an enriching iranian. he said, we do not have to do that. we will still talk to you. we will give you time. as we talk, you enrich. you build your ballistic capability. the weapon is that material into a weapon as we talk. we need a president who stops talking to evil and tries to negotiate with evil and stands up and says, we will stand with the people of israel and the iran will not get a nuclear weapon on our watch.

[cheers and applause] i let out a concrete proposal and says, if i was president today, i will give an ultimatum to the iranians. when that said you either open up the facilities for us to inspect, begin to shut down the processing, closed down 40 facilities, or we will shut them down for you. we need to appeal to the persian people. persian people, that is to populate iran. they are persians. look at your bible. these are not people hostile to

the jewish people. it is the radicals. we need to embrace them and engage them. we need to understand what america has always stood for. we are a country who does not invade. we do not conquered. we do not grant of land or resources. america has always been a country that has stood for liberty, has stood for the liberties of freeing people, prosperity and by the safety and security for our country. we should not have a president who travels around the world apologizing for america and what we have done in helping the world to a freer and safer place. [cheers and applause] my final plea to you is to understand what is at stake and

do your duty that this generation is called to do. our tea party folks of had a wonderful influence over the past couple of years. they have resurrected a document that had become somewhat of a dead letter. the constitution of the united states. [applause] that constitution is the operator's manual of america. it is how the government is to function. it must be read in context with another very important document -- one that is tethered to. is the anger for the constitution. that is the declaration of independence.

[applause] if you look at barack obama and the left, they always tried to dismiss the declaration. they tried to say, that is not a legal document. it was just the sentiments of people at the time. it does not have any legal standing in america's jurisprudence or an american law. you cannot understand this document unless you read in the context of these words that you all know also well, but i am not even sure you recognize how revolutionary they truly were. we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. [cheers and applause]

our constitution does not give us rights. the constitution recognizes the rights the got has already given us. the reason this country has done so well is because we understand the job of the government is limited to one thing the -- protecting the rights that god has given us, trusting the people to go out and take those liberties -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. to go out and pursue real happiness as our founders understood it. that was not the freedom to go and do what you want to do, but the freedom to do what you ought to do, what is best for you and your family and your community.

that is what america did. that is what created the greatness of this country. it was not some demigod or some defined profit that imposes their will on all of us. it was believing in people. going out and building a good and just society. that is the true history of america. [cheers and applause] do not ever for debt that we change the world. -- do not forget we changed the world. life expectancy was 35 as it was for 2000 years. and then america happen.

in america happen. it did not happen anywhere else. it did not happen in the third world, china, the russia. america liberated the human spirit. he believed in the dignity of every person. give them the ability to reach for the stars, build, prosper, and provide for each other. we actually had relationships and cared for each other. we knew we had an obligation to do so. life expectancy has doubled. in wealth beyond comprehension even 50 years ago all because we had government that believed in you. ladies and gentlemen, that is what is at stake.

if you want to bring americans together and remind them of who we really are. [cheers and applause] we have nothing that will stand in the way of free people. we can fix every problem not from washington, but by giving you the tools, the opportunity to go out and make things right across the country. trusting vieyou. at the end of the declaration of independence our founders wrote these words. they signed this knowing there were probably signing their death warrants. going up against a far tougher

foe. nevertheless, they signed this and they pledged to each other, as i am asking you to do here today. pledge to each other that you will step forward. our founders said they would put their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. nobody is asking you to plug your life over the next 48 hours. nobody is asking you to pledge your fortune. although if you go to ricksantorum.com -- [laughter] i promise i will not use it to buy a robocall. go on there and sent to be a volunteer and make phone calls.

we have less of people here in illinois you can call. it's a have we been able to win. people across this country and all of the nation. they know what is at stake. what is at stake? it is your sacred honor. you are stewards of a great inheritance. you are stewards of a great country. you are stewards of your family name. [applause] in fact, your honor will either be upheld or diminished as to whether you can uphold that gift that you have been given from your community, your family, your country. the honor of every american is at stake in this election. let me assure you that just like

1980, when people said we have to nominate a moderate, that is the only way we will win votes, conservatives across the of -- conservatives across this land said know. we want an election that is not about the difference between tweedle dum and tweedle dee. we want a choice about whether we have a president who believes that he should rule or whether we want a president who does not want to be the most powerful man in the world, who wants to return the power to you, the american people. [applause] i pledge you this -- in the next

48 hours if you go out and spend your days -- as you go out and and you callays, tomorro your friends, you put your pictures up on facebook. i have been working here, shaking hands and taking pictures. i need you. your country needs you. if you go out and do your part, i am doing this 24/7. since i started the run for president, i have had five days off of the campaign trail -- two for thanksgiving and 3 for christmas. i have been on the campaign trail every single day, doing as many as 10 events every single day. [applause] i am asking for three days. if you give me those three days

and you turn it out here in southern illinois -- i know what we do not get a chance to outvote your friends in the chicago area very often. this is a primary. turnout is everything. you do your job. this is the pledge -- if we are able to come out of illinois with a surprise when, i guarantee you -- surprise win, i guarantee you we will nominate a conservative and if we nominate a conservative, we will beat barack obama in the fall election. thank you. >> mitt romney has several campaign events in illinois sunday. about 5:00 p.m. eastern, the will of a visit with voters at the machine had run trot.

you can turn again to c-span far live coverage. illinois, which holds its primary today, is one of three contest left in march. pr holds its primary tomorrow. they have 23 delegates. 20, of which, will be awarded proportionally. louisiana holds its primary next saturday. according to the associated press, the republican count is 4954 mitt romney, 2524 rick santorum, 1314 nuking rich, and 48 for ron paul. 1004 -- 1144 are needed for the nomination. energy policy and gas prices are the topics of the weekly addresses. president obama calls for an all of the above a strategy with increased investment in alternative energy sources, reduce u.s. dependence on foreign oil. u.s. congressman core gardner

delivers the republican address, criticizing the president are proposing higher energy taxes and rejecting construction of the keystone of oil pipeline. >> i know you have noticed over the last few weeks, the price at your local pump has been going up and up. because it is an election year, so is the temperature of political rhetoric. what matters most to me is the impact this has on you. when you spend more on gas, you have less to spend on everything else. it makes things harder. i want to take a minute to explain what steps my administration is taking when it comes to energy. most importantly, producing more of it while using less of it. the truth is, the price of gas depends on a lot of factors that are often beyond our control. unrest in the middle east and tight supply. china or india are adding cars to the road, increasing demand. one thing we should control is manipulation that can cause

prices to spike further. for years, traders at firms were able to gain the energy markets, distort the price of oil, and make big profits for themselves at your expense. they were able to do that because of major loopholes in regulation. when i took office, i tried to address this. wall street reforms are strengthening our ability. it is not just wrong, but dangerous, that some in congress want to roll back those protections and return to the days when companies like enron could reap enormous profits. we are still giving the oil companies $4 billion of tax dollars in subsidies every year. congress should be fighting for you, not for big financial firms, not for big oil

companies. i expect congress to vote on ending the subsidies. when they do, we will put every member of congress on record. they can either stand up for the oil companies, or they can stand up for the american people. they can either place their bets on a fossil fuel from the last century, or they can place their bets on america's future. make your voice heard. send your representative and e- mail, give them a call, tell them to stand with you. tell them to be honest with you. it is easy to promise a quick fix when it comes to gas prices. there just isn't one. anyone who tells you otherwise, and a career politician who promises some 3-point planned for $2 gas, they are not looking for a solution. they are just looking for your vote. if we are truly going to make sure we are not at the mercy of spikes in gas prices every year, the answer is not just. the drilling. we are already drilling more. under my administration, we are

producing more oil at home than at any time in the last eight years. that is a fact. we quadrupled the number of rigs to a record high. we have opened millions of acres of land and offshore to develop more of our domestic resources. those are the facts. we cannot just rely on drilling. we use more than 20% of the world's oil and still only have 2% of the known oil reserves. if we don't develop other sources of energy and the technology to use less energy, we will continue to be dependent on foreign countries for our energy needs. that is why we are pursuing an "all of the above" strategy. we are also developing wind and solar power, biofuels, the next generation of vehicles, and thousands of americans have jobs now because of it. we need to keep making those investments.

i don't want to see those jobs go to other countries. i want to create even more of them right here in the united states of america. after three decades of inaction, we raise the standards so that by the middle of the next decade, our cars will average nearly 55 miles per gallon. that is nearly double what they get today. that means you only have to fill up every two weeks instead of every week. that will save the typical family more than $8,000 over the life of the car, just by using less gas. combined, these steps have helped put us on a path for greater energy independent. since i took office, america's dependence on foreign oil has gone down every year. in 2010, for the first time in 13 years, less than half the oil we used came from foreign countries. we can do even better. we will. what we cannot do is keep depending on other countries for our energy needs. in america, we control our own destiny. that is the choice we face.

the past, or the future? america is what it is today because we always place or bets on the future. thanks, and have a great weekend. >> driving around the district these days, the first and oftentimes only thing my constituents want to talk about is the pain at the pump. in our state, gas prices have gone up 40 cents in just one month. that helps everyone. families, commuters, job- seekers, and especially small business owners. it is not just american dollars at risk. it is american jobs. people in my district and around the country are fed up with the way the president is handling this issue, and rightfully so. the most forceful in the president has done about prices is try to explain that he is against them. the americans are right to expect more from their leaders, and to be fair, there have been signs of hope appeared last month, the president told

leaders in congress he would be willing to work with republicans on all of the above energy strategies. that was encouraging. republicans have long supported such a strategy to develop our own resources, both traditional and renewable, so that we can lower costs and improve america's energy security. from day one, the obama administration has consistently -- slowed or shut down domestic energy production. there is actually less acreage offshore open for energy production now than there was when the president took office. instead of increasing american energy independence, the president's first major energy initiative was a national energy tax that, according to him, would cause rates to skyrocket. he put stimulus dollars into a company that has since gone bankrupt, taking half a billion of taxpayer dollars with it. after spending money we don't have on what won't work and over-regulating what would come is there any wonder that gas

prices have more than doubled on his what? make no mistake, high gas prices are a symptom of his failed stimulus policies. that is why it was good to hear that the president indicated he would be willing to work with republicans on energy. in the meantime, the house has continued to pass "all of the above" initiatives as part of the republicans' plan for america's job creators. right now, there are at least seven bipartisan house-past energy bill sitting in the democratic senate, waiting on a vote. unfortunately, the president has yet to follow through and urged the senate to act. he has carried on with more of the same. he has called for raising energy taxes, which the nonpartisan congressional research service says would lead to higher prices. he has asked the attorney general to reconstitute an oil speculation task force that is never reported its work to the public. he quietly pushed members of congress to prevent construction of the keystone pipeline, despite overwhelming support for the project and the

jobs it would create, and his lobbying might have made the difference in the vote. just this week, his administration pressed the saudis to produce more oil, even as it works to close off more production here at home. no, government alone cannot work wonders, but the other printers and job creators, given freedom and opportunity, but entrepreneurs and job creators, given freedom and opportunity, cannes. president obama continues to block responsible energy production. our nation will continue to suffer with high gas prices and limited energy security. there is still time for the president to do the right thing and urged the senate to act. secure our energy future once and for all. thank you, and god bless the united states of america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> president obama celebrated st. patrick's day [inaudible] right on the corner from the c- span studios.

