state, said it was a religion of love and peace that had been kidnapped by extremists. there are reasons for that, including such diverse situations as our experience with the treatment of the japanese in world war ii, which we do not want to repeat. understand how far we have come. imagine how president roosevelt would have been perceived it the had gone up on december 8 1941 and told congress that the peaceful religion had been kidnapped by militants. we have gone further in that direction in the past three years. terrorism itself is out in favor of man caused disaster. in august 2011 the white house issued a strategy paper for dealing what we used to call it terrorism. it is called empowering local

partners to prevent violent extremism in the united states. the source of it can hardly be called extremism of the motivating doctrines are in the mainstream of the region from which they spring. the paper opens by identifying the challenge is nothing new and tells us that throughout history of violent extremists have devoted messages of divisiveness and justified the killing of innocents. the response is supposed to be a community based approach.

to the extent as llamas referred to as the targets of al qaeda -- what they would want to focus their attention on muslim communities is nowhere explained. there is no reference at all to recruitment either in prisons or on campus. these are all well known and dangerous problems. the document is intended to sound innocuous and it does. it's small wonder -- what is the danger of such a document? take a look at the social change that has overtaken countries in europe including france, england, and even sweden where muslim enclaves are even tolerated. what the document also overlooks is that from 1911 onward, participants have been successful and unsuccessful

plots of been radicalized in the west. he went to germany where it was said he never missed a prayer. the would-be times square bomber, a chicago native who changed his name to david coleman so that he could pass for christian and pleaded guilty to conducting surveillance to help carry out embalm by. all of these and many others were radicalized in the west. what about the killing of osama bin laden. to those attacks not suggest those in control have changed their view? i would recommend before you decide that you examine the circumstances before you

determine whether what you are looking at is simply an event, an episode, or a change in policy. the osama bin laden killing was announced with great fanfare. also announced was the fact trove of intelligent reformation had been seized and we had learned the location of numerous all kid safe houses. to somebody who understands the value of intelligence make an announcement like that for the sake of a feel-good moment when the affect is the launch of numerous -- the loss of numerous targets? the and feasibility of capture as justifying the strike against

an american citizen. it is interesting to contemplate how we would have obtained intelligence from him every had captured him on all u.s. government employers are now restricted by presidential order to using the army field manual to conduct investigations. it is used by terrorists as a string -- training manual. we have no classified interrogation program at all. as you may be interrogated know what to expect and what expect our techniques. when a man was captured over detroit, there was no interrogation program operated by the fbi. he was put immediately into the criminal justice system. however, the investigations of cia operatives that the justice

department had had time to begin and organize, that is eloquent of the priority of those making those decisions. what of the largest the -- larger struggle against extremism. if the first amendment's establishment clause means anything it means our government cannot pick winners and losers. that is something muslims are going to have to decide on their own. it can take rational steps to defend itself and avoid a rational steps that undermined its security. first, those charged with protecting securities have a duty to understand and to teach others under their authority what the basic tenets are of the people trying to destroy our way of life. in past conflicts that may not have always been self evident. perhaps it was not necessary when we fought the axis powers to understand all the ins and outs of nazism and fascism.

we could simply blast the country's to smithereens because the evil had its home base there. it was much more necessary to understand the enemy when we fought communism. also, those charged with protecting us have a responsibility to avoid strengthening the hand of those who are trying to undermine our way of life by relying on them as our principal in the community. it is a branch of hamas and the muslim brotherhood. the muslim brotherhood traces itself backed -- its model, which does not change to this day is, a lot is our objective. the profit is our leader, but the core ron is our lot.

-- we do not only damage ourselves by giving them entry into the upper regions of our political system but we strengthen them and the islamic community. we we can moderate voices. in addition, those charged with protecting us have a duty to avoid self censorship and a delusion that can wind up diluting others as well. the army chief of staff's on television after that event that the greatest tragedy would be if it had a negative effect on the this diversity program. he told an audience at the center for strategic international studies -- this is

a deep thinker talking to other deep thinkers. he said violent extremists attacking the united states are products of political, economic, and social forces and should not be described even in religious terms because to do so would create the mistaken impression that we are at war with islam and give credence to al qaeda propaganda. products of political and economic and social forces? osama bin laden was a millionaire many times over. the successor as a physician. the perpetrators of the 1911 attack or well educated. products of political, economic, and social forces.

i mention john brennan and the attorney general not because they are unique because they are perfect symbols of the soft headed a has affected the discourse of public figures. not that this is new to the poor of being unprecedented, it is not. anti communism was fashionable in some circles in the 1950's. a great liberal judge often called the greatest appellate judge ever to sit said in an address called the spirit of liberty that is quoted so often that the spirit of liberty is the spirit is not to short, it is right. that may be if not exactly true, at least an affordable indulgence at times, it may have been an affordable indulgence at the time he said at which was in the late spring of 1944 when he ran against -- the is some of

that day was not around the corner pretty well certain. today when we are up against people who are sure they are right to fly airplanes into buildings, we should best make certain the spirit of liberty is sure enough that it is right. those responsible for protecting us are sure enough it is right to keep the spirit and us alive. thank you very much for the honor of speaking with you. [applause] >> you may recall i introduced

the judge by mentioning his moral compass being infallible. he has agreed -- we have a few minutes and we can take two or three questions if you would like. >> [unintelligible]

we must distinguish between islam and the fanatical the slump. -- fanatical islam. [unintelligible]

just as the nazis were not taken on, and tehy tricked millions of people -- they aer satanic. [unintelligible]

we must learn to distinguish between islam, which is a religion, and the people who misuse its name to spread terror all over the world. i love your country. i have been here many times since 1975. i was received as a guest by your majority speaker in the 1975 tip o'neill. as a great friend of your great nation and also as a great friend of israel, which i respect enormously, which was

created by jews who were denied their right -- not seize tried to crush their spirit reject nazis try to crush their spirit. >> do you have a question? >> yes, i have a question. my point is we must not mix religion with fanatics. thank you. >> two things. first of all, i believe explicitly in my talk i was distinguishing between islam and islamism, the movement several times. second, you and he would get

along very well. i do not want to get into a debate about which service came later on. you and i know the people misusing your religion are quoting from the same text that you ". the lawn has to be drawn someplace. -- the line has to be drawn somewhere. people like me cannot be the people to draw it. i am very heartened to see you here today. [applause] >> thank you. just call me a call. i think your remarks are great. and i hope they will be able to post it on the web site so we can share it with our

colleagues. >> i hope somebody will also oppose the remarks of the gentleman who spoke and my response to him. i think that properly conveys the spirit of the entire vacation. [applause] >> that is right. mine is more of a monday in question with respect to the history of prosecuting the terrorists use spoke about. of course, the military review commissions in guantanamo. what is your view on whether these terrorists should be tried in criminal courts, a military review commissions, or do we need a hybrid specialized courts to handle these cases? >> i think a hybrid court is the answer. right now we have the by neary choice. it is either civilian courts or military commissions. i think civilian courts are the wrong place for a variety of reasons.

the rules of war have been developed over centuries. if you wear a uniform and you carry your arms openly, you follow a recognized chain of command and you do not target civilians, you are entitled to the protections of the geneva convention. if you violate all of those rules and to target civilians, we have a better deal for you. we take you to a civilian court where you are tried in public and have a platform for your views and you can have a lawyer try and mislead a jury. on the other hand, military commissions, we have had them in the past. we have had them since the revolution. we have never done it long term. i do not know if the military's heart is really in it. the military is not there to run a parallel justice system.

there are there to win wars. you win wars by blowing stuff up and killing people, which is what you are supposed to do and what they do very well. you do not win wars by running a parallel justice system, particularly one that is one where society is offloading an unpleasant problem and saying, please deal with it out of our side. what is called for is a third kind of tribunal that would be created by congress. it would be presided by article 3 judges so people would have faith in the proceedings with jurists from the military. trials with rules of evidence that would allow evidence to be introduced gathered from the battlefield so if you do not have to comply with all of the rigors of the federal rules of

evidence. congress shows no sign of doing that. yes. >> i have had the privilege of teaching the origins of terrorism so i appreciate your remarks very much. i have two questions for you quickly. first of all, how do you respond judicially to judges who attempt to adopt sure rail law by use of contracts between private contracts -- sharia law between private contracts. how do you objectively -- what the project for the incursion of sharira law into the judiciary of this country? >> of far as providing for sharia law, if you're talking about a commercial case, in theory there is the reason you cannot do that. if two parties agree that and

they want to arbitrate in front of an arbitrator and agree to take his decision, then rules that apply under sharia law will apply. there is no reason to avoid that. you can use for a lot to govern an arbitration if there is a connection and both parties agree. so far as sharia law getting into the basis for a decision in u.s. law, it has happened a couple of times. it has been turned around a couple of times. there is a famous judge in new jersey who dismissed a charge against the defendant who raped his wife because he thought it was permissible for him to do that under his religion. the judge says, he practices a different religion and this is a defense and they dismiss the case. the appellate court turn that around and i do not think we are in danger of having that happen. that is not to say courts should

not be aware of it and deal with it. i think the problem is when you get enclaves in which not everybody has a choice about what law applies -- if you live in an enclave that is the role that controls. that is what goes on in europe and that is what i think we need to avoid. >> [unintelligible] >> sure. she is a superb lawyer. she is a superb person. i have worked with her on a number of cases. i think she would make us an additional addition to the federal bank. she is a good, sound, common- sense lawyer with turf -- her head screwed onto the front. she is also not easily board which is also what you need and

a successful district judge. [laughter] >> i have known her since junior high. >> i work with her and i think the world of her. >> i thank you all. the clock is telling us it is time to move on. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >>michael carvin is one of the lead attorneys who argued against the constitutionality of the affordable care act in march. he represents -- he argues that the entire law is unconstitutional. this is 20 minutes.

>> i hope everybody enjoyed the breakout sessions. we will get started with our final speaker of the day before our reception and open bar. we are very happy to have mike carvin, who focuses on constitutional appellate. he has argued numerous cases with the united states supreme court and every federal appeals court. these include decisions preventing the justice department from obtaining monetary relief against the tobacco industry, overturning the federal government's plan to adjust the census, limiting the justice department's ability to create minority majority districts. mike was one of the lead lawyers and argued before the supreme court on behalf of george debbie bush in the 2003 count controversy. -- george w. bush in the 2000

recount controversy. mike is a graduate of george washington law school and learned his bachelor's from tulane. he has served as deputy assistant attorney general, special assistant to assistant attorney general civil rights division and he knows a few things about obamacare which is why he is here today. please welcome to the stage mike carvin. [applause] thank you. i will try to make is relatively painless and brief. sitting here talking about the commerce clause. i will walk through it and i would be happy to answer any questions as you undoubtedly know the issue that we did are

you a few weeks ago was the first time in american history the federal government compelled citizens to buy a product. they had require them to buy the product even though it was economically disadvantageous to these people, which is not my opinion. it is the finding of the congress that imposed it. because you were making healthy 30 year-old by insurance they did not need because they rarely went to the doctor, this would lower everybody else's premiums by 15% or 20%. that was the purpose of the individual mandate. since congress had required insurers to sell below cost insurance to sick people which would obviously drive up premiums, they wanted to bring in a bunch of healthy people into the risk pool to drive down the cost of insurance. the question is, where does congress get the power to force american citizens to buy products they do not want, to

90, and are economically counterproductive. it is a simple case for people who read the constitution. the constitution only gives congress limited powers and the power to give them is the power to regulate commerce. when you are sitting at home not buying insurance you're not involved in commerce. the question is, can they come tell you, does that incorporate the power to compel you to enter into commerce since they can regulate your transactions when you go out to buy a gm car can they require you to buy a gm car. the answer is pretty obvious. even though the government did not push that argument. their argument was a series of cases that you undoubtedly know about from the 1930's, most notably record against fell byrne said congress can reach and get out local production of goods. people who substantially affect

interstate commerce. they can regulate people selling are involved in a small amount of wheat. our point was, whicker did say you can get people producing a small amount of wheat. it did not imply you can require americans to buy wheat. people who are in the market even at a local level are now -- would it does not allow them to get at our tea totalers. that is what they're trying to do here. that was the key point that we made which is if you are not in the market you cannot possibly adverse the affect market participants. supply and demand will be precisely the same as it was. you are in no way engaging the

activities which has been the rationale for congress to regulate local people like whicker. even if you do not negatively affect commerce, you affect commerce regulation. this plan and this act will not work unless we can constrict -- constrict all these healthy people to buy insurance. you really need their money because if we do not get them to buy insurance, if we are requiring insurers to insure all the sick people, premiums will go through the roof and we will not be able to keep them affordable. our plan -- our point was, congress does have the ability to eliminate people who are creating problems for regulation. if you have a small amounts of marijuana, you are creating a problem in terms of congress's effort to extricate all marijuana. we are not creating problems

between insurers and the government. they will regulate the insurance companies and they are not going to deny people with pre-existing condition any care. we do now have anything to do with that. we're not a barrier to that. we are being prodded not because we are a problem in terms of regulating insurance companies. we are a solution to the problem that congress has already created through its fully executed lot. if that is a power congress has under the necessary and proper clause, that means every time they impose some burdened -- artists and regulation on a car company through environmental or safety regulations and it drives up the cost of cars, that means they can bring you into offset the cost of their burden sen regulations and require you to buy gm stock or gm cars. that cannot possibly be the law. it has never been the law for

200 years whenever we have told private companies like the insurance companies in this case they have to take actions for the public welfare. in this case because of charitable reasons we have to require them to get low-cost insurance to sick people when we have done that kind of thing that we have required hospitals to provide care to sick people, we do not constrict some other group of the citizenry and say, you pay them for what the public could have just done. we pay for it out of the tax dollars for the public treasury that we all contribute to. we either get tax exemptions to hospitals or give them medicare payments or the like. if congress can get away with this notion not only have they violated the terms of the constitution but they have given congress a new power where they can continue to spend well beyond their means and never have to face the political accountability of raising taxes. they can skip those certain

people in society, and the problem and make them buy the products and -- in order to offset the cost burden san -- burden some regulation. their response is that health care is different. there are a lot of free riders who are not paying for their doctors. our point was, if you want to regulate free riders regulate them. the vast majority of the uninsured pay their doctors. they pay out of pocket. it does not make economic sense for them to have insurance if you are a 30-year-old. the only economically sensitive thing to do if you are a healthy 30-year-old is to buy catastrophic insurance if you get hit by a bus or get an unexpected disease. what is the one product they prevent you from buying?

it is catastrophic risk insurance. you have to buy the whole boat. you certainly do not need to avoid becoming a free rider, becoming somebody who default on their health care regulations. the 4 -- the purpose of this was they need the money now. if they're going to drive up insurance company costs in 2014 they need an infusion of cash from these people so they can keep the premiums within some relevant to arrange or affordability. the are of their argument they made is everybody goes to the doctor. 100% of people in the united states will lead some. engage in health care. our response to this and the other things is, that is an economic policy argument that they distinguish health care from some other industry. it is not a judicially limiting principle.

the judiciary can tell congress based on constitutional grounds the cannot do something. these policy arguments are committed to congress's discretion. the court will never second- guess congress's policy judgments. these are fake limiting principles. it would require the same case by case adjudication. all of these things are fake. our other point is, what difference does it really make everybody will go to the doctor at some point. nobody says they're going to the doctor has a problem. they did not regulate going to the doctor. the only become a problem if you do not pay a doctor. the amount of people who do not pay the doctor is a small subset of the uninsured. the other point was, even if you are a participant in a market

that everybody participates in, everybody uses phones. even the solicitor general can see that the chief justice roberts, even though everybody uses funds that cannot require you to use a cell phones to you could call for emergency aid. they cannot require you to buy broccoli. even though you are -- regardless of if you are participating, the relevant question is whether the government can require you to buy 5 bushels of wheat and make purchasing decisions for you that neither serve your needs or serve your economic interests. that cannot possibly, within the commerce power or necessary and proper power. finally, and the major point of the arguments i think in the supreme court was, the justices constantly asking the solicitor general if he can require americans to buy this product, while limiting principle the you

have? what product can you not force them to buy? the solicitor general has been criticized by a lot of liberals and media commentators for not having a good answer. i think that is more or less killing the messenger. it is not that the solicitor general is a bad advocate or unprepared. the reason he cannot give a comprehensive answer is because there is no comprehensive answer to this. they talk themselves into the notion that our position was a tea party fantasy that did not make any sense. rather than can see that they really had a weak case they had to blame him for being a bad lawyer. i do not think that is true. i will not make any predictions

in terms of the outcome of the case given the tone of the argument. i cannot say the argument went quite well. it went quite well mainly for the reasons i just said. the solicitor general was unable to lay any reasonable person's concerns about if we grant power for this particular emergency, what will stop them from using it for the next emergency or the next time they decided will be a little bit better to use the mandate power than the taxing power for all of the obvious political reasons. i do hope -- i think optimistically that we have a very good chance of having the individual mandate struck down. with that, i will be happy to either answer any questions or chat about other aspects in the case. [applause]