>> later in the evening, -- >> on news makers this week,

virginia's, attorney general discussing his state of the lawsuit before the u.s. supreme court challenging the affordable health care act. >> justice roberts -- some people look at his joining the majority in the comstock case the week before the federal government filed a motion to dismiss as a harbinger of doom for our side. i do not see that -- see it that way. despite the language of the comstock case, the very last paragraph has a very broad language. the federal government cannot put this bill through that final period i am confident that there has not been enough time since the comstock case to really affect -- >> you can see the entire interview with the virginia attorney general cken cuccinelli

sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. it is also available at c- span.org. >> i was the one who thought singing "we shall overcome" was not a very effective way of gaining several rights. i thought more confrontation was needed. >> economics professor, columnist, and substitute host for warp -- for rush limbaugh walter williams on being a radical. >> a radical is anyone who believes in personal liberty and individual freedom and limited government. that makes you a radical. i have always been a person who believes that people should not interfere and i should be able to do my own think so long as i do not interfere with the rights of others. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m.

eastern and pacific on c-span's q and a. >> next, a discussion on more monism, religion, and the 2012 presidential election. ristinepants include k haglund and alan wolfe. this event is just over one hour. >> a good evening. my name is mark massa and i am the dean of fidelity -- theology at boston college. i woullike you to -- to welcome you to this form. boston college, as you undoubtedly know, is an old catholic and just with university in america.

my school, down this year in 2008, is the newest component of that venerable institution. with the creation of the school, boston college 6 tdeliver on its commitment of being one of the premier places in the u. where catholics and religious people do their series in cannot, including -- serious thinking, including their thinking about how theology engages the world. an important part of that is fostering informed discussions, like the one we will have this evening, about how theology and religion do and should focus discsions about the serious political and social issues facing our country. this evening, our colloquialism is entitled, are mormons the new catholics and jews, mitt romney and the state of their union.

-- the state of the political union. tonight, i am delighted that this inaugural programas three individuals to set the bar high for this annual event. the moderator for this evening's colloquium is alan wolff,rof. of political science here at boston college, and the founding director of the center for religion and public life. joining him are khristine hagel and, the edir of dialogue, and contributor to the mormon blog entitled "by common consent." we are equally honored to have withs withprothero, a friend from a graduate school and a contributor to cnn's belief blog, and the autho of the much acclaimed book entitled "god is t one."

of the aid rival religions of the world and why their differences matter. we are also very grateful to c- span for their broadcasting this event this evening. please join me in welcoming our colloquium participants this evening. [applause] >> thank you very much, father. it is my pleasure to host this event. we will begin right away. the format is going to be -- and i'm going to ask these two distinguished panelists a few questions, start the discussion, they will then respond. we will keep gng as a conversation and an expert corporate -- at an upper bridgepoint we will turn to you for questions. as you have been told, if you have a question, please go up to a microphone and asked it. if this is tuesday, there must be republican primary somewhere. and it seems there is a republican primary, as it happens, the states of alabama

and mississippi. when this event is over and you have had time to reflect on all the wisdom you here, you will also pretty much have a sense of what the results are. i can tell you two things about the republican voters in the primary in advance. one is, the large majority o them are southern baptist. and the second is, none of them are really going to get a chance to vote for a southern baptist. ron paul is technically someone from the souther baptist convention, but h is actually a follower of a jewish atheist from st. petersburg, rand, which is his true religion. here's the question, given the legacy of a certain kind of anti-mormon sentiment that has been characteristic of various protestant denominations throughout our history, will southern baptist boat for mitt romney -- a vote for mitt

romney in significant numbers? >> i grew up in nashville, tennessee. my house was about a mile from the southern baptist cvention offices, and my inclination is that a very few republican southern baptist voters will vote for mitt romney. and they might not even be able to say exactly why. they just think that mormons are vaguely weird and other. >> do you think so too, stephen? >> i think one of the surprises so far is how willing and evangelicals have been to consider mitt romney. that has been a surprise to me. he won the evangelical vote in new hampshire and in nevada. he was very close in a couple of states and in the southern state in general, he has been pretty far behind. the other trick is that, as you intimated, allen, his competition is two catholics. that is tricky if you a

evangelicals that tngs that kaplan -- that catholics are not quit christians and mormons are not quite christians. you do not have a lot of places to gin this election. one interesting reason that is the case, you know, i do not wonder at the extent to which the anti- -- i do wonder the extent to which the anti-mormon of sentiment has been so powerful. there has been sentimentbout whether you would vote for a ment -- a mormon if the nomination went to one. those numbers have been pretty high since 1967. only about 20% of americans will admit that they will not vote for a mormon. but even there, there is a difference between voting for a mormon in the atract and then voting for a particular mohrmann. a lot of voters, including some born-again christians are saying, well, i don't want to vote for a morn, but i will vote for mitt romney.

>> you seem to disagree to an extent with what stephen just said, but you also agree with what he said about sthern baptists. the typical white american evangelical voter wi not vote for a mormon, but they cannot really articulate the reasons. i recall a conversation with amy sullivan, a blotter and writer for "time" magazine abrupt -- who grew up in an evangelical church. she said that very few republicans know very little about theology. but when it comes to mormons, and a good baptist can give you 12 the logical reasons about why a mormon is not a christian. >> well, maybe one. >> at the week after the counter cold unit in sunday school at the baptist and methodist church in my town, it was never

find in school. it did provide for a lot of the logically grounded conversations. it was a great chance for me to articulate my mormon faith in a way that mormons do not really do either, right? everyone knows that mormons are supremely pragmatic and not ideologically oriented. -- not theologically oriented. i think the way that mitt romney is perceived, even if people do not object to his specific theology, especially since he has not spoken about his beliefs and has made a point not to speak about them, but just the sense that he is awkward, just a little bit not comfortable in his skin -- i think that all has to do with both his sense of otherness as a mormon, and other people's the sense that mormons do not quite fit. it does not have to be an

articula opposition to something to do with more monism. >> can you speak about that sense of otherness as a mormon? >> yes, i think that from the time that mormons are little kids, they grow up in the church and they hear the refrain "every member a missionary." there is a song and all kids love it when they are growing up. you learn very early on that mormon as a messiah and to be constantly performed. you have this sense, -- that more monism is to be constantly performed. you have this sense, especially if you grow up outside of utah, that you're on stage. you are showing how good momism is by your actions. without meaning to, and without any ill intent, mormons develop this double consciousness that you are always aware of your audience and always trying to gauge of what might be the best

aspect of more monism to show or to hide. prmoninm isis -- momis the best to show or hide. >> there was a highly publicized speech and i remember being called to one of the television studios to watch it live and comment immediately i thought it was opportunity for him to say something about who mormons are and what they believe. he pretty much decided not to do that and almost presented himself almost like an evangelicals. i wonder if youould address this. however pragmatic or necessary for romney politically, it was a great opportunity lost for a

prominent mormon to say something about his faith in public to his national audience. >> stephen, i know you are familiar with that speech. >> i do not know what he would have had to gain from doing that. >> politically. >> yeah. i thought it was a great speech. it was over a week ago, right? so, some time ago. there was a sense that he made a strong argument for religious liberty. he also made the point, which is something you do not hear from republicans very often, that the u.s. is a country that has oppressed religious minorities. he told the story of the oppression of mormons. i think it was maybe half a sentence, or a full sentence. mormons were pushed out to the west by persecutions. i thought that was a pretty interesting eech.

it has been compared to the kennedy speech in 1960, houston. kenny did not give any kind of claim about the causes and then. it would not have been smart for him. he did not talk about transubstantiation. it was not -- it would not be smart for him. if you wanted to be the schoolmaster for the nation, that would have been a nice opportunity for him. but i do not think we should expect him to go anywhere near there in the future. >> i also think it has to do with the fact that mormons are no monolithic. people have different personalities. i do not think that romney is especially think-y about his religion. not that he does not understand it, but he is not intrigued by the theogy of ithe way i am. he is not a nerdy about it. i think he likes martin is --

mormonis in part because it works for him. it helped him build his family. it encourages clean living. he likes those practical aspects of the church. in college, i had the opportunity to hear him give a lot of sermons. i cannot remember a single one of them. and it is not because i was not paying attention. remember other people's concerns. >> i can remember any of his speeches. [laughter] he does not -- >> he does not grapple with mormon as some -- mormonism in ways that make sense to me or to other people. maybe would make sense if he were trying to do this call ster of the country, but it is just not who he is. >> there are some americans who will not vote for a mormon, or

by the title of our symposium today is, "is anti- mormonism the new anti-catholicism"and there is a certain amount of bigotry against the mormon faith. it is obligatory of mormons to combat the ignorance by saying something more positive? >> maybe, but -- you know, this week and last week, the discussion has been about mormon proxy baptisms. that is an interesting place where there could be an opportunity. there is a lovely theological underpinning to that doctrine. if you believe a certain rituals are necessary for salvation and you have the authority to perform them, it is a lovely universalist gesture to extend those rituals to other people.