>> [unintelligible] >> what he is referring to is obviously -- everybody knows in this room whatsoever ability as. if he struck out one part of the statute what happens to the rest of the statute. i think the justice department took an unusual position. normally they suggest the individual mandate goes down. here they took the position, yes you must write down this band and community ratings provision that says insurers have to ignore the health status of their customers. they were agreeing that there are other parts of the law that were so inextricably intertwined that you have to shut that down i do not know why they took that

position -- i do know what it to that position. is what i was talking about before. the individual made it was put into the law for a specific purpose which was to offset the cost of the pre-existing condition band. you would have the worst of all worlds if you struck down that allows the pre-existing mandate in place. if these two provisions go down, that adds to insurance companies cost. what about all the other provisions like no cap on how much to have to pay out, all these other taxes and bergson -- burdensome regulation or part of the deal. basically the insurance companies came in and said, look, we but like a lot of your require all americans to buy our products. who would not like that law? in exchange can basically do what ever else you want to.

tax us, pre-existing man, as long as we get this lot is a legal not to buy our product we can cut any deal you want. once they take out the requirement that 30 million people buy products, the deal does not look so good the government was a problem was the cannot distinguish where these two provisions the greed or in any material way different from all the other provisions that added to the insurance company's cost. in the other. we kept stressing -- the other. we kept stressing is you have read the whole point out of this act. if you have done that, the tax on tanning salons and toilet paper's may be able to work but it will not work in the way that congress intended.

i was gratified at the argument that the justices were saying, sometimes it will be hypothetical of what would congress have done if they do this part of a law was not in play. this counterfactual a hypothetical when you have taken the steps of live at is like asking, what would happen in europe today if hitler had been killed in 1922. you are guessing and making all kinds of policy judgments. you are creating a law that nobody would have never voted for or we have no idea if they would have voted for it. they came away with a notion -- i call a baseball arbitration. if there is no principled ground between striking down the individual mandate and the whole act, if we cannot figure out where in between the two extremes we will decide to do things, the best course, the one most respectful of congress and lawmaking power is just to strike the whole act down and

let congress figure it out from here. does not make sense to create this act does not make any sense. as a patriot i hope they do that. as a partisan republican i would not mind this lot going through the next four years. i do not think you would never again elect a democrat in the united states. i think it would be hunting them down with dogs by 2018. i have to put my patriotism before my party. but we will see what happens. >> [unintelligible] i want to ask about the catastrophic insurance issue. you go to the emergency room and so forth and there is the free

rider issue. is it possible that the court as a matter of law could split the baby in this regard saying that the mandate is tonkin's -- unconstitutional to the extent it exceeds coverage for catastrophic and use that several ability or is it an all or nothing proposition? >> i think it has to be all or nothing. they are not going to rewrite the law to do something congress did not intend to do. i do nothing there is anything constitutional bar requiring you to buy catastrophic health insurance or anything. my only parliament -- my only point was, i investing your. it will come back in the next time it will be this is unique. is this not really unique that these health a 30-year olds can come into the market and all of a sudden be a big burden on society. among the other points i was

making was, if we are going to create exceptions and uniquely compelling need arguments where we will bend the rules and the language of the commerce clause, congress is going to show us that they really are trying to address the unique aspects of this. i made the point i made earlier which was, surely if congress was really worried about 30 healthy year olds -- healthy 30 year olds, they would have allowed them to do the only economically sensible option which is for $500 a year by catastrophic insurance. i will take care of all of my medical needs except if i get hit by a bus. if i do, my insurance will cover it. i never will become a ward of the state. since they did not do that i think that illustrates from a policy and plausibility perspective that is not what they were trying to get at and

if you let them get away with this, kate -- guard the door because they will have the power and it will be able to use it in whatever circumstances where they can cobble together some equally implausible rationale. >> a little bit off topic but what did you think about the arguments with respect to the states being coerced into the medicaid portion and how did that go on the last day? >> i was representing the private responded so well i had an academic interest in the medicaid stuff. it was purely academic. the dilemma in all of this is as the federal government becomes more and more involved in things we think of as traditional state regulation, most obviously health care and the like, the states do become dependent on the federal

government. there is a case that says, look, you can condition federal moneys on the state's doing things. technically you're not forcing them to doing it. you are offering them -- making them an offer they cannot refuse, like the godfather. they argue for the states that, look, if this is not coercion, then what can be? we are literally talking about hundreds of billions of dollars and not participating in this program would create horrific budget problems for the state. i do not know how to handicap that. i did not try to because that was paul's argument, not mine. the argument went well and people were asking a lot of questions. the solicitor general seemed worried about it because it was during that occasion he made what i think everybody viewed as a jury summation speech with the supreme court talking about how many to be able to pay for their wives' breast cancer and

people on dialysis machines as if the issue in front of the corps was whether the winter of the sick people out on the streets or adhere to what they were doing. even the more liberal justices were sitting there with their mouths open saying, where is this coming from. i do not know if that tells you one thing or the other about the medicaid argument. it was an odd moment during the argument. >> without asking you to engage in crassly go realism, what are your thoughts of the president setting up the supreme court as a foil and his state of the union address several years ago as well as his post argument comments. >> look, there is an obvious distinction between citizens united and this. had already written citizens united. if you're going to yell at these guys i would not do it while they are writing the opinion.

there is always the chance they might be changing their mind. it was a relatively odd thing for a president to do. i was sitting there going, keep talking. i think at the end of the day can only help us. at the end of the day was kind of silly. as if this is going to have -- i do not think it will have any affect. i think it will be negative. we really do not need -- we have heard your briefs, we do not need you lecturing us in public, particularly when it was wrongly decided. >> [unintelligible] somebody in your office referred

to the goldwater institute that was writing a brief on states the past of carefree the max. i want to thank you on your guidance on that. since the 10th amendment is an important piece of the puzzle because like any statutory or contractual construction the have to read the four corners of the document. if you're asking yourself what are the limits on congress's power under the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause, the 10th amendment has to be read into that. it is my understanding there is not a real understanding that the 10th amendment will be a big part of the court's reasoning on this. is there any comment you to make on this? >> in one way saying the 10th the met will not enter into it is not criticism of the 10th amendment. the 10th amendment says that every power not given to the federal government, i.e. the commerce clause, is reserved to the states and the people

respectively. in my optimistic days i do not think it will get to the 10th amendment because they will say this power was never granted to them so we do not need to get to the 10th amendment. it does come in this way. if the justices think that maybe in some circumstances we could require something that regulating non market participants, there is the necessary and proper clause. as justice scalia emphasized, it says necessary and proper. even if we thought regulating non market participants in some ways were ok, surely compelling them to transfer their property would be analogous to compelling in this case state government employees to enforce federal law. it might be ok, but is not proper because you have never used the historical and it really doesn't see the kind of powers that we had been -- that had gone to the federal government.

the government was the response was, that is when you are taking care of states. that is a problem when you are commandeering states. we said, commandeering citizens is exactly on the same constitutional footing. the 10th amendment is as i said reserves the powers to the states and the peoples of the deprivations of individual liberty are just as problematic as interferences with state autonomy. >> [unintelligible] >> the question is, why would my opinion look like if i was writing something in favor of the law. it would be an extraordinarily short opinion. you know, it is not lock, it is not limiting principle. i guess it would -- people are really sick.

we have to do something. these damn states cannot take care of sick people so let's ignore the competition -- constitution. usually they are not that candid. there are no legal arguments in support of obamacare. that is why a it is not a coincidence that congress for 230 years has never tried this before. they have had millions of opportunities with all kinds of presidents, nobody required you to buy war bonds during world war ii and that is because it was literally unthinkable that in a nation postulated on the principle that the people are sovereign to the government, that the government can commandeer the people to do something and they are merely required to salute and say, yes, sir, particularly when it is the federal government which by

definition had its power is limited and enumerated precisely because they could not engage in this tyrannical police power. that was the odd thing about this entire debate from the solicitor general perspective. he kept saying, look, the way they acted as a much more efficient way of getting money into the insurance company's coffers than if we had followed this commerce clause thing and condition access to health care providers and then made you buy insurance. i was like, yes. that is exactly right. i cannot conceive of a system more badly equipped to force cedras and a to give the property to citizen be that the system the framers came up with. -- system a the what the framers came up with. they wanted to make it impossible. it is not reflect a flaw in our

reasoning. it reflects only the fact that the paradigm example of what the framers were trying to deny the federal government was wealth transfers among the citizenry and that is why they did not give them the power. you can use that as my dissenting opinion. if i just wowed you with my eloquence? there is no further questions? with that, thank you very much. enjoy the rest of the day. [applause] >> thank you. what a great way to end the day. i want to remind everybody about the election law seminar tomorrow. it is not here. 2001 k street. of people are not coming tomorrow they need to turn their

forms into ashley carter before they leave today. those coming should keep them and turn them into our. before we adjourn to the reception i want to recognize david warrington who is here on behalf of attorneys for ron paul to read somewhere? [applause] chris landow here on behalf of lawyers for romney. [applause] one of the three cochairs of the romney justice advisory panel. [applause] associate general counsel of mitt romney for president. [applause] with that, i want to thank -- i

am sorry. >> [unintelligible] >> there you go. tune in on fox this weekend on the voter i.d. issues. with that, i want to thank everybody for coming. i want to thank the gentleman who lent me his iphone charger. we will see you out in the foyer for the lawyers for romney session. thank you. [applause]

>> republican presidential candidate mitt romney in arizona. then you and secretary general ban ki-moon. arne duncan preposing the president's trip. on tomorrow morning's washington journal, a look at the 2012 congressional book. our guest this thomas schatz. then we hear from bob dean. he will discuss falling fuel consumption and enter the united states. later a discuss on the imf -- a

discussion on the imf. a board member explains the current eurozone situation. washington journal texture calls and e-mails every morning starting at 7:00 eastern -- takes your calls and e-mails every morning at 7:00 eastern. >> the soldiers started telling me that the u.s. government was wasting tens of billions of dollars on mismanaged developments and logistics contracts. >>douglas wissing follows the money and to enter afghanistan. >> i was and one meeting where the brigade commander -- this was not long after president obama took office. the state department was out there saying, we will give you a bunch of development money. it will win their hearts and

minds. nation build. colonel hand -- the colonel said, do not send more money. said may contract officers that can oversee >> now republican presidential candidate mitt romney and john mccain speak at the republican national committee state national's committee held in scottsdale, arizona. g.o.p.'s vice president's chairman introduce the speakers. this is about 50 minutes.

>> i can tell you in wisconsin, the senator and i have spent a lot of time on planes and buses and i'm a proud owner of a 2008 super tuesday mccain jacket. i think i was probably if only chairman in the country that has one. thank you, steve dupree. but these travels together with senator mccain have made it clear to me that what people in this country are starving for in america are real authentic people that want to serve with a pure heart and make a difference. country always comes first in the navy as a prisoner of war, as a member of congress and senator and a presidential candidate, personal ambition has never come before the needs

of the nation. for that, he's respected throughout the country, especially here in his home state where he has been serving the people of arizona proudly for many years. so it's a preeve ledge for me to introduce a man, an american hero who's never stopped fighting for the greatest country on the face of the earth. please join me in welcoming senator john mccain. [cheers and applause] >> very nice. thank you. thank you all very much. thank you very much. thank you all. thank you for that -- thank you. thank you. thank you very much. please. thank you for that warm welcome . friends, thank you. thank you for that kind

introduction. but most of all, hasn't this young man done a fantastic job at the helm of our party? i mean -- [applause] i mean i'm grateful for every one of you. i am thankful that you are here and i'm proud that you have chosen the state of arizona to spend time with us. but i also want to say again that friends you done a fantastic job and your stewardship is making it so much easier for us to not only elect our friend here as the next president of the united states but also down the line. we need toe have the majority in the united states senate. we need to keep our majority in the house of representatives. and i am confident and i am confident that the work that the party will do under your leadership will make that possible. [applause] and i'd say -- can i also say that i'm most proud to be here

with an ex-president of the united states? [applause] can i tell you how i am proud of the campaign that he ran? can i tell you that i've watched him go across this country, he and his wonderful and beautiful wife anne, even the 16 grandchildren were out there as well, selling himself and his principles an his ideals an his vision of the future of america to the republican party and i am so gratified to see our party coming together in a solid team that is going to elect him president of the united states on this november. you know, already, i was looking at the cover of the economist magazine. shows a picture, basically the story was about how nasty this

campaign has become as far as the president's campaigning. the class warfare, the character attacks, the desperation that this obama campaign is already showing and obviously, they'll do anything, i mean, to divide this nation in class warfare, the likes of which i have seldom seen in any political campaign in our history. i want to tell you that i mentioned to mitt some time ago, i'm an old boxing fan. i was a lousy boxer at the naval academy. i still remember one of our great heavyweight champions was joe lewis. he was a great fighter. and he was fighting a guy. his name was billy con. he was a very agile boxer and joe lewis was a puncher and not a boxer. they said to joe, how are you going to catch this guy? how are you going to be able to

beat him? he said, well, he can run but he can't hide. well, my friends, this president, barack obama can run but he can't hide from a record -- [applause] he can't hide from a record that is giving our children and grandchildren a $5 trillion debt, the largest in the history of this nation. my friends, what -- the president that this president has us on is unsustainable. it is not sustainable. this country cannot end up like greece. this country cannot do that to future generations of americans what we are doing today. and every time there's a problem, what does barack obama think the answer is? throw more money at it? more government jobs. this race is about the fundamental difference between mitt romney and barack obama. barack obama believes that government created jobs.

mitt romney knows that business creates jobs in america today and he has a -- and mitt romney has a record to prove it. my friends there was a thing called bane capital. by the way there is a lot of people who like to attack people who get wealthy, you know? and the fact is that -- that bane capital under the stewardship of mitt romney, they went out an they saved companies an they turned places like staples with $5 million and an empty warehouse into a place called staples today that employs thousands and thousands of americans. that's the kind of success story that's there. so we're their failures. we're their companies they couldn't save. yes they were. the last place on earth where every company stayed in business was called the soviet union. yes, that's the nature of the

free enterprise system. but i'll tell you when you look at success after success after success and then you look at the olympics at salt lake city, there was corruption, there was bribery, there was that -- the olympics was going to fail to the eternal embarrassment of the united states of america and a guy went out there and yes, he had to fire people. but you know what, it was the most successful olympics in the history of this nation thanks to the leadership of mitt romney. [applause] now, my friends, the economy is broken. the economy is broken. and unfortunately, tragically we are seeing signs that the -- that the improvement that we've seen in the last few months may be tailing off. you have come to -- those of you from out of town, you have come top a state that is one of the hardest hits states in america. still nearly the homes are under water. we had the fartest to fall.

i'm telling you, the state of arizona, don't worry will be for mitt romney this november. but so will a lot of other surrounding states. [applause] i just want to talk to you about just a couple of other points and the first thing that we are going to do with a majority in the senat and a majority in the house under the leadership of mitt romney is we will repeal and replace obama care. we will repeal and replace obama care. there is over -- over -- over 60% of the american people do not support this massive government takeover of 1/5 of our gross national product. let me also remind you of something else because i was there for almost a year. it was the sleaziest process i have ever seen in my years as the united states senator. the cornhusk kerr kick back. the louisiana purchase taking

them and bludgeoning and supporting them under the health care. no wonder the american people were tired of that that wasn't what obama promised the american people. that was an exercising sleaze and we've got to do away with it and give the american people a real health care that's affordable and available to americans. mitt romney will do that. [applause] now, i understand and there's a lot more that i can can tell you about. and there's a lot more i'd like to say, but really the person you want to hear from is waiting and that's the important speaker. but i do want to point out to you, i understand -- i understand that this election will be about jobs and the economy. that is completely logical. but i also want to tell you about the grave concern that i have about the lack of american leadership in the world today. and i think that when i travel around the world, i can tell you that leaders all over the world believe that the united

states of america is in decline. this is not -- this is not the country that ronald reagan who had the stewardship up. this is not the shining city on the hill to the rest of the world. it is a country that is articulated a policy of "leading from behind -- leading from behind." that my friends, is not the role of the united states of america has had since in the 20th century and must have in the 21st century. and i want to mention just one aspect of it. and i'm going to give you some straight talk relations between the united states and the state of israel has never been worse since israel became a state. we have a country now that instead of facing up to the iranian threat of the acquisition of nuclear weapons which they are on the path to, the president of the united states sends his people to israel to tell them be sure not to attack iran. thereby weakening very badly

the israeli position. now put yourself in the position of the state of israel. you have a country in your neighborhood that is dedicated to "wiping you off the map" and they're on the path to acquiring the means to do so. so are you going depend on another country to insure your security or as prime minister netanyahu says it's a sovereign nation and is going to take care of its own secure? my friends, we should be with the israelis drawing red lines to the iranians and telling them those are not lines that they cannot cross. and we should be telling the israeli government and people, we are with them. that's what america's supposed to be about. [applause] so could i say that not only -- not only am i most proud -- most proud to have mitt as our

standard bearer but i also want to recognize what you guys recognize, what a great partner in anne, what a wonderful person, what a great example. [applause] so i'd like to remind you every day that we're not out there campaigning and rounding out votes for mitt romney for president is a day lost. so when we leave today, we are in the campaign. do not let an hour go by that we're not getting votes. this is going to be a very close election. i believe we're going to be up late on election night. i really do. i believe that it's going depend on how we get out our vote as most elections are. i can not be more proud to have a man of principle, of vision, a man who can inspire all young americans as well as older ones, a man who i am convinced can get our country back on the

path to prosperity, to freedom and the kind of nation that we want to hand off to our children. the greatness of america is that every generation is handed off to the next generation, a better nation than the one that they inherited. i promise you with mitt romney as president of the united states, we will be able to hand off a better nation to our children and grandchildren. >> thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you, senator. thank you for your vision and your kind words and -- well, we had a ground breaking day

yesterday in our resolutions committee. we passed our version of the stimulus plan at the republican national committee and that's to fire barack obama and help save this country. the stakes of this election are incredibly high. you know it. i know it. and it's our job to make sure that every american citizen, everyone going to the polls know that as well. we can't afford four more miserable years of this president because their children can't support to spend a lifetime paying off of his debts. we know that a country that has to surrender its sovereignty to its bondholders can't guarantee prosperity or freedom to anybody. and a country that buries its kids and its grandkids in an avalanche of debt can't rest in any vestige of the moral high

ground and that's what this election is all about, the big things, liberty, freedom, opportunity, the bill of rights. we have to end barack obama's presidency before his presidency ends our way of life. [applause] and we can't trade the american dream for a european nightmare. europe doesn't work in europe. so why would we want four more years of barack obama? he has no record to run on. so instead he's running on a parade of shiny objects that won't fix our economy or get our country back on track. out on the campaign trail, barack obama's resorting to a strategy of divide and conquer, rich vs. poor, republican vs.

democrat, phony wars, tax rules that do nothing to move the dial. he's running on fear and division. the president who so often says this isn't about the red states of america. it's not about the blue states of america, but it's about the united states of america. well, where has that barack obama gone in he once promised to hold himself accountable. but now he spends his time making excuses for his failures. he plamed the arab spring. he blamed a.t.m. machines, an earthquake in japan. and he even blamed bad luck. well, excuses won't pay the mortgage and his class warfare won't create a single job. like all of our candidates, our next speaker understands that. we are grateful, honored and blessed to have governor romney with us today.

the governor is running a remarkable campaign unlike president obama, governor romney is not afraid on running on issues, solutions and incredible record. and what a record he has, turning around companies, turning around the olympics and turning around a state. and if there was ever an entity that needed a turnaround a new direction, it's the united states under barack obama. throughout his career, governor romney has been a fiscal, responsible, conservative leader. and he understands that what this country needs, lower taxes, less spending an efficient, effective government. governor romney wants to restore the idea that if you work hard in this country and you play by the rules, you can

live the american dream. and in a sense that whees this -- in a sense that's what this country is coming down to. that under barack obama if you work hard and you play by the rules, can you live the american dream? and unfortunately, under this president answering that question has become much, much more difficult. i applaud the governor for the campaign he has run, the experience that he brings to the table and his dedication to making barack obama a one-term president. so it's an honor for me to welcome and introduce a businessman, a governor, job creator, public servant, father, grandfather, we want to welcome you in a formal way to a great family here that is willing and looks forward to working beyond anyone's imagination to making sure that

we put a republican back in the white house and doing our part and not worrying about saving our party but doing our part and working together to help save this great country. so with that, would you all please welcome governor mitt romney. [cheers and applause] >> here we go. >> thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause] thank you. please.

thank you, guys. ok. thank you! thank you! [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you. well, it's good to see so many old friends. thank you! well, we haven't won yet. but i'll tell you what, we'll really cheer that. boy, it's good to be here with you and i appreciate that generous response and thank you, mr. chairman for your introduction. thank you for the work that you're doing. looking if a far this organization was troubled a couple of years ago and i look and see what you have accomplished during the past year, it's just extraordinary. i want to say how much i appreciate your chairman's work and all of your work to get the

r.n.c. back on track and to get us ready to take back the white house, the senat and to keep the house. congratulations, mr. chairman. and let me also commend the people who had the courage to run for president on our side of the aisle this year. some still running. some have gotten out of the race but each contributed to the process. each of them campaigned in an aggressive and dynamic campaign to spread our message of conservatism. and each is going to play a vital role in making sure that we win in november. you know their names but it's a long enough list. i wrote it down. but michele bachmann and tim pawlenty and john huntsman and her main cain and rick perry, and ron paul and rick santorum and newt gingrich, thank you to this extraordinary team. we have all fought hard and well and we're going to fight for the things we believe in.

i express my appreciation to senator mccain for his battle for the presidency, for standing true to the principles of our party, for the fact that he has been a fighter for america for decades. this is not someone who came late to the game. he has been a stalwart champion over the things that make america, america from his earliest day and he has sacrificed enormously and continues to battle to this day. i hope we see john mccain in the u.s. senat fighting for the things we believe in. thank you, senator. [applause] i'm surprised that senator mccain did not regale you with some of his favorite jokes. i've heard a couple of them. he has one that he says this is the only snate america where mothers do not tell their children that some day they can grow up to be president.

i think i can join the millions of americans that wish you would have proved them wrong, john. you've been president right now. [applause] now, four years ago, then candidate obama was speaking in denver, not far from here standing in front of greek columns, you remember that? don't think he will be standing in front of greek columns. won't want to remind people of greece. [laughter] [applause] he laid out and in his speech there at their convention how he would measure progress. he literally used these words. we measure progress differently . it was the fact that he said we measure progress and then he described how it was. he and his party measure progress. i think it's interesting given

the fact that he laid out what his report card would be to go back and score him on the very report card he laid out. he said for instance, he said, we, the democrats measure progress by whether people have good jobs that can pay for mortgages. ok. we're three and a half years later and he has not created a single new net job in america. we're three and a half years later, actually there have been job losses and 3% of the people who have lost jobs have been women. on the measure that he himself put in place creating jobs where people could pay mortgages, he failed. then there was another measure that he laid out. he said in a setting where you were having progress you could measure by whether people saw wages of income going up or going down. over the last four years, the median income in america has dropped by 10%. in barack obama's term, the

median income in america has dropped by $3,000. this even as health care cost has gone up. gasoline prices have double. food prices have gone up. second measure, he's failed. third measure he spoke about. he said, to see progress you'd want to see people with a dream or an idea being willing to take the risk to start a new business. so what's happened in the world of business start-ups? they drop by about 150,000 a year under this president. again, on the measure he himself set out, he's failed. now, a lot of other measures as well. we have record levels of people on food stamps. record levels of poverty. the number of people who dropped from the middle-class into poverty has reached historic proportion. you have at the same time home values that have dropped by 30% or more in some places and in

some cases still going down. on almost every measure this president has failed. now he's also failed overseas. senator mccain described one of the areas he's failed and that's with regard to israel and our relationship to that country and the need to show solidarity with our alleys. we're not closer to peace in the middle east by virtue of his policies or elsewhere there. the arab spring has turned into an arab winter. he failed to execute a status of forces agreement to make sure that the gains that were achieved at great costs in iraq would be able to be preserved and secured. he entered into an agreement with russia with regards to the new start treaty which i think was exceptionally one-sided. y is rushing towards nuclearization with no slowdown in sight. with regard to afghanistan he made a number of errors in our relationship there. he has very clearly out of

ideas. and out of excuses. so it's our job in november to make sure we put him out of office. [cheers and applause] now, happen to have met him four or five years ago at a dinner in washington, d.c. where we were both invited to tell some jokes about our respective parties and i found him to be a nice guy. i think he's a nice person. i just don't think we can afford him any longer. i don't think the american people can afford to have barack obama as their president. now, he points out, he did not cause the recession. but he did make it worse. and he says, well, look things are getting better. and i sure hope they're getting better. gosh i hope they're getting better but that's not because of him. that's inspite of him. he has made this recession hard

tore come out of. -- harder to come out of. [applause] and for people to say well, why do you say that mitt? >> well, you go through his so-called signature achievements and ask yourself which of those that are causing employment to rise. gosh, i hope it's rising. but what are the things that would encourage imploilt? how about a stimulus? he said he would hold unemployment below 8%. hasn't been below 8% since. 38 straight months. if we're seeing any job increase now and i sure hope we are and a slow rediction of unemployment, i hope it's coming down, it's not because of the stimulus that was three and a half years ago. it's inspite of that stimulus and it's thanks to the entrepreneurship of the american individual. does anyone really think obama care has encouraged people to hire people? just the opposite. i go across d country, i get

the chance to talk to small business people. the number one thing they mention time and time again is their fear of obama care. the labor policies -- does anybody think stacking the labor relations board with labor stooges encourages businesses to hire people? just the opposite. dodd-frank, remember that piece of legislation, 848 pages of legislation designed to deal with these two big to fail banks? how did that work out? they are bigger. the big banks have gotten bigger since the legislation was passed. the banks that have been hurt are the community banks. guess which banks provide loans to start up businesses and small businesses. the community banks. it is one reason your seeing your start-ups. dodd-frank did not help create jobs.

the so-called stimulus is not creating jobs. how about his tax policies? think about that. there are a bunch of taxes this president has been encouraging. one is to take the marginal tax rate from 35% to 40%. i know he thinks that will get a lot of support among people who want to tax folks they think are particularly prosperous. but do not forget who pays taxes at the marginal rate -- small business. do you know how many private- sector workers in america work for businesses that are taxed not as corporations, but as individuals, and pay those marginal rates? 54% of america's workers work in businesses taxed at the individual level. if you raise marginal taxes, you will ultimately kill jobs. deep within obamacare, he has this tax on revenue.

there is a device maker for next surgery's. -- back and neck surgery. they employ 1300 people. they say the tax will cause them to lay off between 100 and 200 people to meet their earnings targets. even businesses that are not profitable will be taxed. vice president said he is in favor of a new growth tax. -- global tax. he is the gift that keeps on giving, this guy. [applause] i do not know how he intends exactly to apply that. but i do know that if he is planning on putting it on certain types of enterprises, groups of individuals we call companies or businesses, some of them will go elsewhere. that is the problem with

democrats. they do not understand that some of their policies cause people to do different things. they create incentives to change behavior. when you apply taxes that other countries do not have, or make the tax is higher than other countries have them, inevitably, enterprises will start up in other places other than here. what we have here is an extraordinary economic engine that leads the world, in part because the founders recognized that in america we would be free to pursue happiness as we choose, and established a government that was limited and encourage individuals to build businesses. as they do, that does not make us poorer. that makes us better off. america leads the world economically because we have always led the world in economic freedom. freedom drives the american economy. that is why we will win. [applause]

i do not know whether you heard david axelrod the other day, on sunday. i do not have the exact quote, but he said something to the effect of we have to get off the economic road we are on and take a new direction. i could not agree more. [applause] we have to make sure that we get off this road, where more and more people are sunk into poverty, where it is tougher to be in the middle class, where gasoline prices go higher and higher, where the unions are driving what is happening in our schools. this is a difficult road we are armed. it is time to get off it. i am also convinced the president was right when he said we are going to have two competing visions in the election in november. there is the vision which

represents the road we are on, in david axelrod's words, and there is the vision we represent. i have just described some of the differences. the obama vision means trillion dollar deficits every year. it means a president who in four years has amassed almost as much public debt as all the former presidents combined. under me, we will cut spending, reorganize agencies and departments, cap federal spending, and get on track to a balanced budget. [applause] if we stay on the road we are on, you are going to see government getting larger and larger, and metastasizing into every aspect of american life. do you know how big government is as a percentage of our

economy today? federal, state, and local government represents 38% of our government. obamacare would take that up to almost half of the total economy. are we still a free economy in a setting like that? if you take the things that government is trying to control indirectly -- natural services, automotive, energy, health care -- they will directly or indirectly control over half of the u.s. economy. that is where they are taking us. i do not believe in an economic system run by government and controlled by government. i will return to america the principles of free enterprise and american freedom that drove us to be the most powerful economy in the world. [applause] one of the most dangerous aspects of the road we are on is represented by a president and a party who unfortunately take their direction, far too

often, from union chief executive officers, union ceo's. that is where they get their money, hundreds of millions of dollars, and that is where they pay obedience. look at the president's agenda when he came in. all federal projects go to union labor. not fair rules, were the best compactor gets a chance to compete. we will give it to our friends. that stack the national labor relations board with people who decide to tell boeing the cannot build a factory in south carolina. in washington, d.c., where a lot of our schools are just awful, people are standing in line to be able to go to a charter school. what does this administration do? shuts down that option. who do think was crying for that, but the teachers' union? we have opportunities to open

in new markets. the productive nation like ours grows and is more successful if we can sell goods to other nations. everyone else has figured that out. china and european nations, over the last 3.5 years, have opened 44 trade agreements. guess how many this president has negotiated in the last 3.5 years? none. the three that were finally approved by the senate were negotiated by his predecessor. these are the demands of the union bosses. let me tell you -- if anything were to kill america's economy, if it were not our deficit and the massive debts, it is obedience to union ceo's. it is dangerous. i believe in the right of people to join unions if they want to. i also believe we have to have a president who will stand up for the american people writ large, not just a narrow segment. if elected, i will rein in the

excesses by linking the pay of government workers with the pay and benefits in the private sector. [applause] you know the road we are on with regards to health care. it is a road that says that fed will bureaucrats can do a better job than you can deciding what kind of health insurance you ought to have. ultimately, i am convinced those bureaucrats will tell you what kind of treatment you can receive. that is where we are headed. if i become president, we will repeal obamacare and return to the individuals of america the responsibility for their own health care. [applause] you know the road we are on with regard to energy.

this is a president who says he likes all of the above. did you hear that? he keeps saying that. i scratch my head. his epa and other regulators have been trying to insinuate themselves into regulating natural gas and frakking. hopefully they are backing away from that. they made it harder to use coal. they put a moratorium on drilling for oil in the gulf, anwar, and the intercontinental shelf. the president does like all of the above. he likes all of the energy that comes from above the ground. he does not like the stuff that comes from below the ground -- oil, coal, and gas. we also like wind and solar, but we like the stuff below the ground. we will have an energy policy focused on keeping the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend a year buying energy from other

people, keeping it here. we will buy oil from canada, because i will build that pipeline if i have to do it myself. [applause] the road we are on is one where every four years the president or his party talk about entitlements, the fact that medicare and social security are nearing insolvency. the also talk about immigration, and the challenges for the immigration program, our immigration policies. yet when they have a super majority in the house and senate and the white house, what did they do about social security, medicare, and immigration? nothing. for them, these are campaign issues. these are not issues to deal

with and improved. when i am president of the united states, we will work together to preserve and protect social security, medicare, and legal immigration. [applause] i just want to mention the military for a moment. there does seem to be one place where the president is willing to cut back, and that is our military. i do not see the world as a safer place. when i look at pakistan and a nuclear weapons, and the state of their government, when i consider iran and their rush to go nuclear, when i consider china and their claim to the south china sea, when i look at what is happening in the middle east, i do not think america should dramatically cut back on military capabilities. we have fewer ships in our navy today than any time since 1917. our air force fleet is older and smaller than any time since 1947, when it was formed.