but if you do not believe that certain rituals are necessary to salvation, and you cannot in any way enter that religious frame ofind, there is no way to discuss the theological nuance, or to explain the doctrinal rationale that makes it seem like a perfectly harmless, and even benevolent and kind of practice to get a mormon. it is a gross offense to everyone else. >> is there anything comparable with other minority religions? >> i think, part of what your questions have raised for meat is the question of -- for me, is the question of how other religions mainstream. to the extent of tonight about mormon as in, but also catholicism, how does catholicism get from the point of, no, we cannot elect al smith because he is a catholic to that we can elect j.f.k. even though

he is a catholic to the fact that we even hardly notice that santorum and others are catholic. how does that happen? >> the machine. >> he is a good example. when he is on tv in the 1950's and talking about catholicism -- i think it goes more with donny osmond is winning "dancing with the stars appear go oh, he is a mormon -- "dancing with th ars" and it is like, oh, he is a mormon, and he is dancing like us. yostarted by talking about people saying, when they are voting, they won people to be like them. that is one of the problems with obama. instead of saying that we do not like a black president, we say,

i do not feel comfortable with this guy. he is not like me. the way you have a sense of whether he is an ok guy, or he is not too stiff, or he is one of us is not with theology at all. and it is, in part, because our theologies differ. and we do not necessarily want that to go into the public space. but the idea that -- and this is something you have emphasized in your own writings, too -- the idea that we are tolerant and can get along despite our differences, that is what will carry this along. that is where we see these people on "dancing with the stars" or wherever it may be. >> do you think a mormon would benefit -- do you think mormonism wod benefit by being mainstream? >> for me, personally, i think it would be a great loss. and i'm not sure it could come

out here as a group. it is still too small. if you look at the example of the community of christ, which is the largest splinter group from the mormon church, they have essential become another protestant church wh loose ties to the book of mormon and to joseph smith's history. they are losing membership and generally in decline in the way that some mainstream protestant churches are. it is not clear to me that without the weirdness and tension with surrounding society that momism -- mormonism could survive. >> the me give you two scenarios. one is that rodney loses. the other is that brahney wins. -- that mitt romney loses. the others that mitt romney wins. >> is there another possibility? [laughter]

>> all of the above? i don't know, the heightened scrutiny with his candidacy has been very good for mormons in some ways. there is a chance to sort of clarify what we believe. there is attention to practices that need revision. there is another topic in the news this week, a byu professor was talking about some old mormon doctrines about race that should have long since been repudiated, and have not been. d that is a salutary for the church to look in the corners of its history and to think seriously about the way it treats women and the other questions that come out. i think that is useful. i'm not sure we could stand it for another four years. i could not. >> do you have a perspective on this? >> i'm also thinking that the assumption before was that the way more monism -- mormonism

could teach -- the way a mormon politician could teach, i think there is a way that mitt romney could teach in terms of what we do as a community and the family values the side of mormonism, ich is the stuff that you are saying was attractive to mitt romney in the first place. but i think this is a provocative and interesting question. i think it would be good for mormonism if " mitt romney were elected. i think it would be a sign, as kennedy was, that this is a tradition that has made it, in a way. an it does not have to be seen as a danrous cult to others. i cannot believe about to say this, because i'm not a big mitt romney fan, but i think there is a way in which it could be good for america.

we have this election that seems, in a way, already so nasty. i am already imagining that is going to be like the election of 1800 and be the top two of ugly and venomous elections in american hisry. but if in the end of that you would see, oh, we can have a non-protestant president and this is a place where a religious diversity and religious pluralism have gone far enough we could elect someone like that, i think that might be good for the country. >> thimay sound like an odd question, but i mean it quite seriously. when i look at the situation that mitt romney i basing trying to get the nomination of this party and i look at -- is facing trying to get the nomination of this party, and i look at some of the people he is runninggainst a, here is a man who has been married to only

one woman for a very long te. he has a beautiful family. he is the embodiment of american success. and i look at some of the other candidates, it is almost like they're looking for someone less perfect, someone who is broken, someone who has sinned and because he has sinned has found redemption in another way. and there is a particular candidate who has been married and as many times as he has had wives, which is not exactly the picture of the straight and narrow. or in the last election where he seemed to lose support against mike huckabee, who had gone on a diet and was trying to cure his big weight problem. there is this sense that mitt romney is to perfector republican voters, who are raised in a tradition that emphasizes the inherent

sinfulness. is that part of the problem? >> it could be, and that goes straight to the problem of whether or mormons believe in greece or not. or not.ve in a bracgrace >> do you want to speak to that? >> shourd, mormonism emphasizes predictability and the mormo god is comprehensible to human beings. there is the collapsible of distance, which is the belief that humans and dogs are not ontological if -- different from -- humans and god are not on the logic -- ontologically

different, but just different by degrees of glory. >> so, mormons are not christian, then, is that where you are saying? >> i'm saying that mormons are still developing a robust theology of grace, which has not always been present. >> i was confused about that. this is precisely why mitt romney does not want to start talking about theology. the interesting idea, the kind of broken person who has been deemed, as the american model. i do think americans love that. it is in our films. it is in our mythology about our country. i think that is deeply christian, but it has also been americanized. it is not just evangelicals who want the imperfect person.

that is one way that they are like us, not that they are sinners in the theological sense, but that they have troubles. for all the discussion in the last couple of days about mitt romney having friends that are nascar owners, and friends with nfl owners, too, part of the problem has to do with money, but part of the problem also has to do with maybe he is just too close to the gods. he is not like one of us. corexit mitt romney makes his mistakes. -- >> mitt romney makes his mistakes. i can only think of that famous christian saying, all your fault. steven, you used the word republican when talking about rmons, and mormons are not overwhelmingly republicans. you are democrat. and there are many in your family.

>> there are 15 of us. >> can you say anything about the attraction of the republican party and how robust is? and will that continue? if mitt romney does lose the nomination -- i doubt that he will. there are many who believe he pretty much has locked it up. but if he does lose, he will have lost it twice. willormons' say, and my inclination is to vote republican, but this party does not want me. >> the democratso not really want us, either. mormons became mostly republican more recently than you would think. probably right around the time of the era, mae a little bit earlier. it is a reaction to the '60s, pretty much. it is social conservatism in the

sense that tho were the most important values. and gender and family became boundary issues within the church, too. it always has been. at first, it was polygamous families. then it became these very american, a perfect families. family values were a natural place for people to go in the 1960's. >> is that part of proving your americanness, the family values? the idea in the late 19th century is that you were not family values, right? >> yes, the tour -- the 1920's through the 1950's. >> if avenue m is going to be the equal rights amendment, the republican party -- you may know the dates on this. but through 1946, the republican platform was for the era.

betty ford was one of the biggest proponents of the era. that coincided with the reagan revolution and that sort of thing. >> there was aoment for a year or two where mormons were also in favor of the era. then the general release society president came in with her very large hair on fire and saying we could should come against the era. -- we should come against the era. >> one thing that should be noted, we had two more men candidates. the other one has dropped out. jon huntsman has been known as the most moderate of the republicans. the eternal question -- i mean, there are all kinds of questions abou religion that can never be definitively answered, but there is one about politics that will probably never be definitively answered. that is, was mitt romney the

governor of massachusetts, the real mitt romney, and the guy that is running out -- is he a fake? romney has changed his position more than a few times. he is generally identified as not the most conservative of the republicans. although, sometimes he has taken positions a little bit to the right of others. i think is fair to say, other things bei equal, or if this were a different republican party, he would be in the moderate rain -- moderate wing. his father was, and that is his family background. why are these two moderate republicans not among the most conservative? with many people who do not know much about mormonism and just , and youprejudices cannot get more conservative --

well, in fact you can get a lot more conservative. presen form is a lot more conservative. anybody? >> -- rick santorum is a lot more conservative. anybody? >> do you know any angry mormons? i do not know any angry mormons. they are -- it seems to be in the rick santorum wing of the republican party you have to be kissed off. there is this cultural communication -- you have to be pissed off. there is this cultural communication that you are walking around feeling pretty good about yourself. >> they take it out on mormon immigrants. >> maybe. the star about that. the other thing is, -- sorry about that. >> the other thing is, he is being a pragmatist.

to understand him as the nba guy who goes into companies and figures out how to make them work, that is not done ideologically. that is pure pragmatism. in some cases you might want to fire a bunch of workers. in other cases you might want to change your product line or the ceo of your company. you do not go marching in with some ideological concept that will work. i think that is who he is and he has been very consistent about that. it sort of changes his view depending on the situation. in massachusetts, the health- care plan seemed to make sense. it seemed to be at the time a pretty conservative republican idea that he was sneaking past the the liberals in massachusetts. now the times have changed and it is seen as a left-wing idea, so he has changed with it. i guess that is saying he is a principled flip-flopper, right?

or he is a pragmatic person who ends up on different sides of the issue because of his consistent pragmatism. there something about the mormon tradition tt is not that deeply theologically driven, and thawould be parallel to a politician who is not very ideologically drin? >> yes, there is this moment when he was running for governor of massachusetts and it was in one of the debates and he was asked about casino gambling in massachusetts. you can practically hear the violence well. there are a million great concern -- the voilins swell. there are a million great conservative reasons to be against gambling and a million great liberal reasons and to be against gambling and he says, well, i need to see the numbers. he just really is kind of like that.

it has more to do with his temperament and his mormonism, but there is this element that from the very beginning, there were only in one place for a couple of years at a time before they got driven out by mobs. mormonism was all about finding shelter and not getting burned out of it andinding things to eat and growing stuff in the desert. there was not a luxury of caring about someone's theological opinion. >> what aut this ongoing relation where you have the tradition of the possibility of change? you alluded to this racist moment in american mormon history. our remember as a kid -- i remember as a kid watching donny osmond on some variety show and they asked him, why can't black men become priests in the mormon tradition, and he said --

because at that time they could not. that changed in 1978 or 75 or something. and he sai well, that is up to e elders of our church and that has been our teaching. i remember thinking, that is bad. that cannot be. and he was defending it. but you know, there was a change. and the church flip-flop on the question, right? >> turned on a dime. >> there you have an example inside the tradition that is not a closed canon. you have this theology that is handed down generation upon generation that is never going to change, but there is an understanding that the church can change, too. >> there is always from the very beginning this tension between authoritative revation, this sort of right of the president of the church to receive guidance from the whole church, and this strong tradition of personal revelation and the idea that all people have the right to have access to have

inspiration from god. those two things compete at various times. what is scary about mormon moments in american history is when people from the outside are looking at one or the other of those two strains come out one becomes more dominant. it kind of messes with the unstable equilibrium that we have worked out in the church. there is this moment in the church right n where fm the 1960's on, the has been emphasis on the authoritative aspect and following leaders, and not questioning, not asking too many questions, not wanting things to change. that probably came to a head in the late 198's and early 1990's when a bunch of mormon intellectuals were excommunicated. but since then, the was a gradual opening. the historical department published a real honest history

of the mountains maddow massacre. it is a horrible discussion. they lead to, helen whitney have access to the information for documentary and they openely cooperated with that. we are trying to be ok with people talking academically about mormons. i worry that if there is this sense -- you know if the court in new york -- if the "new york times" editorial page is nearing have us, or if the republicans do not vote for mitt romney, that it could crush that moment of revelation and openness that is on the ascendancy. those are always tricky. >> i want to push to vote on this pragmatism question. you have emphasized mitt romney's pragmatism. steven, you have talked about how the mormon chain -- the mormon church has changed on a dime, so to speak.

there is something admirable about that because it suggests that being dog -- locked into dogmatic positions or sectarian positions, we would not admire a church that held fast to principles of racial segregation and we can appreciate the flexibility of trade -- of change. but pragmatism can go to such an extreme that you wonder if you can trust someone who is so pragmatic that he essentially stands for nothing. it seems to me that is part of mitt romney's political problems these days. i confess to having liked him when he w governor of this commonwealth, and always having a certain sympathyrom -- for him. i wrote publicly that i thought he was the victim of anti-mormon prejudice in 2008 and it was a stain on the american political character that he was. i have to say, watching him this time around, the pragmatism is so wildly out of control that i just do not know what is going to come out of his mouth.

i do not associate this with mormonism, but as a character issue with brahney. -- mitt romney. in one of these debates, for some reason, wolf blitzer ended the debate by saying "hi, my name is wolf blitzer, and that is my real name." and then he said, hi, my name is mitt romney, and that is my real name. and i started tearing my hair ou his real name is willard. y can he tell the truth about his name? there is a serious question here about whether one can be too pragmatic. as we often say -- i do not, but a lot of americans seem to say they admire the candidates religiosity because it implies there are certain standards to which the candidate here's -- adheres. when your that pragmatic, there is no standard to which you hear

too. any comment? >> pragmatism, at least in the business school model that i am thinking of, is a technique. it is not a goal. it is a way to get to x. how will we get this company to improve? how will we get this company to make its certain amount of money every year? we wil do what we need to do to do that. there's a pragmatism with mitt romney that he wants to get the nomination, and he is scarily willing to do and say almost anything. and i agree with you, as someone who lived in massachusetts while he was governor, i have heard him say things that i have been surprised out. there is a difference there, i ink, between a kind of native pragmatism among mormons, or someone who, say, as a publican, wants to get certain things done because those are his republican principles. then he is going to be a pragmatist about how that happens. i think obama is a pragmatist in

that regard. i do not think he is that different from mitt romney in his strategy. that is why a lot of people on the left are annoyed with obama, that he seems to not stand for something. i think he stands for something, but he is willing to go about it in fairly pragmatic ways. i'm not really sure anymore what mitt romney stands for. i do think he is a guy who wants to be like his fatheand he wants to be elected. i think that is driving him more than he wants america to look this way and the best way to make america look this way is for me to be president for eight years. >> i think i do not really know, either, and more what -- anymore what his bedrock is, and that suggests to me it is not a mormon thing. >> here is a question. either of you can answer. can you envision some day prominent candidates running for high office in the u.s. who is a mormon and a woman?

>> yes. >> you do not have to declare now. [laughter] >> no, i do think that is possible. i would suggest -- suspect that she would not have had a comfortable life passage through mormonism if that were to happen. it is not always comfortable to be an ambitious woman if you are a mormon. >> is that changing? >> it is changing slowly. and there is a backlash, i think. two steps forward and one and halfback. it goes slowly. -- d one and a half steps back. it goes slowly. it was said in our general conference thawomen should not pass judgment on each other for their tauruses about career and family. you would not think that would be radical -- for their choices about career and family. you would not think that would be radical in 2011, but it is. i think the pragmatism there

ll be a benefit. it is true that hardly any women have the luxury of staying home and having six or seven or 10 kidd and taking care of them at home. the church will adjust to that reality. >> i have not seen anything written about this at all, but right now, everyone is talking about how when in, and especially independent women, are swinging toward the democrats, in part, because the democrats seem to have framed the contraception issue as more about a woman's access to contraception than a churches and religious liberty. mitt romney rene genser obama and given the importance of a female vote, i've -- running against obama and given the importance of a female vote, i wonder if he would be -- if there would be trends within the mormon church that have not been sensitive to that, whether or romney would be vulnerable.

>> i kind of hope so. >> how much americans know about mormonism, i don't think we know much. you intimated that, too. i do not even think that would necessarily work. >> i actually thought there was a significant amount of learning. there were a lot of serious question and i think he answered them very well. kennedy never talked about his faith and mitt romney never talked about his fate. lieberman did. maybe he had a higher hurdle to overcome. >> if mitt romney is nominated, he is going to be asked about these things. he will not be able to avoid it. >> and one of the reasons he is probably glad that the issue has been framed in terms of religious liberty is that the mormon position on birth control and abortion is quiteragmatic

and tolerant. there is no position. >> and creationism? >> gazprom on not culturally, but dr. naille, quite friendly to science -- yes, not culturally, but doctrinal lee, quite friendly to science. >> given what republicans have to do to win their primary, i doubt whether the issue would come forward now. drugs and mormon sexism is the soft kind -- >> and mormon sexism is the soft kind. it is chivalrous. go up on your pedestal and talked quietly. >> he may start moving to the microphone now, if you wish. as you are doing that, when i got to college a very long time ago, i had to take a course. it was required on public speaking. it was taught by a debate coach

at temple university. he gave us all a question and we had to come in and debate. this was 196 i was given the question, should george romney be elected president of the united states? he was not interested in running. if you just want to identify yourself quicklynd then ask your question. >> michael probiotic, and then a question. i think mitt romney's major problem is that he is in the wrong party. as a mormon or as a moderate, he has a very tough time representing the views of the republican party. i think his advisers are telling him to stay to the right as long as you can and then when you get the nomination, you can swing to the left. huntsmans had given away

millions of dollars to the university and the hospital in salt lake city. they are a leading family in -- mormon family in the country. i think huntsman made it very clear that he was going to switch parties. i think for romney, he should have. >> i did not know that huntsman was talking serioly about switching parties. we heard a lot about this group called americans elected that would like to run a centrist kind of party with people like senator snow. and jon huntsman would be a perfect match for that. >> let's not forget that the person who is going to get the republican nomination is mitt romney, who is a mormon. we can talk about the anti- mormonism in american culture, but we are in a situation where we are going to have a mormon who is a standard bearer, not just for one of the two parties, but for the republican party.

that is an extraordinary moment in american religious history. >> earlier, we were talking about -- or you guys were talking about how whether or or not pragmatism and having a moderate position was typical mormonism. i would like to bring up that before this year, perhaps the most infamous more men in american culture is glenn becher, who is a thing -- mormon in american culture is glenn who is anything but moderate. i wonder if they will cut recall and his views. >> i think the most prominent mormon is danny is. >> i think ibeck -- glenn beck

disappeared. the new cycle being what it is, he is kind of off the sge. >> is rush limbaugh a mormon? >> snow. it -- no. maybe after he dies. >> i think that is germane. he was not raised as a mormon, so culrally, he is not a mormon. he converted when he was married, right? >> yes. it's interesting factor, he followed me in sunday school and we moved away ande became a sunday school teacher. >> he was inspired by a scout, who is way out there. >> even for mormons. my publications finest hour may ha been the takedown of the book by lou mulally. a fiery, wonderful, scathing review.

and the back-and-forth letters. >> i wonder if i may be putting on the spot a little bit. i was at a conference with a lot of mormon intellectuals. proposition 8 in california came up. it was fascinating to hear them talk about it generally. they said three things, and i was curious to what extent they were true. they said, first, people need to know there are a lot of mormons in california. one thing they said was that mormons did not really read, say, the l.a. times. they got most of their information from internal mormon publications, which led them perhaps not to rlize how isolated they were becoming in their political position. secondly, they were told that the threat of prop. 8, temples would have to seal the same-sex

marriages. which seems strange to me, because the method is religion, they did not seem to double down against it. the methodists convention does not oppose same-sex marriage the way the mormons and did. and thirdly, the flds people said, you know, if the previous president had been around, he would not have made the strategic error of pushing all of the ships against prop. 8. i wonder if you could comment on that. >> i was not in california, thankfully, during at time, so i cannot comment authoritatively on what people were reading. but it seems likely to me that they were reading not church- generated memos, but most -- memos from, i cannot remember the names of the different coalitions. the coalition for marriage, or whatever their name was -- they were mostly mormons, but have

participation from other people. i i did see claims that mormons would have to marry gays in the temple. which i do not understand that fear. at first, i thought it was arficial. but in talking to people more, i think people were severely afraid. they did not understand it and were truly afraid that somehow this could happen. mormon anxiety around marriage has historical roots. we did sort of have trouble doing the kinds of marriages that we wanted to about a century ago. i think that is alwaysn the back of people's mind. at was the third thing? >> it might have been a different policy. >> i thinkhat might be true. it came up in the public affairs department of the church, and had a great sense of the optics

of things. i think he might have seen what happened, and i do not think the president had the same sensibility. i think they were generally shocked at the backlash. nothing like proposition 8 will ever happen again, cause of that backlog. -- backlash. i do not think. >> is that something you do not see in the christian/-- in the christian protestant denominations? there is this focus on the afterlife, the family, and the image of that is always a man and a woman. the evangelicals have to go running to the bible to support their revulsion or opposition or whatever it mit be to homosexuality. they have not grown up with southern baptists over the last hundreds of years. you have to go back and find a