our troops are, as you know, stretched to the breaking point in the conflicts we have, yet the president wants to cut our number of troops. my own view is very much consistent with that of ronald reagan. that is the best ally peace has ever known is a strong america. and i will defend our military. [applause] the road we are on is one of blaming and dividing. the president is looking for someone to blame for his failures, someone to scapegoat. chairman reince priebus just described some of the groups he has tried to blame. the list is getting longer and more intense as he feels himself more unsuccessful, whether it is congress or speculators. he always has someone to blame

for how he has failed so obviously on all the measures he described for himself. i will not apologize for success at home. and i will never apologize for american greatness abroad. [applause] and i will endeavor, in every way possible, to bring americans together. i subscribe fully, as our party does, to the principle of america being one nation under god. this is a great land and a great people, with a great purpose. the president said we have alternative visions. true. we see where his vision leads. job losses. losses of homes. losses of savings. we have seen the vision of

obama. open your eyes to see where his vision leads. the vision i have, the vision we share, is one where again the middle class is growing, and people are earning more money, where kids can afford college. when they come out of college, they can find a job. soldiers coming out of the military know there is a good job waiting for them that respects their talents and skills the received in the military. the americans in our vision is one where we are known and respected around the world, knowing our military is the strongest in the world, so strong that no one would ever think of attacking us. that is the great thing about a strong military. you do not have to use it. just having it keeps bad people from doing bad things. [applause] this is america that i see, that we see, with bright

prospects for our kids. when you ask parents, "do you think the future will be brighter than the past," they say the debt is getting smaller, we are balancing budgets, the number of start-ups is going up, income is going up. that is the vision i see. i also see a vision that is united. for me, the image of america comes to mind in a different mental pictures i have had over the years. let me mention one to you. i was serving as the governor of my state, and i got a call from the airport. they said that the remains of one of our servicemen killed in iraq was coming in on a u.s. airways flight to logan airport. the have asked the parents if they could come to the airport to receive their son's body, but the parents could not get there in time.

they asked if i could go instead to receive the body. i said of course. our state capitol is close to the airport. we drove over and went out on the tarmac. the u.s. airways jet stopped in front of the terminal. people disembarked. the conveyor came down and all the luggage came off. finally, when everything was clear, the casket appeared. it was brought down the conveyor. the soldiers that were there picked it up. i put my hand on my heart. the state troopers who were there with me saluted. as i was standing there and looking at that casket as it was in the hearse, i happened to glance up at the terminal. up to my right is a big glass wall at the u.s. airways terminal in the boston airport. it seems the people who had come off the aircraft had seen the police cars out there, so they had stopped against the

glass wall to see what was happening. people walking down the hall saw those people lined up against the glass and crowded behind them. every person i could see had their hand on the heart. that is the image that comes to mind when i think about america. i do not think about an america divided. i think about an america that is patriotic, the respect the sacrifice of heroes proved in liberating strife, and mercy more than life. that kind of pride in america -- we bring it back again and again, by virtue of restoring the principles that made america the hope of the earth -- our commitment to freedom, unity, respect, free enterprise, people being able to pursue happiness in the way they choose. these commitments are profound, defining, exceptional.

this is the greatest nation in the history of the earth because of our people, our place, and the principles that made us this great nation. we will restore them together with a great win in november. thank you so much. great to be with you. [applause]

>> thank you, governor, and thank you, senator mccain. we can assure you we are not going to trade division of the founding fathers for the dreams of obama. we have a lot of work to do. this is not going to happen automatically. it is going to happen by being unified as a party. because if this is not just a bunch of talk, and it really is a fight for the very idea of america, then we are committed to building this party to the concepts of addition and multiplication, and not division and subtraction. with that, our commitment is to make this election about the big things -- liberty, freedom, the constitution, jobs, and america. we are going to have a great

afternoon for everybody as well. we have got breakout sessions. governor sandoval tonight. we have a lot of work to do. with that, i wish you god's blessings, and we will see you soon. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> you can see the landing in the official transfer ceremony tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. studentcam 's competition asked to to create a video asking which part of the competition is most important to them. today, we go to colorado springs, colorado where brendan boyle is a sophomore.

what is the 10th amendment? >> the 10th amendment says that all powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution are given to the states respectively. basically what that means is any rights or powers not given to the federal government at a national level are instilled do the states and the people. basically, it is creating a system of more individuality. basically it is giving the and dividual states and people a chance to make their own decisions. >> why do you call it the amendment for individuality? >> in terms of students, a subject they want to pursue may be more than what the schools require them to pursue. sometimes it is nice for

students to have a little bit more personal engagement in their education system. >> why did you choose to use state education standards as an example to explain the federal vs. state power? >> usually education systems -- i used education systems because some of the political debates out there and do not really have an effect on me. i am a teenager. the education system as the one big thing that affects me as a high-school student. >> how did standardization of begin? "the most recent movement toward standardization began in 1983 when the u.s. department of education released something entitled "the nation at risk." basically it went on to say that students in america were not

being adequately trained to fulfill the jobs of the future. >> between federal and state governments, which the you think is better suited to set education standards? >> i personally think it is a better idea to have standards at the local government. i think handled -- federal standards are a bit too controlling. i think it is good for individual states to have their say in their own education systems. having a national standardized education system creates problems with individual states not be able to have their own. >> as a student, what do you think of the education you have received? >> honestly, i think i approve of the education i have been receiving. we created this documentary not for an issue we are already having, but we think that the

bigger issue is at a national level, the debates should be stepped >> thank you very much. congratulations again on your win. here is a brief portion from brendan's documentary. >> i take it we get more -- if we get more motivated and get our hands on the educational equipment -- you get excited about it and see how the basic math, the basic english apply to that job field. i think that is the answer to get people motivated.

>> the government should have more control over schools. is it contradicting the 10th amendment? the 10th amendment holst what individuality in education we still have left. i have a question for you -- would you rather stiff in america be the most successful they can be? the 10th amendment mattins the rights should be instilled to the states or the people. i am speaking to the spirits of what variety keep we have because variety it is what motivates us. believe me -- you would be surprised at what students can do we are motivated. >> you can watch this entire video at studentcam.org and continue the conversation at c- span's facebook and twitter pages. >> coming up next, u.n.

secretary general ban ki-moon. after that, education secretary army duncan previews the president of the trip next week to the university of north carolina, colorado, and i will. former attorney general michael mukasey on the state of the war on terror. this weekend on bookstv, live coverage from the los angeles festival of books. coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern on saturday and sunday. saturday, clarence darrow, dwight d. eisenhower, and jfk. at 7:30, call in with your questions for steven ross. sunday at 2:00 eastern, watch for liberals in "the cause." at 5:00, lori andrews, any jacobson, and michael d

shermer. >> un secretary general ban ki- moon delivers a keynote address at the center for global development form on removal and state -- renewable and sustainable energy. because of a that obama ought to attend the un conference this summer. world leaders and officials from around the world are meeting in june to discuss how developing a grain economy can eliminate poverty. this is about 40 minutes. >> i now have the great privilege -- really it is a privilege -- of introducing secretary general ban ki-moon. i am not going to give his bio, i would just say a couple of things. i have had the pleasure and privilege of meeting him several times with a group of economists. one of the things that has impressed me very much as head of the center for global

development is how he is a champion of the developing world and of the world's pour. the second thing relevant for today is he has taken tremendous leadership on this long-term issue of energy for all and eliminating energy poverty, and, of course, clean energy. that is what we need from our global leaders -- long-term vision. we know he is busy with short- term crisis as well, but he has released got to this mission of worrying about climate issues as they affect the world of the poor and about energy for all. mr. secretary general pri. [applause] >> thank you. the president for the center of global development.

ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor and pleasure for me to speak and discussed with you one of the very crucially important agendas. i cannot think of a more timely or more important reason to come together today. i know this from my own experience as a young boy of korea. i grew up during the time when we did not have energy.

until i became a freshman in college in 1952, i had to study and read under a smoky a lamp. candles i used blakely for a time during examinations. candles were too expensive for me and most of the people. this memory has stayed with me for a long time. i have many things to tell you. whenever i talk about education, i also talked to the african people. i want to give a sense of hope for their future. fortunately, my country changed. only through industrialization of my country of korea were we

able to have affordable energy. nobody -- too many people around the world have not that kind of benefit. why do you spread energy policy? -- energy and poverty? energy poverty is a threat to the children of the many developing nations. it is unsustainable. it is unjust. children cannot study in the dark. they cannot learn or be productive when they have to

walk miles and miles. businesses and economies cannot grow. we must find a way to end this energy poverty. with climate change, a growing effect to all of us, we must look for unconventional energy solutions. this is what we have been doing throughout many decades. we are using our planetary resources. we are using 1.3 pounds of our project will 0.3 times of our available resources every 5-10 years. this notion must be changed. there are benefits are developed

and developing countries alike. we want the developing countries to leapfrog over the energy systems of the past and have a clean energy for all. that is why i have established a sustainable energy. this is a very ambitious course. first, to provide access to people around the world of energy by 2013 into a double the energy efficiency by 2030 and to double the share of energy in the global energy mix. we found very ambitious, but we believe that it is possible. it is achievable if we work together. that is why we have established

the eminent experts and a visionary thinkers. the united states has provided strong leadership. we have the secretary of state, his vision. the president of the foundation that has provided his trademark or passion. we have the chairman of the american bank. he is also serving as the share of this group. we are truly grateful for their dedication. when it comes, they are united. to end of this energy poverty. our challenge is to join forces, overcome that.

lee will need innovation to spread throughout the world, especially where energy demand is growing fastest. we want to make a quantum left by forging a strong partnership with the private sector and the primary source of due investment. it will bring together key stakeholders to change the world's energy systems.

it will introduce a new public- private partnership. for the necessary conditions, including the large-scale investment. a broad range of stakeholders, the initiative will mobilize solutions and for their commitment. the partnership, will be central to this. the is why i am making sustainable energy for all to be supported by the partnership facility which i am going to establish a.

it will be my commitment to implement this actual agenda which i have laid out this year as i began my second -- -- second term as secretary general. very concrete areas on how we can end this policy. we must rally behind these priorities. i am glad that we are changing hands such as the global lighting and the excess partnerships. the countries are also spending a up ha. one of the first countries to partner with this has started to develop programs of actions.

many of the countries are looking to get involved. they pledged to provide access for half a billion people by 2030. it is a powerful political commitment that can set the course for generations to come. i call on all of you for support. [unintelligible] the un conference on development is two-months

away. it is just two months away, 60 days. they want to see renewed political commitment to sustainable development. they also want to see a concrete deliverable that will place us on this path. i continue to use every possible opportunity to maintain a high level of ambition is to produce a powerful outcome. [unintelligible] that was, for the first time, the secretary-general of the united nations has participated in this ministers' meeting, and we discussed about energy, we discussed about the prospect for sustainable development.

it is difficult, there are 26 critical areas starting from climate change, land use, transport, disaster preparedness, and sustainable consumption. those are the issues we are tackling to have a bold and ambitious package. energy is a cost-cutting issue. we cannot achieve anything. we are successful in providing energy, we can pull this very

skillfully and wisely. one expected outcome is a compendium, but commitment is not enough. we must do what we do. we need to focus more attention on how we need to do it. we need a system to track where we may be falling short. major groups have a central role to play in planning and

implementation. we need an interface between science and policy making, and to improve the sustainable framework. i am personally committed to organizing the system to promote success, and the robust implementation. i emphasized that there will be propelled in large part by the decisions on investment, subsidies, and distressed to them the challenges that we face are of such an immense magnitude and so closely interconnected that they require nothing less than the paradigm shift. the fundamental reset of the

development agenda. we must seize this once in a generation opportunity to agree on a concrete set of outcomes that will create an increase in live and grain economy for this and future generations. i am also mobilizing the entire un system. in geneva, i chaired the chief executive board meeting where all the leaders of the specialized agencies, programs

are all together where we agreed and committed ourselves to produce an ambitious and bold package. let me share with you from a joint declaration. it is something we issued as a result of this meeting. they must provide for the future with a piece, economic, a social development. and a healthy equitable environment to present future generations.

this is the task before us. a great challenge of our time, it is the most crucially important opportunity, we must be sure that it is a worthy successor for 1992, 20 years ago. the center for global development is uniquely positioned to help insure that for the commitments are kept. we count on your research and your reputation to help us move toward sustainable energy. together, let us work to shape this world's future.

to make this world better for all. thank you for your attention and, i count on your leadership. thank you. [applause] thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary-general. you can see the sense of excitement you engendered. on the part of the center, we accept your challenge to help any fundamental feeling you invoked. i also thank you for the energy you brought to the issue of sustainable energy.

the secretary-general has agreed that answer some questions from the floor. maybe i can ask the first question. one of our ambitions about today's event has manhattan to help formulate and pushing and encourage the u.s. in terms of its commitment and its promise to commit. who have said a lot about the various commitments you are receiving to making this real and operationable going forward. if you could whisper in the ear of president obama, or other leaders in congress, what would you say? what would you ask?

>> i have been repeatedly publicly and privately addressing many global challenges. like climate change, hunker eradication, global health issues. the political will and leadership is the most important part. it depends on how of leader of the country or the leaders of the world commit themselves. that is why they have had been summoning me. it is important to have leaders commit themselves. raising political leadership. more than 130 heads of state

and government are coming. it will be one of the biggest conferences in history. it is the most powerful leadership country, we count on the united states. for everything we do. when it comes to the united nations, the u.s. pays for their budget. when it comes to climate change, the u.s. can play the most important role, that is why i have been working very closely with former president bush and current president obama.

president obama has been committed and forward looking addressing global challenges. i hope he will participate himself. that is why to a synergistic effect, we have this meeting. i know they will be in mexico, and they will have the conference. and i believe that you all have to speak. you have may be better access to his ear. i count on the business

communities, civil societies. sometimes they have more power that i as a secretary general. sometimes it is politically sensitive on certain issues. >> please send president obama a tweet. [laughter] questions? go ahead, introduce yourself. >> thank you very much for your dedication on this really important topic. i was wondering if you could mention briefly, commitments and dedications of the private sector towards your initiative.

>> how about we take several questions and decide which ones and how you want to answer. yes, lisa. >> could you, perhaps, cite what you think could come out of rio that could most directly help the un climate negotiations? thank you. >> other questions? >> thank you, your excellency. it seems that a significant emerging issue is that the total scale of the -- i am wondering how you recommend that

they deal with this conundrum in the face of the fact that we are already subscribing to resources. >> and you want to answer those? we will have time for one more round. >> we have a big project going with the small island states in the country and we did presentations for general assembly last year. who want to see if we can count on your support to have the island states become the leaders going towards sustainability. >> all these very important questions, very pertinent. many global challenges, we believe that partnership is very important. in the past, a usual pattern of

business was that it was only government. a government that has been providing development assistance to many developing world. united nations has been heavily dependent on the government sources, the funding sources. and in this time of austerity, when most of the other countries are suffering from economic difficulties, the role of the private sector is very much important. i think they are the ones that really have the innovation in technology. they're the ones that invest more and wisely for the sustainable and green economy. government normally makes their policy guidelines, and these days, and even the private sector business community is

leading the government. they are leading the government for better selection. it is not the business community we count on, it is civil society. never in the past been so strong. you are stronger than government ministers, prime ministers, or presidents. sometimes they are very weak to your words. use your influence to challenge the leaders to go to the right direction, to go to a sustainable ways. politics, economic policies, social policies, they should all be based on sustainable path. this is what we are going to achieve at the summit meeting.

putting everything on a sustainable path. including agenda issues hoar youth issues. we have to provide a decent job opportunity for women. and we have to change business as usual. let me go to this planetary limitation and resources. this is related. we are using an 01 0.3 times -- 1.3 times more than we have. if you have to spend 1.3 times more than a year salary, what happens to your economy? what happens to your companies? they go bankrupt. if we continue this way, as the same way that industrialized

countries spend and behave, instead of using our resources, it is something like having five plant earths. we have one earth. we don't have five earths. but what you're doing, what we're doing is as if there is no tomorrow. we have burn coal resources in the name of prosperity. we have to change this, we have to be very honest here in terms of utilizing resources. that is why we have to use renewable energy. we have 16% of global renewable energy. we have to double this more than 30%. continuously, and naturally replenished sources of energy,

wind, solar, hydro. they will, always, as early as we want. but we have to completely change, and you have to change your individual behavior patterns at home. and companies, had offices, even just one electricity bill will save a lot. so let's be very conscious of planetary limitations. we have limited resources, we have to be very conscious. this is a very strong message i am telling you. on another issue, the specific issue of whether rio will be

negotiating this climate change, we have 26 critically important areas that you have to address. starting with climate change. but the specific meeting will not be the venue for climate change negotiation. climate change has a separate mandated process of negotiation, the united nations convention on climate change. we have the team negotiations. i have made his climate change as the number wantagh priority -- one top priority in the global agenda. without addressing climate change properly, as soon as possible, by 2020, who will be heading for almost the to pinpoint how of planet earth.

we are slowly approaching who our future. that is why i have been urging member states to agree on who will believe binding and comprehensive of agreements on climate change. last year in december, member states agreed to agree on a global treaty, a binding treaty by 2015. and for ratification, the target is by 2020, we will have consecutive binding comprehensive climate treaty. that is our target. there will be a strong commitment of the united nations to address this climate change.

we have many other issues like energy shortages, water scarcity, a food crisis. gender issues, global health, organization, transport. all of these are very important issues which you have to address very comprehensively, from a broad perspective for the future of our world. at last, about the small island in developing states, yesterday, i have a good meeting with a group of ambassadors coming in from the pacific island and developing states. you have a very powerful hong -- powerful group of small states whose future is affected by the rising sea. that is why you have to address

in this climate change as soon as possible. september of last year, i visited a small island in developing states in the pacific. for the first time, the secretary general of the un has ever visited in this small island, the pacific states. i was struck by what i have seen. this island is almost under the water. it continuously. my wife and i were given life jackets in case the tide might rise during nighttime. i saw many children whose

parents have to be very vigilant and watching the high rise during nighttime. i was struck when i read the theee or four weeks ago, heeh president of the country was negotiating to buy some land to relocate all of his country's population. because this island is sinking. for their future, for their survival. there are so many countries. that is why i have been raising alarms, beating drums on the importance and urgency of climate change. and i am very committed to addressing these issues, they

established the special bureau teeming with the small island developing states. the former cabinet meeting under the sea, those are real threats. which you don't feel much living in these prosperous states and countries. i am telling the citizens of the american government, you have to see beyond what your living. you don't feel anything real. even climate change you don't feel, but when you go out, millions of people whose life and are threatened by rising sea tides, the impact of drought, impact by climate change, the scarcity of water.

those are real threats which we have to help those people. the united nations is very much committed. that is why i am here, appealing to you. very important opinion makers. let us work together for the future of our generations and for the future of this planet earth. i thank you very much for this opportunity. [applause] >> thank you for your inspiration, please remain wary

-- where you are until the secretary general leaves. i would like to thank the government of denmark, thank those of you that participated, thank you for your inspiration, thank-you to the climate advisers have to our fantastic speakers. i hope you all to pick up a copy of the report which gives you an agenda for what the united states, what the role of the u.s. can be. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> shrinking, for better or worse, has always been a part of the american landscape. saturday night, a history of alcohol in america. our hosts regale with tales of beer saturday night at 8:00 eastern. this weekend on c-span 3.

this year's student camp competition asked students what part of the constitution to them and why. >> my favorite class is history. >> my favorite class is art. >> my favorite class is what studies or my business finance class. >> it will have to be on our systems electronics. >> i am doing that if i have an a or ap. -- or a b. >> i am doing pretty well. that and science are not my strong suit. >> not as well as i should be. i do not put in a lot of effort into my other classis. it is because i feel it is a waste of time. i am motivated to work for its. >> it is not something i am interested in, i do not feel it is applicable to license -- -- to life. >> i do not see a point to

learning that when i could be dancing. >> it is because i am not a mathematical person. and >> i like them so i work hard. in others, i take naps. >> i do my homework. [laughter] >> we often find ourselves asking, how does this apply? especially things like calculus. teachers say we learn what we learned so we can be more successful. sometimes, it seems like the only reason this can help us is because of the things the state requires. the 10th amendment of the constitution states that the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. the education system is included in those rights.

>> the writers of the constitution does find that something should be governed by a national level by the constitution and some things are better served through the states. and the government of individual states. >> the debate is that the government should take even more control over education. from the perspectives of many students, a standard curriculum does not leave them motivated. i do not get me wrong, as a student, i think there are many benefits to having a standard us curriculum. >> the benefits of status -- standarized curriculum or cut encourages your forces you to take classes that encourages students to expand out and try different things such as art or theater and music and then they can pursue that in college. >> the benefits are many. one of them is that again, students are learning the same thing.

influences on today curriculum are a round of federal assessments. the implication by the federal- state mandates. we are holding ourselves more accountable to that. i think all courses should be required. i think we need to focus on the whole child. kids need to have arts, graphic arts, visual arts, band, music, choir. at least a taste of all of those. they need to have math, science, english, social studies. if we fall short by giving them less courses and focusing only on what people think are the main things, we will lose them. they need to be able to make choices. be able to make decisions within disciplines. as educators, we are responsible to provide the resources that are good for them. >> the movement toward standardization of the curriculum began in 1983. the u.s. department of

education released a report that was very controversial called a nation at risk. it stated that the public's education system was being eroded by rising tide of mediocrity. >> we have a tradition of local control of the schools. that is a tradition that has served us well. but, i do think that is important for the federal government to step up and help local school districts do some of the things they need to do. >> i have to agree. it is important for the educators to have control over the students. however, i think the problem would stand up for a lot of students at the government were to step up and take more control at a national level. >> the current system is based more any time when society needed loads of people to run factories. with more specialization is, i feel like the u.s. could have more room to expand and refined in areas in which they excel.

we took a survey out of 100 high school students and 76 of them said they would rather work under non standardized education systems. that meant that 76 out of these 100 high-school students are not feeling motivated to work under the current circumstances. >> motivation plays a big part for students. as a student, it is hard to be motivated. if they do not see some pretty rapid motivations in for being in the class, they get tired of it quickly. they give up easier. >> approximately 69% of high- school dropout said they dropped out because they were not motivated. >> one of the benefits of a non standardized curriculum is that it allows for individuality and as an educator, my

responsibility is to make as much relevance to my subject to the kids as possible. i think if we got kids more motivated where they have academics and vocational and they get a chance to do that and get excited about it and the basic math and english and their courses like that apply to that particular job, if they see that, that is the answer. >> again, the debate is that the government should have more control over the content in schools. this is contradicting the 10th amendment here the 10th amendment holds with individuality means to education. to the educators who might be watching this, i have a question for you -- would you not rather students in america be the most successful they can be?

the 10th amendment mentions that the rights should be installed to the state, or to the people. i am speaking for the students of america when i say, do not standardized curriculum any further. keep what variety we have because variety is what makes us individuals. it is our individuality that motivates us. believe me, you'd be surprised what students can do when we are motivated. >> was that good? >> cool. all right. thank you. >> studencam.org to watch the winning videos. continue following us on facebook and twitter. >> in a few moments, arne duncan previews the juncker -- the president's trips next week. then former attorney general

michael mukasey on the war on terror. the remarks against the affordable health care act before the supreme court. a >> one of the things i remember because my building overlooking the plaza was that there was a day care center. some of the children were killed, others injured. during recess they would always come play and you would hear their voices. that left a lasting impression when they were silenced. my son, a friend of his had graduated and was working at the social security office. her father was a friend of mine. i had three messages. wanting to know what she could find out about his daughter, it did not look good, and the third

was when he was crying. >> watch our local content vehicles, exploring the culture of oklahoma city. with special bearings the weekend of may 5 and 6. and on american history tv on c- span 3. >> the white house press secretary and education secretary highlight the president's of coming trips to north carolina 0, colorado, and i want. during his three day trip, president obama will call on congress to prevent interest rates on student loans from dublin. it will affect subsidized stafford loans, issued to middle-income undergraduates. this is about 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. it is great to have you here today. as you can tell, i have with me

the secretary of education, arne duncan. this week, as i know you know, president obama is launching a concerted effort to get congress to stop the interest rate on student loans from doubling in july. secretary duncan is here to talk about that issue with you, to take questions on that issue from you. he can also take questions on other issues related to education. you know, it's worth noting that secretary duncan oversees the implementation of the president's education agenda, his vision for investment in education and education reform. and that latter piece, the education reform, is something that, in a way that is often unnoticed or unmentioned by folks in washington, has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. this is another issue that should enjoy broad bipartisan support, because you really have to have a brick in your head not to understand that education is the cornerstone of

our economic future. without it we cannot compete and win in the 21st century. and with that, i give you secretary duncan. >> thank you, jay. and good afternoon. next week, president obama is traveling to three states to talk about the fact that interest rates for new subsidized student loans are set to increase on july 1 unless congress acts to change that law. the rates were set by congress in 2007, and the current interest rate is 3.4%, and it will double without congress's action to 6.8%. based on the average loan amount, this will add more than $1,000 in costs over the life of that loan. for students who borrow heavily to go to college, it would obviously cost them even more. and we estimate that this interest rate increase will affect more than 7 million families expected to take out new loans this fall. at a time when going to college has never been more important, it has also, unfortunately, never been more expensive.

families and students are struggling to meet these costs, and there's no reason why we should add to their burden. and i have to tell you, as i've traveled throughout the country -- and i was just in iowa and wisconsin over the past two days with secretary vilsack -- not just in disadvantaged communities, but more and more middle-class families are starting to think college might not be for them, it's for rich folks. there's a real problem with that when we know going to college is the path to the middle class. next week, president obama will outline the administration's proposal to work with congress to keep interest rates down and spare working americans this added cost, this added burden. and all of us share responsibility for the cost of college -- from federal and state governments to educational institutions, students and their families. and because this issue is so important to our economy and to our future, our administration is doing more than ever before to address it and we have a number of proposals in our 2013 budget. with the support of congress, we have doubled -- doubled -- pell grant funding for low- income students, and nearly tripled tax credits for middle- class families. we've lowered the cap on

student loan payments to 15% of income, and we're going to lower it even further to 10 percent starting in 2014. the president, vice president biden, and myself and so many others have held town halls all across the country to talk about the cost of college. we've met with university presidents, governors, state legislators and members of congress. and next week, the president will meet with students at the university of north carolina at chapel hill, the university of colorado at boulder, and the university of iowa in iowa city. these three universities are among the nation's educational jewels, and we should do everything possible to ensure that they remain affordable. and we also know that 2012 marks the 150th anniversary of the morrill act, which was signed into law by president abraham lincoln and created the first public universities. i think we have an amazing opportunity to honor lincoln's vision and secure our economic future by working together to ensure that college remains

affordable for all americans. i'll stop there. i'm happy to take any questions you may have. yes, sir. >> mr. secretary, this afternoon the white house is going to be screening a viewing of the movie, bully. one piece of legislation that will protect lgbt students against bullying is called the student non- discrimination act to prohibit harassment and discrimination against lgbt students in school. is the administration prepared to endorse that legislation at this time? >> well, we have to continue to do everything we can to make sure that there is zero tolerance for this. and i met with one of the young women in the movie this morning with her father. this is very personal for me and for the president. we all have children who are in school now. and whenever children are going to school scared, when it's hard to concentrate on biology and algebra -- so as a country -- hopefully you've seen an unprecedented level of support from our administration -- first-ever anti-bullying summit here in the white house. the president has talked about his own experiences there. you've seen many states toughen laws to try and protect students from bullying. until our children are safe and secure at recess, in the morning, after school -- and it's not just physical bullying, it's cyber bullying, as you know. and i'll tell you, some of my

toughest meetings have been with parents who have lost their children who have committed suicide due to the impact. so we all have to continue to work together. i think this movie is very tough, it's very hard-hitting, but it tells the truth, and hopefully it will create a greater awareness around the country. this cannot be a normal rite of passage; can't accept it. yes, ma'am. >> and on the legislation? >> thank you. is the president going to call next week for a one-year or temporary freeze in the interest rate, or is he going to ask congress to pass a permanent -- >> well, i think we need to fix it now. we have an immediate crisis, so let's fix it right now. but let's think about the long term as well. and again, this has always enjoyed bipartisan support. we have to educate our way to a better economy. we know the jobs of the future are going to go to those folks with some higher education. and so to not do this together just doesn't make sense to me. >> so you would support a short- term -- such as a one-time freeze? >> well, i think we need to get the immediate issue dealt with now. but let's all work together as a country to work on the long-term issue as well. yes, sir. >> mr. secretary, what do you say to republicans who call this a created controversy, that this is a deadline that comes out of democratic legislation, that this is coming up right before an election and that the president is taking it out on

the campaign trail? how do you respond to those criticisms? >> the facts are very, very simple. this passed in 2007 with broad bipartisan support. it was signed by a republican president. we all understand that if we want to keep jobs in this country -- we're not competing in our little districts and in our states, we're competing against india and china and singapore and south korea -- and if we want to keep those good jobs here we have to have an educated workforce. and i have lots of data -- you guys all know this, but over the past year if you have less than a high school diploma, there's been a decrease of about 200,000 jobs in this country if you have some college or an associate's degree, an increase of about 750,000 jobs. and if you have a bachelor's degree or more, we've had about 1.4 million new jobs created. and we know those trends are only going to continue. so we all have to -- again, this isn't a republican or democratic or -- i could care less about politics and ideology. this is about we need an educated workforce. and it's fascinating to me that in a really tough economic time like this, we have 2 million high-wage, high-skilled jobs that are unfilled because we're not producing the employees with the skills that employers

are looking for. i can't tell you how many ceo's i've met with and the president has met with who have said, we're trying to hire now; we're not trying to export jobs, but you're not producing the workers. we don't just have a jobs issue now -- we have a skills crisis. we have a skills gap. we have to close that skills gap. the only way we do that is to have a lot more young people graduate from college and go on to -- graduate from high school and go on to college. >> just to be clear, you're saying that republicans are wrong to suggest that this is being brought up as a wedge issue? >> absolutely. this was passed five years ago in a bipartisan way. no reason it shouldn't pass again in a bipartisan way. it was signed by a republican governor. we have to educate our way to a better economy. that is not a republican or a democrat or any issue -- that's just a -- that's just reality. yes, sir. >> mr. secretary, you said that it would increase the average loan by $1,000 over its life. what is the life of an average loan? >> it depends, but the average is 12 years. it varies. and so for each year this doesn't happen it would be an additional $1,000. so if it doesn't happen this year, it's $1,000. another year, $2,000. and again, right now, we know

debt from college exceeds credit card debt in this country. something is wrong with that picture. we don't need to increase that debt. we need to keep it where it is, at a minimum. and obviously, we've done so much to try and make college more affordable -- we've talked about pell grants, perkins loans increases. we're asking for the ability to double work-study opportunities. college has to be affordable for the middle class and for folks aspiring to go to the middle class. and unfortunately, many, many, many american families -- again, all types of neighborhoods, all types of backgrounds -- are starting to think college isn't for them. that's a real problem. >> secretary duncan, you have a lot of zest at the podium about this issue. let me use a term that's familiar to you -- are you going to put some skin in the game -- going on the hill, you and the president, talking about this? >> i'll do whatever it takes. and i've been out traveling the country every single week talking about this for a long time. i've done a number of town halls with the vice president. the president has been out there. he's going to three different universities next week. and this is, again, one where it just -- i know you guys love politics and love all that stuff -- that's zero of my interest. i'm not any good at it, don't

care about it. we need a lot more young people to go to college and to graduate. that's all this is about. and when families start to think that they can't afford college, that is not good for those families, for those communities, or for our country. >>but are you willing to go to the hill -- >> of course. absolutely. absolutely. whatever it takes, we'll keep working it. yes, ma'am. >> secretary duncan, i want to ask you a question about school safety. today is the 13th anniversary of columbine. the fifth anniversary of virginia tech passed this week. obviously a lot of lessons have been learned, but from your perspective, what more needs to be done? >> it's a great question - they don't have easy answers. i think we as a nation have learned a tremendous amount about the warning signs and about acting very, very quickly when there is an issue. but i just sort of take it right back to the bullying issue, that when we have children or young adults or high school students who don't feel safe, who aren't secure, you can't begin to be as effective as you need to and concentrate academically. and so creating a climate that is free of violence, free of fear, where young people can concentrate on what's going on in class is desperately

important. so i think there's been a lot of progress. we've actually seen a reduction in violence, which has been very encouraging. but one incident is obviously one incident way too many. and i come at this more as a parent than anything else. i have a 10-year-old daughter and an 8-year-old son, and i don't want them or anyone else's children having to worry about this going to school each day. >> can you also speak, aside from the bullying aspect, the mental health aspect -- because, for instance, in both of those shootings, that may have played a bigger role than bullying or an atmosphere of violence -- identifying -- >> i think that's correct. and universities, peers, fellow students, when we're seeing something that doesn't feel right or doesn't look right, raising those alarms early and letting folks know that this is a student or a young person or a young adult with some issues that are worrying -- we have to have those conversations. and so often in these situations -- not always, but so often, there's some signs, there's some indications that this person isn't stable. and i think we have to take

those -- unfortunately, we have to take those very, very seriously. it's not something we can sort of blow through. >> mr. secretary, congressman kline's office just issued a statement as you were coming to the podium, basically saying that no one has offered a serious proposal, meaningful proposal to pay for this $6 billion stopgap. what do you see as the way to pay for this so that we are not borrowing more money, adding to -- >> the president's budget contained a number of proposals to pay for it -- again, something we want to work very closely with congress to do. and we need to pay for it. we're committed to paying for it. lots of ideas out there -- the president will talk more about them next week -- but absolutely want to work with congress. i have tremendous respect for chairman kline. we've had a very, very good working relationship. and again, this is the right thing to do for the country and for his families in minnesota. >> mr. secretary, how would you go about balancing the reality of the cost of college with the concerns up there that allowing more access to more credit would create possibly a student loan bubble down the road