reason for the way you want it to be. in the mormon tradition, it is sort of there. >> there is this notion that the unit of exultation is a man and woman together, or a man and a few women, depending on which century are talking about. but there is definitely this theological hadron are nativity -- heteronormativity that does not exist in other denominations as strongly. >> the phrase religious liberty was introduced to the conversation. we all know that in these conversations the last few months, the catholic bishops have staked a strong position. they have had a clear voice at the table, even in legislative hearings. as have some evangelical denominations as well. i am just curious if we could sort of reflect on if there was less silence for the mormon

tradition how would this conversation, this national sort of conversation, be different. if you could reflect on that. >> i am not sure. i think that at the moment there are at least a couple of apostles of the governing body of the church that have taken up this religious liberty flag with great enthusiasm. and, you know, there is obvious history for mormons to be concerned aut religious liberty. i think it is probably sort of incentive to find things that way, and it makes sense -- instinctive to frame things that way, and it makes sense. i am concerned that when moons' talk about religious

liberty, they are talking about something different. they are not talking about birth control. they are talking about gay marriage. by not disambiguating those issues, they hope to gain political allies, but it muddies the theological waters and makes it hard to articulate a distinctly mormon position. >> we have a few minutes. i am going to ask you to ask your questions serially, and then we will try to wrap up. >> thank you for a great conversation. i am laura everett. i am wondering. one of the commitments for those of us to engage in interfaith dialogue is you let your dialogue partner define themselves. what happens here, with this conversation about who is christian, when you have the great majority of christian traditions -- roman catholic, the broad protestant cents,

saying they are christian, and you have the church of latter- day saints say that as well. is there an impact? is there a way through this? what does this conversation look like? >> jesper joseph. my question is somewhat related. you were talking earlier about whether mitt romney would have benefited from a speech or something like that talking about more monism. i immediately thought of now- president obama and his speech on race. that was a significant moment. i am wondering if he would be able to give such a speech in a crisis motion -- crisis moment, if it would be relevant. or does he had his bats? as we found recently, republicans in alabama and mississippi have not been happy he told them. i do not know the impact of that kind of speech for them. >> i want to clarify that president obama is not a muslim.

[laughter] ok. just for those of you who are listening. i have a question about mormons and christianity, but i think it is an interesting question. i did a review years ago of a book by the bushmans, who are well-known historians of more monism. it was a series of books written for use in high schools about american religious history. on the very first page of that book, there was a theological assertion that mormons were christians. i have always talked with my students about that question. i have always used it as a focal teaching point. it is an extremely interesting estion to ask whether any group fits any category. it is an interesting problem. you can do it with all sorts of things. if you are in religious studies, it is particularly nice to do it with a religious group where there is a dispute about whether it fits a certain box.

first of all, you have to know something about more monism. you also have to know something about christianity. and you have to have a theory about what christianity is. so there are all sorts of interesting things to happen in order to have that conversation. i was disappointed in that book that it forestalled that question, because it instructed high school students that that was not an appropriate and interesting question, wreas i thought it was. to me, it is clear that if you have a kind of classical nicene creed doctrine of christianity, you understand mormons are not christian. there really are not. if you have, for example, how much do they talk about jesus -- you talk about jesus in almost any religious group i know, including protestantsnd angelicals. maybe they are more christian. most of our -- many of the

denomination's and christians we have in america are not christians if we have a doctrinal view of christianity either. if we are going to start kicking mormons out of the christian better for that reason, all of a sudden other people start getting kicked out. is rick santorum a catholic? that is an interesting question. rick santorum disagrees with the catholic church on the majority of social, political, and economic questions. yet he is presenting himself as more catholic than now -- than thou. i am not answering that question. i am just saying i think it is a really important and interesting one. it is quick to go radiological. -- ideological. it is also easy to say that i am a od liberal, so i am going to say mormons are christians, or i am a good evangelical, so i am

going to say they are not. i think romney will have to give a mormon is a speech if he is nominated, but i think it will end up being not about ideology but about the cultural side of the church and will relief from him as a republican and a family-values republican. i think he will do that. but he is not going to talk about celeste you kingdoms and things like that. >> in an ideal world, that conversation starts with the question, with, "what do you mean when you say christian? what is your understanding of that?" neither mormons' nor evangelicals are good at asking ose questions. mormon is and has no theological understanding of christianity either. they do not understand what people say they are not christian. they do not understand the theological history behind the asrtion that we are not. there needs to be more teaching on both sides.

>> the last word goes to you. >> i am delighted this has been marked by such intelligent and lively conversation. thank you for your conversation tonight. [applause] i would like to thank the center here at bost college, and for all of you, who have been an excellent audience with your questions. i also think c-span for being present with us tonight. thank you for being here and enjoy the evening. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

>> on tuesday president obama and the prime minister traveled to ohio on air force one to catch the opening round of the ncaa basketball tournament. prime minister cameron was back in the nation's capital wednesday for lunch at the state department host bid secretary of state hillary clinton and vice president joe biden. all three spoke at the event. here's a look.

>> thank you all very much. please be seated. welcome to the state department . we are thrilled and so pleased to host this luncheon for our very special guest prime minister and mrs. cameron. it is wonderful to see all of you celebrating spring with us and knowing that our relationship is all spring, it's always being renewed, it is always durable, it is a cornerstone of both of our nations foreign policies and it has such a great resonance between our two people.

now, i want to recognize our chef today a native of birmingham, england, who made herself a home in new york city as the executive chef of a couple of very hip restaurants, one the spotted pig, the other the brezz lin. so it is really a delight to have april bloomfield with us. she was just talking with the prime minister. [applause] so april stands ready to help prime minister.

we joke about the special relationship but that is because we are so comfortable with it. it means such a great deal to us. it is not just because of a wide range of shared interests but our deeply rooted history and the unbreakable friendship between our countries. now, of course the president did remind the prime minister at the white house ceremony this morning that we are at the 200th anniversary of the war of 1812. and i was pleased to tell my counterpart and friend the foreign secretary and also the chance already that it was my pred saysor in one of my other lives dolly madison who actually saved the extraordinary portrait of george and martha washington having received word from her husband who was truly then a commander in chief in the field that unfortunately the british truly were coming and so she rushed from the white house

taking some treasures with her leaving behind the meal that she had prepared for her husband and his officers and the british officers ate the meal before they burned the white house. so you know, we are looking forward but nevertheless there are certain memories that are also of significance and how wonderful it is here we are today. and working together in so many important parts of the world. helping to bring peace and stability to afghanistan, helping to promote successful trapsitions and democratic reforms in the arab world, we worked alongside each other to end a dictator's rule in libya. we are now focused on helping the people of syria realize a better future for themselves. we are grateful for the

leadership that the prime minister and his government have shown on so many issues just recently i was in london for a conference on somalia that they sponsored. no matter what the issue, we are standing together. so i know prime minister and smantsa that this is just a small measure of hospitality to try to demonstrate our commitment and appreciation to this relationship. we were so well treated when the president and i and our teams were on a state visit last year sponsored by the government of course her majesty's government. so we did the best we could with the weather, we think we pulled that off quite well. but it is now my great pleasure to welcome a dear friend, a great american, and a superb vice president joe biden.

[applause] >> mr. prime mipster, mrs. cameron, like you we host a large number of visiting dignitaries and high level meetings but sometimes they're with challenges that require to forge whole new relationships and sometimes they're preoccupied with hammering out agreement ors producing what the policy wonks refer to as deliverable. this one is easy. this one is easy. today is entirely different. the diplomatic engagement with the full agenda of critical issues, yes, that is on the agenda. but there is also something more like a family gathering and very little disagreement. we sat in the cabinet room

today. it was like a cabinet meeting. it wasn't like a meeting with foreign dignitaries. and together we have we the united states and great britain are very, very proud stewards of the deepest international partnerships. the bond between our countries, and our people, has stood the test of time and it is grown stronger. to the ravages of two world wars we've weathered ever shifting for tunes. and nothing changes except it gets better. so mr. prime minister we're deeply honored to welcome you on your first official visit to washington. and we're also always anxious to welcome a british prime minister o back to washington even on the anniversary of the war of 1812. but i must tell you, mr. prime minister, the secretary knows

this and a few of my friends like john kerry know it. in my family it wasn't the war of 1812 that really bothered anybody about the british. the fwidens imgrated from liverpool in 1825. but the other side of the family, the fin gan side of the family, they had a different problem and it wasn't the war of 1812. so my grandfather ambrose finnigan, things have changed. i just want you to know. mr. prime minister, we are truly deeply honored that you are here. and in your op ed you coauthored with president obama you wrote and i quote what makes our relationship special, a unique and essential asset, is that we join hands across so many endeavors. put simply, we count on each other and the world counts on our alliance. that is absolutely true.

the united states and the united kingdom cooperate in a breath taking array of issues. none more important than the six military campaigns we have waged alongside of another just in the last 20 years. as you said, the world counts on us. it was true in libya. and mr. prime minister, i would like to personally commend you for your leadership and you personally showed and alongside president obama in championing the international effort to help drive qaddhafi from power and give the libyan people a better future. it is true in afghanistan as well where 9,500 fwritish shoulders stand shoulder to shoulder with american comrades and warriors preparing the afghan security forces to take responsibility for the country in 2014. there is a president as he said today in the cabinet room, no country has made a greater sacrifice than yours in that

endeavor. it is true as well in the fight against al qaeda which has men ased both our countries. together we have substantially degraded al qaeda and we will continue to work toward its destruction, dismantlement and ultimate defeat. it is true that our efforts to strengthen the global economy after the deepest financial crisis since the depression have been remarkable. i remember when we first took office within the first weeks when the g-le was meeting and the g-20 was meeting. the question was, could we get an internationally coordinated effort? and i remember the president said he said, the brits will be with us. it is an interesting comment. we had only been in office a matter of days if not or couldn't have been more than two weeks. and our efforts to fight hunger and disease and end famine wherever it strikes, mr. prime minister, you have just, you're always there.