>> how would you balance this with the concerns allowing more credit would create a student loan bubble and increase college tuition? >> the most important thing we can do is to have young people graduate. that is the best investment we can make. if you have no debt, that is the best situation. but this is not bad debt to have. there is data on jobs and how much your earning potential through your life time goes up. this is the best long-term investment you can make. but we are worried about debt going higher and higher. when we have an opportunity to work together to prevent that escalation of debt, this is the right thing to do. i expect folks to step up and do that. >> is there no link between access to loans and rising cost of tuition? >> people say with these programs tuition goes up. look over 30 years. 19 of the year's programs went up. -- of the years, pell grants went up. 10 of the years, they went down. every year, tuition went up.

we are trying to increase grants, the biggest since the gi bill. but states have to invest. we cannot do this ourselves. and universities have to reduce tuition and build cultures around completion. we want to build a scorecard so families can make good choices about good education at a reasonable cost. that transparency and shared responsibility is important. >> [unintelligible] a delegation from india is in town. they are talking about opening 100 or more colleges in india. a high-level delegation is

coming from that country in june to washington, d.c. >> i have met repeatedly with my counterpart, the education minister in india. he is an amazing man. whatever we can do to be helpful, we want to do that. the first time anyone of that stature in and the administration has had that community college background -- whatever we can do to partner with india, we want to do that. some very ambitious goals, but we want to see them achieve it. >> once, india was a house of knowledge. today, india has hundreds of colleges, universities, and schools. how can india hope america? >> we are all in this together. i believe a rising tide lifts all boats. the more we have an educated

work force in america and india, both employees and consumers, that is great for the world. we want to partner together. i think we have the best system of higher education in the world. we have amazing community colleges. 3 over the last few decades in wisconsin and iowa. -- two days in wisconsin and iowa. whatever we can do to help india with its ambitious growth pattern, we want to do that. >> what is so special about these three universities the president is going to visit? do they have a higher rate of students using loans? >> these are public for year universities that folks have -- four-year universities that folks have concern about paying for, flagship universities with large student populations. these are the middle class families having a hard time paying for this.

we want more young people going to these types of universities. yesterday in iowa, i talked to a high-school senior who happens to be a twin. her brother was not there. her family is thinking they have to choose which one can go to college this year. a really deep conversation. no family should have to choose this job or that child. another is one of four in their family. does the older one not go, or the younger one not go? these are hard conversations in madison, wisconsin. these are the real conversations families are having. you should not have to sacrifice one student for the other. he should not have to sacrifice your eldest for your fourth going. -- fourth born. we need to make sure these opportunities stay there. >> if you have an option for paying for it? >> there are in number of ideas

the president proposed in his budget. we are working with congress. we are not set on one idea. but the cost of inaction is, i think, unacceptably high. we have to get our act together. congress is struggling, no question. if there is one issue folks can unite behind, i cannot think of a better one than educating your way to economy. for all the past fighting, why not do the right thing for the country? this is a great opportunity for folks on both sides. >> have you already started going to the hill, talking with lawmakers? >> i have testified to or three times over the last couple of weeks. i will testify again next week. people see the opportunity to do the right thing and the huge cost of inaction. >> what are you doing to rein in the rising tuition cost? >> one big thing is we are

proposing a billion dollar raced to the top for higher education. we put money in the states that continue to invest and in those colleges that keep their costs down and create a culture around completion. it has to be around completion, not just access. there has been a lack of transparency. families are making complicated decisions. it is hard to figure out what the financial aid package is in one university versus another. young people what a great education. they want value for their money as well. we want to move resources more toward universities doing things right, away from those that are not. we have 6000 options for higher education. we want young people to make the right choice for them. >> thank you, secretary duncan. thank you all for your

questions. >> former attorney general michael mukasey on the state of war on terror. after that, one of the lead attorneys arguing against the affordable health care act before the supreme court. then, a discussion on wage increases and salary trends over the past eight decades. >> on tomorrow morning of the washington journal, a look at the 2012 congressional pay book. then we hear from the natural resources defense council. we will discuss fuel consumption in the u.s. and. later, a discussion on the imf and world bank meetings. a former imf executive board member explains the current

eurozone situation. washington journal takes your calls and e-mail's all live every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> when i was embedded in eastern afghanistan, the soldiers tried to tell me the u.s. government was wasting tens of billions of dollars on the development and logistic contracts. >> douglas wissing finds corruption from top to bottom >> this is not long after president obama took office. the state senator was out there saying they were going to give us a whole bunch of development money. colonel coward said do not send any more money.

send me contract officers beckon oversee this stuff. i need people, i do not need more money. >> by rolling the enemy sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c- span's q and a. on may 6, but for our "q&a" interview with robert caro. this multivolume biography of lyndon johnson. >> the former attorney general michael mukasey criticized. obama's stance on radical islam saying he does not acknowledge that a war on terror continues. he made the remarks at the national republican lawyers association conference in washington, d.c. he talked about the rise of radical as law and the muslim brotherhood from the 1920's and why should real law is so dangerous. michael mukasey was attorney general under president george

bush from 2007-2009. this is 60 minutes. >> born and raised in new york and thanks to a towering intellect, superb work ethic, he excelled in school at columbia college and yale law school. for the first 20 years in his legal career, he worked at a top shelf law firm in new york taking off for years to serve as an assistant united states attorney in the southern district of new york. he had a well earned a

reputation as a premier litigator, a lawyer's lawyer, who could do it all. a lawyer who's written work and oral arguments broke the curve. in 1988, president reagan appointed him to the seventh district bench where he served as a district judge. in 2000, he was elevated to the chief judge of the seventh district of new york where he presided until his retirement in 2006. among the many celebrated cases judge mukasey handled was the case of omar abdul amman, the blind sheik. teaching the world how the american justice system works and ultimately sentencing the shake and his fellow terrorists to life imprisonment. he then returned to private practice having spent the

majority of his career in public service. a year later, he answered the call to public service again when president bush asked him to become the attorney general of the united states. -- united states and guide the department of justice through some very stormy waters. at a press conference on his nomination, judge mukasey said, "the task of helping protect our security, which the justice department shares with the rest of our government, is not the only task before us. the justice department must also protect the safety of our children. the justice department must also protect the safety of our children. the congress ensures our prosperity and the rights and liberty that define us as a nation. once again, he brought a steady hand, guided by a moral compass that was and is infallible. an understanding of the constitutional role of the doj

and a complete mastery of the law. he restored the nation's faith in the agency, a faith, i fear, is once again is imperiled. in february 2009, judge mukasey retired once again from government service and joined a private firm where he continues to practice law. we all owe a debt of gratitude to this great man who has served our country with distinction and continues to be a voice of reason, articulating how the constitution and federal law empowers our elected officials to protect citizens from terrorism and tierney if they are willing to exercise their lawful authority. i am thankful i do not have to figure out if i must address him as a general, a judge, or judge-general because through it all, he is mike mukasey, a man for all seasons who has always answered the call for public service and, happily for us, shares his wisdom with us today. i give you judge michael mukasey.

[applause] >> i want to thank larry for my notes. i think i should change it kind introduction to "lavished introduction." i thank you for inviting me. it is a real pleasure to be in front of an audience that has both republican and lawyer in its title. that is a rare occurrence of these days, but at least i am it ensured when you hear somebody talk about the importance of preserving and defending this country, a country defined by a constitution -- by doing so based on legal principles, the principles apply in the service of politics, they do not start

to look uncomfortable and shifting their feet and began to look at their experiences. i also want to stop for a minute and urge you to finish your lunch. i have delivered many clutched speeches. i am neither distracted by the merry tinkle of crockery or flatwear. your qualifications make you the ideal audience with whom to discuss not only what i think should be regarded as a threat to the country and civilization that we all value. i also want to go a little bit further and examine whether those charged with responding to that threat have their minds fully into it. first, we have to understand

the real nature and some of the history of that threat. it comes from islamism, or political is long as opposed to the religion itself. it has been on display in courtrooms in this country since at least 1994 and is now on display as i speak a in the district of new york where some folks who were plotting to blow up the new york city subway are on trial. this threat posed a question asked long before 911. that question is how a nation that is defined by a constitution sets bounds on the government's relationship with religion and disregards the idea of a self government as a sacrilege. how is it that after 10 years after 911 and 60 years after

one of the earliest islamist said we were incompatible with his religion, more than 20 years after terrorist bombs traceable to the movement, and more than 15 years after a son of bin laden made specific his intentions by saying he and others like my dad were at war with us. we still seem to grapple with what it is we are living with. in a sense, we are constitutionally ill-equipped to deal with it. perhaps because of a religious experience in public life, our constitution -- in article vi, it bars any religious text for public office.

-- tenant as a qu alification for public office. the first amendment means religion out of the public square to the point where even a prayer at an official school function, is forbidden. we tend to think about religion, if we think about it at all, as only one aspect of a person's life, and a private aspect at that. in a sense, it is natural for people to live in such an atmosphere not to be on the lookout for others who for religion is not only a way of life, but life itself. that is where the attack is coming from. 9/11 was certainly not the beginning. as a matter of history, islamism so far as it holds this country in a combination of all, and content, has been around as long -- as the other two ism's

we combated in the last century islamism traces back to egypt in the 1920's when the loosely organized muslim brotherhood was established. it was founded largely as a reaction to the modernizing at influence but of the person who dismantled what was left of the muslim caliphate in turkey. the drug the country by its lapels into the 20th century. it was an educator and a bureaucrat in the egyptian government. there was enough trouble in egypt to get himself a fellowship in 1948. that was the year albano was killed. that allows it was intended to

have the benign effect of staying out of the country for a while. it did have that effect, but he chose to travel to the united states, in particular, to colorado. i think it could be very hard to imagine a more sedate place than post-world war ii, colorado. he hated everything he saw. american enthusiasm for sports, jazz, when he caught an animal- like mixing of the sexes, even in church. his conclusion was americans were "numb to faith in religion and spiritual values altogether." he went back to egypt, quit the civil service, and joined the muslim brotherhood. the muslim brotherhood continues to agitate for a refer to reform. -- return to fundamentalist

islam. they welcomed the coup against the king farouk in 1952. they became disillusioned. the continued to write and agitate against western civilization, particularly against jews, who believed were atheistic materialist and considered the worst enemy of muslims. he was immensely reelected and hanged in egypt in 1967. at that time, many members of the of brotherhood fled to saudi arabia where they found ideological sustenance. his brother was among those who fled. he taught the doctrine in saudi arabia. among his students were al- zawahiri, who took over the operation when osama bin laden was killed.

the rest, as they say, is history. that history did not come on september 11, to double-a-1, or september 26, 1993 when a truck bomb went off on in the basement of the world trade center killing six people, causing millions of dollars in damage in what would eventually be called the first world trade center bombing. the in the 1980's, a couple of fbi agents saw some taking some particularly aggressive target practice. as the agents approached, they were accused of "racial profiling." they backed off. in at the 1990's, one of those men participating in that target practice would assassinate a right-wing israeli politician as he gave a speech in the ballroom of a manhattan hotel.

the case was treated by the manhattan be a as the lone act of a lone gunman. in the 1993 world trade center bombing, it became apparent that the assassination had not been the lone act of a long gunman. in fact, when a party's reviewed the amateur video of the speech the night he was killed, they discovered one of the 1993 bombers had been in the hall when he was shot. a further investigation showed another driving a vehicle. they were seized from a warehouse. they sought the material included documents that called for the destruction of western civilization, among other ways, toppling tall buildings. a flaw resulted in the assassination of sadat.

-- fatwah resulted in the assassination of anwar sadat. a fatwah resulted in the 9/11 attacks. several were convicted in for disobeying a in a conspiracy to conduct terror in this country. it included the murder, the fur trade center bombing, a plot to blow up other landmarks around new york. mubarak when he visited the united nations and on and on. all of this was treated as a series of crimes. on conventional crimes may be, but crimes. in 1986 and 1988 osama bin laden declared that he and his cohorts were at war with the united states.

a declaration that got little attention. there was the usual mantra of bringing them to justice. an indictment included bin laden as the main defendant. apparently he was unimpressed, or at least, undeterred. in 2000, he killed 16 u.s. sailors in in yemen and would have carried out the bombing of another naval vessel but for the fact the barge carrying the explosives was overloaded and sank. that leads us out to september 2001. wartell finally that we were at war, which was more than 50 years after being told that islamist would have to make war with us, after islamist made it clear there were training for

war with us, and five years after osama bin laden made it official with a declaration of war. if as loss of one was reject if islamism was just about blowing up people, that would be bad enough. we have a network that sometimes the text our enemies and a robust military. violence is not the ultimate end. it is simply a means to that end. the end is the imposition of sharia, a comprehensive framework that has spiritual impact that regulates all the paper -- economic, social, legal, military. it lays its claim to be divinely inspired. surely at is a totalitarian and profoundly anti-democratic. pieces of this comprehensive framework come peeking through in the supports of of violence in this country.

the terrorism trial over which i presided in which the defendants were charged with participating in bombing of various landmarks in new york city? a conspiracy that was in full traded by an informant who tape-recorded the discussions among the participants. one conversation between the informants and the defendant commented that the society in this country was one in which anything was available -- pornography, anything. to me, the observation not out of aberration but out of content and the belief that such a society was brought into the core and would collapse easily

under the pressure of islam. in the terraced financing at trial in 2008, it was introduced into evidence a document on the general strategic goal for the group. the phrase "the group" apparently refers to the muslim brotherhood in america. the document was written in 1991. it explains that the islamic movement is a "supplement process" establish itself in the united states. robert spencer has described it as "self jihad." the documentation called it a grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the western

civilization from within and sabotaging the hands of the believers so it is eliminated and god is made victorious over all other religions. shariah is not simply a muslim country. it is any place where militants can and do exercise control some neighborhoods in european cities -- france, england, and sweden -- shariah is enforced with the suppression of local all with some of the neighborhoods becoming "no-go zone." spain is referred to as a place to be reclaimed. a proposed mosque at ground

zero in new york was to be named "cordova house." the implementation of shariah is the goal of jihad. the information is readily accessible. shariah contains the obligation to wage jihad against nonbelievers. jihad is obligatory for every muslim. some call it a personal struggle for self improvement.

it is the obligatory struggle. that doctrine regards treaties as a temporary ploy's within the struggle. it permits, indeed it urges, takia. shazzad was a talent at a sentencing. she asked did you not take an oath when you became a citizen to the country? his response was, yes, but i did not mean it. are there no moderate muslims? of course there are. millions of them reside among us in the united states as loyal americans. millions more reside around the world. there are even places where they are in power, such as indonesia, the most populous muslim country in the world.

some disregard the cries for shariah. a brave few are struggling to create a theoretical and doctrinal basis for combating islamist. they include someone who heads an organization called the american islamic forum for democracy. i hope you will all buy it when it is published. an australian academic recently delivered a lecture hanting there are ways in which one can use passages from the koran to oppose classical sharia. it was published under the title "the islamic case for religious liberty."

the incredible part of the story is it is a catholic, not a muslim publication. make no mistake, as onerous as they may be, the moderates are the weaker minority. the majority of view is stated succinctly by a political leader. he said the term moderate islam is offensive. he said there is no moderate islam area is long is islam, that is it. that politician is the prime minister of the muslim nation of turkey. what of the arab spring? what indeed. as events unfolded in tahrir square, we watched the coverage on twitter and facebook. even less coverage of the emergence of the sinai peninsula as a refuge for hamas- trained terrorists.

there was virtually no coverage of the return to egypt by a sheik that was exiled by mubarak and take a sermon upon his return. he was known as a liberal and a reformer. he issued a fatwah that authorizes women to participate in suicide bombings. indonesia -- islamists are in control. someone called for the public hanging of someone who taught at the university of tunisia and said he should be joined on

the gallows by another tunisian freethinker. a column said that was the new islam with a sense of irony and humor. it is well known that alcohol is consumed in tunisia. the united states at a bad experience a couple of decades ago. apparently, the spiritual successor to the parade of soviet premiere's in the 1970's. one after another, we were told they must be a man of peace because they drank scotch. [laughter] how is the threat met by those who of the responsibility for protecting us?

not very well, i would suggest. the effects are obvious. but the obama signed a declaration to close at guantanamo and to a ban the cia's successful interrogation program. it goes back before that. in the 2008 campaign, the current attorney general said the previous administration had "authorized the use of fact torture, approved a secret surveillance against american citizens without due process of law, denied a writ of habeas corpus, and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the united states constitution." he added that "we of the american people eight reckoning." that reckoning started on the second day of the administration at the signing ceremony for executive orders. at the ceremony, the private

and now that through these orders we will take the moral high ground in the struggle against terrorists. apparently he felt, and for all i know still feels, that success itself is not sufficient to claim the moral high ground. the reckoning continued in april to tell the nine with the public release upper classified department of justice memorandums. they analyzed the reality of the cia's interrogation procedures adopted after 9/11. that disclosure apparently was designed to stir outrage that would drive up further reckoning. when it failed to do so because the memo had made clear the length to which the cia had gone to avoid violating the law, the attorney general announced he was reopening the investigation into cia personnel involved in interrogation. cases that had been closed after diligent investigation by

career department of justice prosecutors were preparing detailed memos declining what papered -- what they declined to proceed in each case. the attorney general testified he had not bothered reading the memos before he reopened the cases. november 2009, the attorney general announced he was proceeding in which ksm had announced he intended to plead guilty so he could achieve martyrdom. the attorney general announced "we will bring him to new york and try him in civilian court to show the world that we are dedicated to upholding the law and we are afraid." apparently the military commission act was not among the loss used to uphold it at that time when congress forced his hand and withheld funds, he

proceeded to do the inevitable. at a press conference, he insisted he had been right all along but was going on with ignorance and irresponsible legislators. the president of the islamic society of north america was invited to the white house to attend a dinner in 2010. you may recall that event as the occasion with a prayer that and out support of the construction of the mosque at ground zero in new york -- the cordova house. another brotherhood affiliated organization, the council on american islamic relations, which was also named as a co- conspirator in the elan foundation case, was in 2008 a target of outrage by the fbi and had systematically tried to

place in terms on congressional committees. the evidence in the home when case found it was a hamas front. the institution of higher learning that gave us the definitive guide to islam was been chosen by the president to deliver his famous outreach speech in cairo in 2009, to which he invited members of the muslim brotherhood much to the consternation of the government in egypt then headed by mubarak. when our secondary of state was in tunisia at a town hall meeting, she was asked the following question -- after the electoral campaigns and in the united states, most of the candidates from both sides run to lobbies to get their support at afterwords thank their

electorate that comes to show their support for countries like to these and egypt. how would you reassure and gain of trust again given the fact that you're supporting his enemies at the same time? my answer -- and this is from someone who when a questioner asked a couple of years ago what her as one would say about a particular subject took umbrage and said she was not there to channel her husband. her response to this question was it was a "fair question." "a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention. there are comments that certainly do not reflect the united states, our foreign policy, or who we are as a people per "she advised the questioner to "watch what are the that obama says and does. he represents all of the united states and he will be reelected president.

it will be a very clear signal to the rest of the world as to what our values are and what our president believes." i would concede the administration in which i served was not a model of clarity. we recalled immediately after 911 that islam was a religion of peace. the director of national security, later secretary of state, said it was a religion of love and peace that had been kidnapped by extremists. there are reasons for that, including such diverse situations as our experience with the treatment of the japanese in world war ii, which we do not want to repeat. the relatively recent phenomenon of political correctness. but to understand how far we have come, imagine for a moment how president roosevelt would have been deceived if he had given up on december 8, 1941, and told congress that the

people have been kidnapped by militants. we have come a lot further in the last three years. terrorism is out. in august 2011, the white house issued a strategy paper for dealing with what we used to call terrorism. it does not use the word terrorism. it is called "empowering local powers to prevent violent extremism in the united states." it is not only violent, it is dangerous. the motivating doctrines are the mainstream of the religion from which they spring and empowering local partners. if the local partners or organizations like care, they are more likely to improve our situation. the paper identifies the challenges and tells us "throughout history, armed

extremists, individuals who support or commit ideological motivated violence, justified the killing of innocents." it is supposed to be "a community-based approach." to the extent the villains are identified as al qaeda, it comes ossining like a motorcycle game. to the extent that muslims are referred to as a targets. there is no reference at all to recruitment although at these are dangerous problems. the document is intended to sound innocuous, and it does. small wonder it was supported by care and organizations similarly minded. what is the danger of the document? take a long look at the social change that is overtaken some changes -- some countries in

europe, including france and sweden. that is what comes with it dealing quickly through local stakeholders. the document also overlooks that even before 9/11, participants have been radicalized not in moslem centers, but in the west. the terrorist who took over the plane in pennsylvania was raised in beirut where it was said he never missed a party.

all of these and many others were radicalized in the west. what of the killing of a son of bin laden and al-awlaqi? does that not mean that those in control have changed their view? before you decide that, examine the surrounding circumstances before you determine that what you are looking at is simply an event, an episode, or a change in policy. wasladen's killing announced with great fanfare. a trove of intelligence information and besieged by his residence and we have learned the location of numerous al qaeda safe houses. for someone who understands the value of intelligence, when someone make an announcement like that for a feel-good moment when it could lead to a

loss of potential targets? what about al-awlaqi? it was announced that the drone killing was justified and went to a list of criteria included the certainty that al-awlaqi was a situation a terrorist and the and feasibility of capture as justifying the strike against an american citizen. it is interesting to contemplate how we would have gained intelligence from him if we had captured al-awlaqi when all the u.s. government employers use the army field manual to conduct interrogations'. that manual has been available on the internet for years and is regularly used by terrorist as a training manual. we have no classified interrogation program at all. those who may be interrogated know precisely what to expect and what they expect our techniques from a manual designed for use a long time

ago. there were no interrogation programs by the fbi a. he was given his miranda rights and put into the criminal justice system. however, the investigation of cia operatives showed the justice breyer department had time to organize. what of the larger struggle? obviously, there are limits to how a governor -- government like us can defend itself in the society it governs. the -- if the first amendment means anything, it means our garment cannot pick winners and losers in doctrinal disputes. that is something we have to decide on our own. but it can take rational steps to defend itself and avoid a rational steps that undermine security.

first, those charged with protecting our security have a duty to understand and teach _ under -- teach others under their authority what the tenets of our of those who would destroy our country. perhaps it was not necessary we fought the axis powers of germany and japan. we simply laughed those countries to smithereens. it was much more necessary to understand the enemy when we fought communism. also, they are charged with the responsibility to avoid a strengthening the hands of those trying to undermine our way of life. again, the council on american islamic relations is a branch of hamas.

the islamic society of north america is a branch of the muslim brotherhood. the muslim brotherhood takes itself up back. it is a motto, which has not changed to this day, is "ala is our objective, the koran as our law, a jihad is our way, dying in the fate of ala is hope." people in power are reaching out to them. they not only damage themselves , but we strengthen of them in the islamist community. in addition, those charged with protecting us have a duty to avoid self-censorship beckon wind up with others as well. for example, the after action report on major hassan's

massacre does not mention the word is long. the army chief of staff said on television after that event is that the greatest tragedy would be if it had a negative effect on the army's diversity program. a principal national-security and counter-terrorism adviser to credit obama -- to president obama is a deep thinker. he said that while the extremists are products of "political, economic forces that should not be declined because it would make -- should not be described because it would be the wrong impression political, economic, as social forces? successorladen's planned and carried out the 2007

attack at an airport. he is a position. abdul mccullough tried to blow up himself and fellow passengers on christmas day in 2009. a product of political, economic, as social forces? i imagine john brennan. he is a perfect symbol of the kind of soft headed dissident that has infected the discourse of public figures. not that this is new. it is not. márquez said in the 1920's, and tight communism is fashionable in some circles in the 1950's. a great liberal judge, leonard hand, often called the greatest appellate judge to sit, -- the

spirit of liberty is a spirit that is not so sure it is right. that may be not exactly true, at least in a formidable and builds its. it may have been an affordable indulgence at the time he said it, late spring of 1944 when victory was not around the corner. today, when you are up against people who are not sure they are right to fly airplanes into buildings, we are doubly certain the spirit of liberty is short enough and those responsible for protecting us are sure enough it is right to keep our spirit alive. i thank you that very much. -- i thank you very much. [applause]

>> you may recall i introduced to the judge by mentioning his moral compass being and fallible. he has agreed -- we have a few minutes. we can take two-three questions if you like. yes, sir? >> [unintelligible]

islam is a religion, and hispanic people who misuse their name to spread terror all over the world. i love your country. i have been here many times. i had departure of knowing president bush.

-- had the pleasure of knowing president bush. i had the pleasure of meeting tip o'neill and president nixon. as a great friend of a great nation and also as a great friend of israel, which i respect enormously, this was created by those who were denied the right -- now they try to crush their spirit. it was evident in germany. >> do you have a question? [applause] >> yes, i have a question. >> please ask your question. >> my point is this, you must not mix religion. thank you. [applause]

>> first of all, i believe explicitly in my talked i was distancing between islam and islamism. several times. second, if you do not know about it, you should. i want to get -- i do not want to get into a debate. you and i both know that the people who are misusing their religion are quoting from the same karan you quoted up from when they call people descendants of apes, pigs, and so forth. the line has to be drawn someplace. people like you would be the people to draw it. people like me cannot be the people to draw it. i am heartened to see you here today. thank you very much. [applause]

>> yes, thank you, judd general. -- judge general. >> michael. >> michael. just call me paul. i think your remarks are great and i would hope to post at on our web site so we can share it with your colleagues. >> i hope someone will also post the remarks of the gentleman who spoke and my remarks to him because it properly conveys the entire occasion. >> my question is with respect to the history of prosecuting the terrorists you talked about. of course, the military review commission in guantanamo. what is your view? should they be tried in a

military court or do we need a hybrid, a specialized court? >> i think a hybrid, specialized court is the answer. it is either civilian courts or military commissions. civilian courts are the wrong place for a variety of reasons. both moral because the rules of war have been developed over centuries. so that if you wear a uniform, carry arms openly, follow a recognized chain of command, and do not talk to civilians, you are entitled to protection of the geneva conventions and can be held for hostility. if you violate all of those rules and target civilians, we have a better deal for you. we take you to a civilian court where you are tried in public and have a platform for your use. you can have a lawyer tried to mislead a jury.

on the other hand, military commissions, we have had military conditions -- commissions in the past but we have never done a long term. i do not know that the military part is in it. the military is not there to run a parallel justice system. is there to win wars by blowing stuff up and killing people. which is what you are supposed to do and what they do very well. you do not win wars by running a parallel justice system, particularly a justice system that is one where society is offloading an unpleasant problem and telling you, please deal with it out of our sight. what is called for is a third kind of tribunal that would be created by congress. ideally, presided over by judges so people would have faith in

the proceedings with jurors drawn from the military. and trials held using rules and evidence that would allow evidence to be introduced that was gathered on the battlefield so you do not have to necessarily comply with all of the rigorous federal evidence. congress does not show any sign of doing that. yes. >> mr. attorney general, i have had the privilege of teaching the arid -- the origins of terrorism so i appreciate your remarks. it is much misunderstood. i have two questions. how do you respond judicially to judges who attempt to adopt sharia law by using contracts between private individuals who agree that sharia law will adjudicate their controversies. my follow up is, how do you

objectively, what you project for the inclusion of sharia law into the judiciary of this country? >> so far as providing for sharia law, if you are talking about a commercial case, in theory, there is no reason why you cannot do that. if parties agree that they want to arbitrate in front of an arbitrator and agree to take that arbitrator's decision, then rules that apply under sharia law will apply. there is no reason to avoid that. we do it in other settings as well. you can choose farm law to govern an arbitration if there is an actual connection and both parties agree. so far as sharia law getting into the basis for decision in u.s. law, it has happened a couple of times and has been turned around a couple of times. the famous judge in new jersey dismissed charges for a defendant who raped his wife

because he thought it was legally permissible for him to do that under his religion. the judge said, he practices a different religion and therefore, this is a defense and he dismissed the case. an appellate court turned that around and i do not think we are in any actual danger of having that happen. that is not to say that courts should not be aware of it and deal with it. the problem is when you get enclaves in which not everybody has a choice about what law applies. that is what has gone on in europe and that is what we want to avoid. yes? >> senator schumer has recommended -- [inaudible] >> sure. she is a superb lawyer and a

superb person. i have worked with her on a number of cases. i think she would make an excellent addition to the federal bench. she is a good, sound, common sense lawyer with her head screwed on to the front, which is what you need in a district judge. she is also not easily bored, which is also what you need in a successful district judge. i worked with her and i think the world of hurt. -- of her. i thank you all but the clock has told us it is time to move on. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> supreme court attorney michael carven spoke at the national republican lawyers association policy conference. he is one of the lead attorneys

who argued against the constitutionality of the affordable care act health-care law before the supreme court in march. he represents the national federation of independent business, arguing that the entire law is unconstitutional. this is 20 minutes. >> i hope everybody enjoyed the breakout sessions. we will get started with our final speaker of the day before our reception and open bar. we are very happy to have mike carvin, who focuses on constitutional appellate. he has argued numerous cases with the united states supreme court and every federal appeals court. these include decisions preventing the justice department from obtaining monetary relief against the tobacco industry, overturning the federal government's plan to adjust the census, limiting the justice department's ability to create minority majority

districts. mike was one of the lead lawyers and argued before the supreme court on behalf of george w. bush in the 2000 recount controversy. mike is a graduate of george washington law school and learned his bachelor's from tulane. he has served as deputy assistant attorney general, special assistant to assistant attorney general civil rights division and he knows a few things about obamacare which is why he is here today. please welcome to the stage mike carvin. [applause]

thank you. i will try to make is relatively painless and brief. sitting here talking about the commerce clause. i will walk through it and i would be happy to answer any questions as you undoubtedly know the issue that we did are you a few weeks ago was the first time in american history the federal government compelled citizens to buy a product. they had require them to buy the product even though it was economically disadvantageous to these people, which is not my opinion. it is the finding of the congress that imposed it. because you were making healthy 30 year-old by insurance they did not need because they rarely went to the doctor, this would lower everybody else's premiums by 15% or 20%. that was the purpose of the individual mandate. since congress had required insurers to sell below cost insurance to sick people which

would obviously drive up premiums, they wanted to bring in a bunch of healthy people into the risk pool to drive down the cost of insurance. the question is, where does congress get the power to force american citizens to buy products they do not want, to 90, and are economically counterproductive. it is a simple case for people who read the constitution. the constitution only gives congress limited powers and the power to give them is the power to regulate commerce. when you are sitting at home not buying insurance you're not involved in commerce. the question is, can they come tell you, does that incorporate the power to compel you to enter into commerce since they can regulate your transactions when you go out to buy a gm car can they require you to buy a gm car. the answer is pretty obvious. even though the government did

not push that argument. their argument was a series of cases that you undoubtedly know about from the 1930's, most notably record against fell byrne said congress can reach and get out local production of goods. people who substantially affect interstate commerce. they can regulate people selling are involved in a small amount of wheat. our point was, whicker did say you can get people producing a small amount of wheat. it did not imply you can require americans to buy wheat. people who are in the market even at a local level are now -- would it does not allow them to get at our tea totalers. tot is what they're trying do here.