your country has always been there. to keep our shared sake red obligation to our military veterans and those who have served us so well, you have been a stallwart. and we will see a strong symbol of that shared sacrifice when the british wounded warriors compete alongside american counterparts in the wounded warrior games in colorado in may. and i commend you, mr. prime minister, on the new u.s.-u.k. perpnel veterans joint task force which is helping our troops transition to civilian life which has been a difficult circumstance for many of our veterans who have been deployed multiple times. into god awful circumstances. graham green an american wrote friendship is something in the soul. it is a thing one feels. it is not a return for something. i think that is a simple best

definition of the relationship between the united states and great britain. so to honor our friendship, please raise your glasses when you get them. please raise your glasses to the prime minister of great britain, prime minister cameron and the people of the united kidgedom and the enduring special relationship that we have. [applause] >> thank you so much for those speeches and thank you for that warm welcome. of course it is slightly embarrassing being here on the 200th anniversary of 1812.

and because of that i asked a historian friend of mine before coming on this visit, why is it that in britain we don't properly commemorate and recognize this rather embarrassing episode in our history? he said the thing is of course we're coming up on the 200th anniversary of the battle of waterloo and we so much more enjy talking about defeating the french than we do anything that went on with our american cousins. it's great to know that there is a chef from birmingham, england who is here cooking our meal today. actually my political party did make the mistake in a recent birm election of putting out the leaflet and the person took off the internet the theme, the city scene of birmingham but not being a native put in a theme of alabama and the great shock and surprise when the

city council was elected with this leaflet. so anything can happen in politics. you also mentioned madam secretary the exchange of gifts between president obama and i. i think we've got it slightly wrong because i've given him a table tennis table and he has given me a barbecue. but when you see us standing next to each other it is quite clear that the person who needs to be exercising is the prime minister and the person who needs the barbecue is the president of the united states. thank you also for putting together such an amazing guest list. we were looking through it and samantha, there is my favorite the star from my favorite movie is going to be here. ben kingsly from gandhi no he is not coming. is peter o'toole? no it is chevy chase from caddy shack. that is a great movie. so mr. vice president, dr.

biden, madam secretary, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this wonderful reception. we're thrilled to be with you. and even more thrilled to be here in the ben franklin room. he epitomizes so much of what is good about our two countries. he was a man who was prepared to stand up for his values and back his words with deeds. and in the best tradition of our two nations he was also a straight talker in fact he once said guests are a bit like fish. they begin to smell after three days so you will be relieved to know having arrived yesterday i'm leaving tomorrow. i want to start by paying a personal tribute to mr. vice president to joe biden for your sustained and outstanding contribution as a legislator, as a campaigner, as a statesman. i remember in the 1990s when you spoke out consistently for the need for military intervention to stop the ethnic cleansing in bosnia and kosovo. you were right to do that. and in libya, i believe we

showed we learned the lesson. we were able to intervene, we were able to act and change the course of that country's history and we were right to do so. so today we applaud your vision and your courage. mr. vice president. [applause] also, a word of deep gratitude to you. you've been a great friend to britain for 20 years and no one will ever forget your contribution in northern ireland, your incredible resilience and your convictions that peace really could be achieved after so many decades of conflict. and i hope mr. vice president with your relatives looking down they will see that the relations between britain and the republic of ireland have never been better and it is a testament to one woman, her majesty the queen, on the 60 ds year on the thrown that her visit to the republic of ireland did so much to restore the relations between our

countries. [applause] secretary of state hillary in just three years you visited 95 countries, traveled over 700,000 miles, and some people wondered how two british conservatives like william hague and i would get along with this great force of the democratic party. but as we in britain say quite simply we have been bold over. whenever we come together to discuss the most difficult issues, whether it is afghanistan, libya, somalia, syria, you always speak with the greatest precision and the greatest power. everyone of us is in awe of the passion, the intellect, and the relentless energy you bring to every aspect of international affairs. and you also bring grace, energy and effort to everything else, to one of the greatest pieces of unfinished business in american history. the eman pation and empowerment of women.

there are a generation of young women out there in the world today who owe you much more than they will ever know because they can li savor more dignified more fulfilling lives than the generation whose came before them. and you are also a great champion of smart power. and that's what i just wanted to say a word about today because after two years working hand in glove with the united states i know that we are at our best when we are not just strong but we are smart. when we deploy everything we have at our disposal. in a world of complex problems, there are no simple easy solutions. take somalia where there is a vicious circle of state failure, economic collapse, piracy, terrorism, kidnapping, as our confleps in london showed last month a credible solution cannot just be about military action or even aid in isolation. we will only succeed when we bring together all of our military, diplomatic, economic,

political effort to achieve peace and prosperity. and that is also why we in britain don't just see our increased spending on aid as doing the right thing morally although we do believe that, we also think it is the right thing diplomatically and politically as well. it enhances our ability to get things done. now, this kind of smart power is one of the great strength that is britain and america have in common. and i think it is very much on show looking around this room today. this morning, once again, young british and american men and women in uniform got up to serve together in the persian gulf, in afghanistan, in the indian ocean and we honor their incredible service and their sacrifice. but we are not just strong because of our military alone. we are strong too because of the power of british and american diplomacy. as secretary clinton put it, the tide of war is recreeting but as troops come home civilians remain to carry out the critical mission of diplomacy and development. across the world our

specialists are working to understand and influence other countries in shaping the big issues including in very challenging and dangerous locations. minute by minute, hour by hour, there are phone calls between london and washington as our diplomats work together to assess the latest intelligence and work out the best ways forward. in fact, our national security advisers last year talked so often that i think the president was beginning to believe that there was rict doneland who was just one individual rather than two working together. but our smart power comes from more than our ability to defend our security. it is rooted in the intertwining of two people and two communities. britain and america continually shape the work because whether you were scientists, innovators, business men and women athletes or stars of fashion art or music, all of you look across the atlantic in both directions to find kind rid spirits with the same big

ideas and the same big ambition. so at this the home of smart power in the midst of this memorable visit let me end with a tribute to all of you to the people who day in and day out make this the essential relationship that it is today and what it will be tomorrow and the years to come, and let me ask all of you please to raise your glasses to the vice president dr. biden and the secretary of state. >> later that evening the president and first lady michelle obama welcomed prime minister cameron and his wife to the white house for a state dinner. the evening kicked off with the arrival of guests including actor george clooney vogue editor and film producer. the president and prime minister later exchanged toasts

during the dinner.

>> the honorable brook anderson. >>mr. shelby brian. >> mr. chapman.

[unintelligible] geend

>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and misses doe, accompanied by the prime minister of great britain. -- misses obama, accompanied by the prime minister of great britain. ♪ >> good evening everybody.

please have a seat. welcome to the white house. i was just telling the prime minister that so far the evening has been successful because i have not step on michele's train. my main goals this evening -- we could not be more honored that you could join us as we host our great friends, the prime minister of the united kingdom and his remarkable life samantha. you can give them a round of applause. why not? as i said this morning, this

visit gives us an opportunity to return the gracious of -- hospitality that her majesty showed us during our visit to london last year. i know michelle looks forward to returning because asher b. -- as she announced yesterday she will be leading the the opening ceremonies of the olympics and london. [applause] i am jealous. i am so grateful for all the time we have had together. we have learned you can never tell how things will get reported. when we met two years ago, we changed from our home towns. when news stories said we

cemented our special relationship by hitting the bottom. when we had a barbecue in downing street for some of our service members, we rolled up our sleeves, decided to flag the burgers ourselves. one reporter called it a brave and foolish move. another expressed amazement that our confidence. michele and samantha often remarked the same way. finally when we got beat pretty badly in table tennis by some local lending kids, one newspaper asked the head coach of the british will men's team to critique our performance. she said obama talked a lot. david over hits the ball. both of them -- i am quoting here -- looked a little confused. but in moments like that, and in

all of our interactions including today, i have learned something about david. in good times and in back, he is just the kind of partner you want at your side. i trust him. he says what he doesn't he does what he says. i have seen his character. i have seen his commitment to human dignity in libya. i have seen his resolve and his determination to get the job done. i will say something else. all of us have seen how you as long as samantha have shown a measure of strength that has ever been no. i.t. way for bringing that same strengthen solidarity to our partnership, even if you do over hit the ball. we are by no means the first president and prime minister to celebrate the bonds between our

people. there have been no shortage of words uttered about our special relationship. i was humbled when i had the opportunity to address parliament in westminster hall. i would like to leave you with two simple things. they are from different times and places, decades apart. there are moments i think reveal the spirit of our alliance and the characters of our country. the first is from the bullets when month after month of the british people braving the onslaught from the skies. one of the most enduring images is the london skyline covered in smoke with one thing shining through. the dome of st. paul's cathedral. tall, proud, and strong. the other image we know from our own lives,.

that unforgettable picture of the manhattan skyline covered in smoke and dust with one thing shining through, our statue of liberty. tall, proud, and strong. in those two moments, i think you see all you need to know about who they are and what brings us together tonight. in war and in peace, in times of plenty and times of hardship, we stand tall and proud and strong together. as three people committed to the dignity of all human beings we will never apologize for our way of life forever in its defense. that is why david's grandfather fought alongside the yankees on the day. what my grandfather marched across europe in patent's army. that is why tonight both american and british soldiers are getting ready to go on

patrol by generations before them shoulder to shoulder. that is why our diplomats are side by side, standing with the activists who dare to demand their rights. that is why leaders of our countries can embrace the same shared heritage and the promise of our alliance even if we come from different political traditions. even if the prime minister is younger then nearly 200 years of his predecessors, even if the president looks a little different than his predecessors. that is why tonight our young children and children across our countries can sleep well knowing that we're doing everything in our power to build a future that is worthy of their dreams. let me just say i intended to make history tonight. i thought i could be the first

american president to make it through an entire visit of our british friends without quoting winston churchill. then i saw this great " and i thought, come on. this is winston churchill. i could not resist. it was december 1941. the attack on pearl harbor finally thrust america into war. these were the words winston churchill spoke to his new american partners. i will say that he must indeed -- he cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below of which we have the honor to be the faithful servants. i would like to propose a toast. to her majesty the queen on her diamond jubilee.

to our dear friends david and samantha. the great purpose and design of our alliance. may we remain now and always faithful. cheers. [applause] >> president obama, first lady, ladies and gentlemen. it is a tremendous honor to be here this evening. i want to -- i went to thank you for putting on a great dinner at making our visit so special over the last few days. thank you for the strong and beautiful words the you have spoken. i am sure that you often wonder

what happens when you are -- what your husband goes out for the night with a guys. maybe i should come clean about last night. we went to basketball and had a real man to man chat. i ran him gently through the rules of cricket. the truth is, we have to have a guys that out because so often we find we are completely overshadowed by our beautiful wives [applause] as i rolled into bed last night, i said to you want to hear about what i got through on this night guys out? she is not too impressed by these things. she said everything you did was on television. you were surrounded by the bodyguards so you did not get up

to anything. both barack obama and i have said a lot today about the importance of the relationship between our two countries and our people. like my predecessors, i am proud of our essential relationship and of britain's national bond with the united states of america. i feel it in my buns. there is a great history of close relationships between u.s. presidents and prime ministers, and these have been regardless of the political parties they happen to represent. her majesty, the queen, is a great authority on the manner. she has seen no fewer than 12 british prime ministers and 11 american presidents during her time on the throne. i am sure everybody would want to pay tribute to her service and selfless duty and this time of the year.

her majesty's first prime minister was one and churchill, a regular guest at the white house. i will not quote from churchill. i will court about churchill. it seems his visits were not always the easiest experience for his american's hosts. as the secretary road, church hill is a trying guest. he has a regular routines and turns the clock upside down. for those of you who wonder why the british prime minister now stays at blair house rather than the white house, i simply observed this. we all know the story of winston churchill famously found naked in his bath by president roosevelt. this happened at the white house in december 1941. the pratt -- the gov. bob blair

house in 1942. there have been some -- i think we can call them total disconnect. edward heath and richard nixon took awkward as with each other to new and extortionary levels. despite this, richard nixon arranged for somebody to pay for the use of maple at the residence. this swimming pool now has a serious and possibly terminal lake. i hope you will not fight it out s as i say here in the white house for the first time in 40 years these words, it is time to call and the plumbers. turning to obama, they have been very kind to cement the and me. we have struck up a really great

partnership. it is frank and honest. we talk through issues rationally. we do not need to remind each other of the threats that we face. we know them. there are three things about barack obama that really stand out to me. -- strength, moral authority, and wisdom. strength because he has been strong when required to defend his national interests. under president obama leadership, america got osama bin laden. [applause] together with supporters of america has weakened al qaeda. the president says what he will do and he sticks to it. i will never forget the phone call on libya. he told me exactly what role in america would play in libya. he delivered his side of the bargain to the letter. we deliver our side of the bargain, too. but as all agree that the world

is better off without of some of the latest. the world is better off without khaddafi, too. [applause] moral authority because he understands that the means matter every bit as much as the ends. america must do the right thing. to provide moral leadership in america must do it in the right way, too. the first president i studied in school was theodore roosevelt. he spoke about walking softly and carrying a big stick. he has pressed the reset button on the moral authority on the entire free world. wisdom because he has not rushed into picking fights but has courted the resources of hard and soft power. he has taken time to make considered decisions drawing down troops from iraq.

he has found a new voice with the arab people. at home he is recognized that in america as in britain, the future depends on making the best of every citizen. both of our nations have historically been held back by any quality. there is a determined effort through education reform to a major opportunity is available for all. half of a century ago the amazing courage of rosa parks, the leadership of martin luther king did, and the actions of the civil rights movement led politicians to make equality the promise of america for all her citizens. in the fight for justice end of the struggle for freedom, there is no end. there is so much more to do to insure every human being can fulfill their potential.

that is why our generation faces a new struggle. a feature that is open to every child as never before. barack obama has made this the goal of his presidency. he defines the promise and potential of this to the nation to be working to fulfill the hopes of this country in this way. it is an honor to call you an ally, a partner, and a friend. you do not get to choose the circumstances you have to deal with as a president or a prime minister. you do not get to choose the leaders the you have to work with. all i can say is that it is a pleasure to work with somebody with moral strength, a clear reason, and with fundamental decency.

with that, i propose a toast to the president, to the first lady, and to the people of the united states of america. cheers. [applause] >> attended rick santorum at a campaign rally in illinois. then weekly radio address as.

a panel discussion on religion and the impact mitt romney's faith to play in the election. sunday on washington journal, susan ferrechio and ken rudin. they talk about the republican presidential race and the obama documentary released this week. then a look at the latest developments at the u.s. war in afghanistan. our guest is jere van dyk. erica newland from the center of technology about recent claims that google bypassed security settings. "washington journal" airs at 7:00 eastern sunday on c-span. >> virginia's attorney general

talking about the lawsuit going to the supreme court. >> some people look at his majority in the case before the federal government filed the motion to dismiss as a harbinger of doom. i do not see it that way despite the very broad alliance of the comstock case. the very last paragraph brings a very broad language through eighth and final. the federal government can i get this bill through the funnel. if that is a requirement, that i am confident that there has not been enough time for us to really assess how he is -- >> this is necessary as it applies to -- >> the commerce clause. >> you can see the entire interview on newsmakers, sunday

morning at 10:00 eastern and sunday afternoon at 6:00. it is also available at>> they would wear garments made-- c- span.org >> set up was done and effective way of getting civil rights. i thought the more competitions were needed. >> walter williams on being a radical. >> i believe that a radical as any person who believes and personal liberty and individual freedom. that makes you a radical. i have always been a personal project i have always been a person who believes people should not interfere with me. i should do my own thing as long as i do not inviolate the rights of other people.

>> sunday at 8:00 eastern. >> republican presidential candidate rick santorum held a rally in illinois on saturday and butcher block manufacturing facility. [applause] >> thank you very much. what a great day. thank you, illinois. what a great turnout. i am overwhelmed by the people here. this is awesome. it is great to be here were the

heartland really begins in illinois. what are we going to do on tuesday? regard to have a big win? what the sake? -- what do you say? thank you for being here. i appreciate the hospitality of the company -- do we need to get closer? is that better? let me know what i need to do. the obama. is that something you are saying? let me tell you. the best chance to be barack obama is to nominate somebody who can actually take it to barack obama on his horrible record as president of the united states. the best way to do that is to make sure we do not have somebody who agrees with the horrible record of president of

the united states. [applause] that is why i decided to get into this race. karen, i apologize she is not here with me. i know. stick, getting me and not my wife, karen and i have been married 21 years. we have seven children. we are very glad. [applause] as you know, at the age of 53 and with seven children ages 20 to 3, it is not exactly the best time to go out and decide to run for president of united states, but we just felt like as we thought about it, prayed about it, that we had no choice. because this country is in a very difficult position right now. this country is facing one of those critical junctures in our history. this is the most important

election of your lifetime and maybe since the election of 1860. this is the election where big things are at stake, and we cannot have candidates talking about little things. we cannot have candidates talking about this bill or that vote, minor things that are not really the core problems of this country. you will be getting lots of robo-calls. have you gotten any of them yet? and they will all be negative, tearing the other candidate down, all about little issues that are not at the heart of the problems that face this country. see, we are going out across this country, and the reason we are standing up in the face of 10 to one or more spending against us is we are out there talking about things that americans are talking about. we are talking about issues that are of concern to them because they know that big things are at stake not just here at home but around the world. and we need a presidential candidate to take on this president, who can talk about those big things, who can paint a vision for this country. not just tear down the other

side, but paid a positive and hopeful and optimistic vision about where this country has been and where it needs to go if we are going to be successful in the future. [applause] that is what i have been trying to do in this campaign. outcrossing the planes. we drove through illinois several times, back and forth to iowa. we talked to the folks all over this country about that positive, hopeful, optimistic vision, be leaving in what made america great. and, of course, what makes

america great is not a big, powerful central government. what makes america great is a limited government that believes in the unlimited potential of each and every one of you all across this country. [applause] that is what we have gone out and talked about the issues, the fundamental issues at stake in this election. [cheers and applause] that is why we have gone out and we have talked about the issues, the fundamental issues at stake in this election. i talk about my grandfather when he came to this country in 1925. he came because he was being ruled by a fascist dictator in italy. he was ruled by that dictator and having fought in world war i, he understood those people in power, authoritarian figures. he did not want his children to grow up there. he wanted his children to have something he never had. he went to the only place where

they had it. that place was a beacon for the rest of the world. he did not go to the united states, to agree coal fields of pennsylvania -- to the coal fields of pennsylvania, or of southern illinois, but the same kind of people came to those coal fields, people who wanted not government benefits, they were not looking for handouts from the government, they were walking away from a government that was giving them things and making them do what the government wanted to do in exchange for the gifts that the government was giving them. he did not come here for any of that assistance, except one, freedom. [cheers and applause]

what is at stake in this election is that torch that is so bright here in america and around the world, lighting the path for those who wanted to be able to pursue their dreams, live their faith, pursue their dreams to start businesses, and employ people, and work, and participate in community activities come and participate in church, and practice their faith. that is what america has always been about. it is a very simple concept, one that transformed the world. that is what is at stake, that beacon, that torch of freedom is at risk because we now have a group of people in washington who would try -- who have been trying for years, but finally

succeeded in taking fundamental freedoms from you, and making you less and less free, and more dependent upon them. i will never forget when i was still doing some work at fox news, this was the time obamacare, public enemy number one against the freedom of this country. [cheers and applause] i remember going into the green room at fox, shortly after president obama decided to ignore the results of the senate race in massachusetts where scott brown won and decided to shove the obamacare bill through the house of representatives without amendment, when a vast majority of americans were opposing it, the tea parties or in the

street, voicing their concern about government taking away their freedom, and yet, the president pushed on, broke every rule you can think of to get this bill through the house of representatives, and about two days before, i was in the green room and in walked juan williams. i looked at him and i said, you folks are committing political suicide. you'll get creamed in the next election. you are doing everything the public does not want you to do. you are ignoring rules. you're shoving it down the throats of the american people. you are not allowing any amendment. you are acting like tyrants. [applause] you will pay for it dearly in november. [cheers and applause] of course, they did pay for it dearly last november. juan said to me in response, he

just talked to the people in the white house, and this is what they said. we believe americans love entitlements. [boos] you can see evidence of that with the explosion of food stamps and housing programs and ssi and all of these medicaid, all of these highs in usage in our country. juan williams continued. he said, we believe americans love entitlements. he went on and said this. he said, once we get them hooked on this entitlement, they will never let it go. see, that is what they believe. they believe in seeing each and every american not as a free person, not as someone that can

provide for themselves, or even wants to provide for themselves and their family, not as someone who sees the responsibility to care for their neighbor, to form groups and associations here in the local community, to build strong communities of families and churches and schools and businesses were everybody looks out for everybody else, because that is not how they see the world. they see the world as that type of free association and bottom- up solution to problems. it is a broken model. it is a model, in their mind, that never worked. the only thing that did work is for those elites in society to be able to pass laws -- [no audio] [inaudible] [cheers and applause]

ok. to take their freedom and my microphone away temporarily, to take your freedom away, because they are better able to govern you and to tell you what is best. that is what they believe. i am not saying they are evil people. i am not saying they are bad people. but, they have a fundamentally different view of what is best for america and for americans. that is what this race has to be about. it has to be about that the big issue, of those big issues, as to who we are and who we will be as an american people. [applause] every one of my speeches come i talk about these issues of government control of our lives.

you want to try to bring people together? one of the things i hear all the time, we are so divided. the country is so divided. how can we possibly come back together? how can we possibly get a consensus? i think it is important that we talk about those big things. we talk about who we are. ronald reagan in his farewell address, the last thing he said to america, was that he was concerned about the future of

america. he was concerned because, through our civic institutions, through our media, through our culture, through our schools, we were not being taught about who we are as americans, what made us the greatest country in the history of the world, and if we have a version of history taught to ourselves, it is out of step with what really happened here, what really made us great, if they re-educate us, then we will lose our way and lose the freedom that we have. winston churchill said the debate is not about the future, the debate is about the past. how we define what works in america, who we are, will decide what vision we will cast in the future. one of the great concerns i have in what we have seen is this an attempt by this president to redefine america, when he goes to kansas and talks about how capitalism and free markets don't work, and never worked, that it created great inequality of this country, and that this inequality is the scourge of our nation, america is economically unfair,

individualism does not work, free enterprise does not work, we need a heavy hand in the government, and when the government comes in, we were better. that is his vision. that is him telling a news story to you here in america, his story. not the truth. his story. you remember the old soviet union? every time a new leader would come into power, they would tear up the old history books and write new ones. those of you too young to remember, that is what they did. they would rewrite the history depending on who was in favor and who was not. think about that.

we think about to america really is. president obama about america -- about a year ago is responding to a budget that was -- paul ryan is going to put it in his budget next week. i immediately support it last year. i have spoken to paul this year and he has told me what is in store. i have no doubt i will support what he wants to do this year. president obama would have none of this. he castigated paul ryan for trying to cut entitlement programs, entitlement programs like food stamps, and medicaid, and unemployment insurance, and medicare, and social security, although he did not touch social security in his bill. he castigated paul ryan and said this. he said, america is a better country because of these programs. i will go one step further, he read, america was not a great country until these programs were put in place.

[boos] that is his story. that is barack obama's history. that is how he sees america, through the eyes of someone who believes that america is great when the government is powerful, takes money from some, redistributes the other, based upon what he believes is fair. that does not make america the greatest country in the history of the world. that does not make america different from any country in the world. that makes america like the country's your ancestors left to come here for the freedom not to be given those choices by the government. [cheers and applause] we need someone who understands that what barack obama has done and what republicans and democrats together have done

over the past six or eight years threaten the very foundation of our country. when -- we need to go out and talk about them. we need to talk about obamacare. every speech next week is the anniversary of the passage of obamacare. the week after, there will be a debate in the supreme court about whether the federal government can force every person in america to buy a product from a private-sector vendor that the government says you must buy. obamacare will be front and center over the next week. i know this is going to shock you when you hear this. the congressional budget office came out with a new cost for obamacare. i know you'll be surprised to hear this. if there is anybody around that

is faint of heart, please catch them if i say this, but obamacare is not going to cost $900 billion, as the president said it would. obamacare will not dramatically lower health care costs, as he said he would. believe it or not, and i know you will have trouble believing this, it is going to cost almost twice as much as president obama said it would over the next 10 years. i know you are shocked to hear this. twice as much, almost $2 trillion over the next 10 years. $2 trillion of taxing you and then telling you how to spend the money that they took from you.

that is what they are going to do. with these regulations, they will not only tell you what product to buy, you'll be taxed, and businesses will be taxed, but then they will tell you what benefits you will get, and if you don't like them, if you have a religious objection to them, too bad. when the government says they give you a right, they can tell you how to exercise that right, whether you like it or not, and you had better like it. that is barack obama's freedom in america. [applause] we needed someone who can go out and take president obama on, someone threw out the time that i have been in public life that has stood for free markets. anyone familiar with help

savings accounts? i was the author 20 years ago when i was in the house of representatives. it is a system that believes in bottom-up, believes in free people having their own resources, being able to make health care choices themselves, having the flexibility and freedom, because they control the money, not the insurance company and not the government. that is what works in america. 300 million consumers controlling it, not one board put together by barack obama to ration care to everybody. [applause] i believe in the american people, barack obama, and unfortunately, barack obama and the other person competing against this year in illinois, does not believe in free people making their health care choices. as governor of massachusetts, he instituted romneycare, which mandated every person by

healthcare, which mandated an insurance policy that everyone had to have. you get four choices. it mandated you, it taxed businesses, and used your tax dollars to pay for half of that. it was a model the barack obama used. how do we know that? look at the two bills and listen to president obama. he said he listened and watched what happened in massachusetts, the romney-kennedy health care bill. yes, 10 -- ted kennedy and mitt romney signed that bill. when you have ted kennedy behind you applauding something, you know this is not a freedom bill. [applause] governor romney was at the heart of the debate without an advocate for for the massachusetts plan, not for

other states, but for the federal government to adopt. then, during the debate, he said, i never did it until we found out, yes, he did do it, again and again. why would the republican party even contemplate on this most central issue of the day, the issue that got the tea parties and millions of americans of their couches and into the streets, help us win the election, is the central issue,

a constitutional issue whether the federal government can force you to do something, and yet we would possibly here in the state of illinois put forward a candidate who was for that unconstitutional authority? byn he was asked a question fred thompson in the 2008 debates about mandates of health care in massachusetts, governor romney responded, i love mandates. mandates' work. he defended mandates. why would we give that issue away? why would we take an issue that is at the heart of what is going on in america, robbing you of your freedom, making you dependent upon government for your lives and for your health, and nominate someone who will not be able to talk about that issue, and listen to governor romney's speeches. how long does he talk about obamacare and the fact that he would repeal it? he puts out the one-liner.

does he get into the core issues? no, because he can't. we take away the biggest issue in this race with someone who is uniquely disqualified to make the case against barack obama. it is not just health care. on the issue of energy, we all know about energy and how the prices are skyrocketing. it is skyrocketing because we have a president who sees coal and oil and gas, those fossil fuels in the ground, as liabilities, not assets. things that will harm the environment, that will make the oceans rise. remember, the president said he would have the oceans received -- recede. [applause] he said, i try to put my faith out in the public square. president obama is going to have the oceans recede, because

he was going to be the one to waive his hand and stop all of the carbon pollution in this country. you saw here in southern illinois with the coal fields like we have in western pennsylvania, and ohio, west virginia, and kentucky, the permits for coal, for oil, for gas, anyplace that you are drilling now is on private land, not federal land, because the president will not allow it. he is denying permits in the gulf, causing unemployment in the gulf coast states and in the coal fields of this country. two-letter energy policy, n-o. he has denied permits, denied opening up offshore, on the

intercontinental shall come in alaska, and of course, building that pipeline from canada. the president says no. we need a president that will say yes to energy development in this country. [cheers and applause] you see, i've always been for energy, for drilling, for mining. i stand for producing more fuel in this country. i know, as the grandson of a coal miner, that we have a better standard of living a more available and the cheaper the energy is. look at the cost of living in the last couple of months. you see it at the grocery store. you're seeing it at the gas

pump. if prices stay high for energy, use of the consumer price index hit a 10-month high, and you will see it even more with the cheap dollar policy continuing. we will pay more and more when we go to the gas pump now. you see those figures go flipping by, and instead of paying tw-digit -- two-digit dollars, you are paying three digits. it gets into the $100 range. think of "o" for obama. that is why you are paying that extra amount of money. believe it or not, the same man who gave us romneycare and advocated for obamacare is also the person who is not for mining and drilling, who bought into

the climate change, the climate science, of man-made global warming, who advocated for cap and trade, and as governor of massachusetts, put the first c02 cap on coal-fired prior -- power plants in massachusetts and spoke about how this was a great advance for society, when the climate was favorable for democrats and even some republicans to buy into the climate science of man-made global warming, mitt romney led the charge, saying, we have to worry about fossil fuel development, we have to have clean energy alternatives, but as the climate changed, so did mitt romney change. i knew this was not climate science from the beginning. i knew it was political science masquerading as climate science. [applause] it was all the rage and governor romney was right there, marching lockstep with al gore.

ladies and gentlemen, we need someone who is going to stand tall, who is not going to be a weather vane, but will. true north -- point true north and stand up for what is right. why would we nominate someone who has the same position of president obama with respect to the use of fossil fuels? why would we give that issue away in this election? people ask me why i am the best candidate to run against barack obama. it is because i feel like come in many respects, i am running against barack obama here in this primary, because mitt

romney has the same positions as barack obama in this primary. he was for the wall street bailout, like obama. another almost $1 trillion act. i can go on with a laundry list of the support of planned parenthood. he wrote personal checks. he said he had a conversion. well and good. after his conversion, he provided tax refinancing for a planned parenthood clinic in massachusetts. the list is long. his policies are out of step, not just with the republican party, but with america, and provide no clear contrast. we are not going to win this

election in the fall. governor romney has tried to win every race in every state, like he has tried to win illinois. we will not outspend barack obama 10-to-one. we will not run nonstop tv ads. imagine a campaign that is just about negativity, where there is no vision. we need to have someone that can paint that positive vision, that can rally people to get off their couches and working. [applause] [applause]