that was the key point that we made which is if you are not in the market you cannot possibly adverse the affect market participants. supply and demand will be precisely the same as it was. you are in no way engaging the activities which has been the rationale for congress to regulate local people like whicker. even if you do not negatively affect commerce, you affect commerce regulation. this plan and this act will not work unless we can constrict -- constrict all these healthy people to buy insurance. you really need their money because if we do not get them to buy insurance, if we are requiring insurers to insure all the sick people, premiums will go through the roof and we will not be able to keep them affordable.

our plan -- our point was, congress does have the ability to eliminate people who are creating problems for regulation. if you have a small amounts of marijuana, you are creating a problem in terms of congress's effort to extricate all marijuana. we are not creating problems between insurers and the government. they will regulate the insurance companies and they are not going to deny people with pre- existing condition any care. we do now have anything to do with that. we're not a barrier to that. we are being prodded not because we are a problem in terms of regulating insurance companies. we are a solution to the problem that congress has already created through its fully executed lot. if that is a power congress has under the necessary and proper clause, that means every time they impose some burdened --

artists and regulation on a car company through environmental or safety regulations and it drives up the cost of cars, that means they can bring you into offset the cost of their burden sen regulations and require you to buy gm stock or gm cars. that cannot possibly be the law. it has never been the law for 200 years whenever we have told private companies like the insurance companies in this case they have to take actions for the public welfare. in this case because of charitable reasons we have to require them to get low-cost insurance to sick people when we have done that kind of thing that we have required hospitals to provide care to sick people, we do not constrict some other group of the citizenry and say, you pay them for what the public could have just done. we pay for it out of the tax dollars for the public treasury that we all contribute to. we either get tax exemptions to hospitals or give them medicare

payments or the like. if congress can get away with this notion not only have they violated the terms of the constitution but they have given congress a new power where they can continue to spend well beyond their means and never have to face the political accountability of raising taxes. they can skip those certain people in society, and the problem and make them buy the products and -- in order to offset the cost burden san -- burden some regulation. their response is that health care is different. there are a lot of free riders who are not paying for their doctors. our point was, if you want to regulate free riders regulate them. the vast majority of the uninsured pay their doctors. they pay out of pocket. it does not make economic sense for them to have insurance if you are a 30-year-old.

the only economically sensitive thing to do if you are a healthy 30-year-old is to buy catastrophic insurance if you get hit by a bus or get an unexpected disease. what is the one product they prevent you from buying? it is catastrophic risk insurance. you have to buy the whole boat. you certainly do not need to avoid becoming a free rider, becoming somebody who default on their health care regulations. the 4 -- the purpose of this was they need the money now. if they're going to drive up insurance company costs in 2014 they need an infusion of cash from these people so they can keep the premiums within some relevant to arrange or affordability. the are of their argument they made is everybody goes to the doctor.

100% of people in the united states will lead some. engage in health care. our response to this and the other things is, that is an economic policy argument that they distinguish health care from some other industry. it is not a judicially limiting principle. the judiciary can tell congress based on constitutional grounds the cannot do something. these policy arguments are committed to congress's discretion. the court will never second- guess congress's policy judgments. these are fake limiting principles. it would require the same case by case adjudication. all of these things are fake. our other point is, what difference does it really make everybody will go to the doctor at some point. nobody says they're going to

the doctor has a problem. they did not regulate going to the doctor. the only become a problem if you do not pay a doctor. the amount of people who do not pay the doctor is a small subset of the uninsured. the other point was, even if you are a participant in a market that everybody participates in, everybody uses phones. even the solicitor general can see that the chief justice roberts, even though everybody uses funds that cannot require you to use a cell phones to you could call for emergency aid. they cannot require you to buy broccoli. even though you are -- regardless of if you are participating, the relevant question is whether the government can require you to buy 5 bushels of wheat and make purchasing decisions for you that neither serve your needs or serve your economic interests. that cannot possibly, within the commerce power or necessary

and proper power. finally, and the major point of the arguments i think in the supreme court was, the justices constantly asking the solicitor general if he can require americans to buy this product, while limiting principle the you have? what product can you not force them to buy? the solicitor general has been criticized by a lot of liberals and media commentators for not having a good answer. i think that is more or less killing the messenger. it is not that the solicitor general is a bad advocate or unprepared. the reason he cannot give a comprehensive answer is because there is no comprehensive answer to this. they talk themselves into the notion that our position was a tea party fantasy that did not make any sense. rather than can see that they

really had a weak case they had to blame him for being a bad lawyer. i do not think that is true. i will not make any predictions in terms of the outcome of the case given the tone of the argument. i cannot say the argument went quite well. it went quite well mainly for the reasons i just said. the solicitor general was unable to lay any reasonable person's concerns about if we grant power for this particular emergency, what will stop them from using it for the next emergency or the next time they decided will be a little bit better to use the mandate power than the taxing power for all of the obvious political reasons. i do hope -- i think optimistically that we have a

very good chance of having the individual mandate struck down. with that, i will be happy to either answer any questions or chat about other aspects in the case. [applause] >> [unintelligible] >> what he is referring to is obviously -- everybody knows in this room whatsoever ability as. if he struck out one part of the statute what happens to the rest of the statute. i think the justice department took an unusual position. normally they suggest the individual mandate goes down. here they took the position, yes you must write down this

band and community ratings provision that says insurers have to ignore the health status of their customers. they were agreeing that there are other parts of the law that were so inextricably intertwined that you have to shut that down i do not know why they took that position -- i do know what it to that position. is what i was talking about before. the individual made it was put into the law for a specific purpose which was to offset the cost of the pre-existing condition band. you would have the worst of all worlds if you struck down that allows the pre-existing mandate in place. if these two provisions go down, that adds to insurance companies cost. what about all the other provisions like no cap on how much to have to pay out, all these other taxes and bergson -- burdensome regulation or part of the deal.

basically the insurance companies came in and said, look, we but like a lot of your require all americans to buy our products. who would not like that law? in exchange can basically do what ever else you want to. tax us, pre-existing man, as long as we get this lot is a legal not to buy our product we can cut any deal you want. once they take out the requirement that 30 million people buy products, the deal does not look so good the government was a problem was the cannot distinguish where these two provisions the greed or in any material way different from all the other provisions that added to the insurance company's cost. in the other. we kept stressing -- the other. we kept stressing is you have read the whole point out of this act.

if you have done that, the tax on tanning salons and toilet paper's may be able to work but it will not work in the way that congress intended. i was gratified at the argument that the justices were saying, sometimes it will be hypothetical of what would congress have done if they do this part of a law was not in play. this counterfactual a hypothetical when you have taken the steps of live at is like asking, what would happen in europe today if hitler had been killed in 1922. you are guessing and making all kinds of policy judgments. you are creating a law that nobody would have never voted for or we have no idea if they would have voted for it. they came away with a notion --

i call a baseball arbitration. if there is no principled ground between striking down the individual mandate and the whole act, if we cannot figure out where in between the two extremes we will decide to do things, the best course, the one most respectful of congress and lawmaking power is just to strike the whole act down and let congress figure it out from here. does not make sense to create this act does not make any sense. as a patriot i hope they do that. as a partisan republican i would not mind this lot going through the next four years. i do not think you would never again elect a democrat in the united states. i think it would be hunting them down with dogs by 2018. i have to put my patriotism before my party. but we will see what happens.

>> [unintelligible] i want to ask about the catastrophic insurance issue. you go to the emergency room and so forth and there is the free rider issue. is it possible that the court as a matter of law could split the baby in this regard saying that the mandate is tonkin's -- unconstitutional to the extent it exceeds coverage for catastrophic and use that several ability or is it an all or nothing proposition? >> i think it has to be all or nothing. they are not going to rewrite the law to do something congress did not intend to do. i do nothing there is anything constitutional bar requiring you to buy catastrophic health insurance or anything. my only parliament -- my only

point was, i investing your. it will come back in the next time it will be this is unique. is this not really unique that these health a 30-year olds can come into the market and all of a sudden be a big burden on society. among the other points i was making was, if we are going to create exceptions and uniquely compelling need arguments where we will bend the rules and the language of the commerce clause, congress is going to show us that they really are trying to address the unique aspects of this. i made the point i made earlier which was, surely if congress was really worried about 30 healthy year olds -- healthy 30 year olds, they would have allowed them to do the only economically sensible option which is for $500 a year by

catastrophic insurance. i will take care of all of my medical needs except if i get hit by a bus. if i do, my insurance will cover it. i never will become a ward of the state. since they did not do that i think that illustrates from a policy and plausibility perspective that is not what they were trying to get at and if you let them get away with this, kate -- guard the door because they will have the power and it will be able to use it in whatever circumstances where they can cobble together some equally implausible rationale. >> a little bit off topic but what did you think about the arguments with respect to the states being coerced into the medicaid portion and how did that go on the last day? >> i was representing the private responded so well i had an academic interest in the medicaid stuff.

it was purely academic. the dilemma in all of this is as the federal government becomes more and more involved in things we think of as traditional state regulation, most obviously health care and the like, the states do become dependent on the federal government. there is a case that says, look, you can condition federal moneys on the state's doing things. technically you're not forcing them to doing it. you are offering them -- making them an offer they cannot refuse, like the godfather. they argue for the states that, look, if this is not coercion, then what can be? we are literally talking about hundreds of billions of dollars and not participating in this program would create horrific budget problems for the state. i do not know how to handicap that. i did not try to because that

was paul's argument, not mine. the argument went well and people were asking a lot of questions. the solicitor general seemed worried about it because it was

. .

i think there has been a recent study. >> does that mean they have certain places they can put the money tax can they do whatever they want? >> they choose the provider. the type of investment is a find. it is like a target day fund. there is ample evidence that what ever you say is where most people are going to end up putting their money. >> they could put it into

something that is judged to be by whom? who would say this is a safe investment. i would like to know who those people are. >> you define the parameters. >> the treasury will ultimately put the blessing. they will bless the company that will make these investments. >> it would be that the sponsor would be the one that is using their investment adviser. the investment adviser will have judiciary responsibility for choosing a company that provides this. >> who is on the hook if they made a bad choice? any investment counselor would be responsible for this? >> in theory, there are not many situations where you have a company that the investment

has gone down to zero. when you have responsible people tousling investment advisers, there are horror stories. they are more rare. >> this is what you will get? >> this is a whole other thing. >> this is a very equal important area of retirement security.

you need to look at how you can promote responsibility and savings. whatever we do, i certainly appreciate the attitude. can we simplify and yet maintain flexibility? i remember when i was running a small medical practice and focusing on the clinical side of my practice, oftentimes individuals come into work. they have worked somewhere else. they have a retirement account. if they may also have an ira on top of that.

there are a variety of rules that govern this. talk to me about the complexity that these present to a business owner. is this an area we can simplify? >> i will just start by the problem you have described as been around since 2001. it allows individuals to combine when they switch jobs assets from one employer to the next. this was a major improvement in really made it possible for a

business owner to take the assets in. it is complicated. you have items that were put in pretax and others that were post-tax. they exist today. the cannot take away anyone's treatment. we have made enormous strides in improving those roles. >> i think there has been awful lot of progress made. i also think if you look at the options that are available, it these days you are more likely to have someone that comes into your practice that also had a 401k plan. there is more simplicity. sometimes we talk about consolidation, in the medical practice maybe there was a 403b. the rules have been simplified.

in most instances, you now will have somebody coming from a similar type plan. i think that really sniff it. -- smooths it. there are roles that can be change that make it a little easier. i think we should get rid of the rules that trip people up. they would apply. whether an ersa or 401k. it is plain common sense. >> if i may, people forget to combine. i have an ira that was rolled over 20 years ago. i keep meaning to roll it into the plan. i have yet to do that. we have seen people who lose their accounts, especially over the years when the employers go

out of business and the providers change. there is a suggestion in my written testimony about a way to use tax and information to allow people to find their accounts and encourage them to combine them. >> are there steps that allow them to have an annuity problems? >> i think this is something that the irs and treasury department are currently looking at. it has been something that policymakers are really looking to give people that ability to address to use an annuity. i am not speaking for the

current treasury department are the irs. i think what they do to eliminate some of the difficulties under the current law to move into this product. i think this is something they have been looking at. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for holding this. i have a question for you. the president's 2013 budget proposal includes a capping individuals itemize deductions to 28%. the exclusion under the proposal includes the exclusion deduction for pretax employee contributions to define contributions. given that this is a deferral

and not a permanent right off, wouldn't eliminating this result in double taxation? what are your thoughts on how the president's proposal would affect retirement savings rate and small-business owners? >> i appreciate this question. i was very disappointed to see retirement savings included. it would mean double taxation. this is a deferral. if you have someone who is at its 31% marginal rates and you are given them 28% cap on that, that they are paying factories are now.

when they pull it out, there is the special accounting. they're pulling taxes on it again. it really is double taxation. if you are being honest, why would they want to put themselves in that position? i do think it would be harmful for small-business owners. it will discourage customers. >> your testimony mentioned that following the proposal is simplified this area. many interested parties work concerned about the proposal. it offers a savings vehicle. the 2005 budget proposal address some of those concerns. can you elaborate on what you

heard? what are some of the transition rules to keep in mind? >> the others to things that were problems, one in 2004, we had be lsa and rsa amount at $7,500. we reduced it to $5,000. some people might say that i can put them 7500 in my lsa and rsa, and i don't need any further savings their employer provider. we tried to simplify some of the nondiscrimination rules. one of the things we did was we

pulled out, we eliminated all the various testing methodologies that are currently available. one person simplification is another person's opportunity to make the various changes. we listened to them. we just reduced the general complexity of the test. we did not reduce some of the opportunities that small businesses would have been ordered to create more flexible types of plans. >> thank you.

i yield back. >> i have a longstanding issue. i work with bill thomas before here is the chairman of this committee. this is not a favor at the time. he carried the rsa proposal. the clinton proposal was an addition to social security. the bush one was a substitute for social security. i introduced this bill five

years ago. at least three of the panelists have already endorsed it. i suspect the other to have some sympathy. this proposal that could raise it by nearly a billion dollars a year, endorsed by brookings. now with hard work we have developed this proposal. it is not everyday that a massachusetts democrat legislation is endorsed by the foundation. we have done just that. but we tell you who else supports it, the aarp. the latinos for secure retirement. putnam provincial. i must say i cannot get one republican to sign on to this legislation.

he was headed in the right direction. he was headed in the right direction as it began to question it. came very close to going to the alter. why does heritage support this proposal? >> we enjoyed working with you. i also enjoyed working with their staff. savings changes behavior. it takes people and it brings them closer to the community. it makes them more future oriented. a variety of cultural changes

that are very important. a second one that is equally important is that they have the alternative. this allows people to start of one company and move to another and continuously save. inevitably, we are going to see the data that he had initially. people do not have sufficient retirement savings. we do not have the money for that. >> can you tell me why you have endorsed the ira proposal? >> it really build on the employer structure. you cannot do this about having an employer involved. we feel that once employers are

used to doing this, they feel comfortable with that. it'll be easier to approach them. once they're in the system they will feel more comfortable moving up. >> de require no matching contribution. 30 years ago, a different story. it to be so easy and so little trouble for the employer to make this work. >> why you liked the proposal? >> we need to do all we can to get more employers. this of be a big step in this

direction. it gives incentives to employers to do that. it is attractive for employers to go in that direction. it is something well worth employers doing it. >> thank you. >> thank you. i want to thank our witnesses. we have 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day. a lot of them are very uptight about they are planning on retiring with all the concepts they have. now they're getting to the point that they can retire. what can congress do to help

bring a little more security and dignity? what would be one thing that we could do that we are not doing to make a difference? i am slowly getting to that age where friends are concerned. they're working longer. >> we're talking about baby boomers. there are catch up situations. it is still very good.

it is really important to engage in a number people. we need to look more at the delivery of things. we're very supportive of disclosures. people do not necessarily a book there. if we could approach people more was something that is interactive, it should be easier for them to plan and get engaged. it does allow you to enable more electronic delivery. >> we are talking about where they are at. they rely on social security. >> if you reach for 6546 economy do not have the flexibility. we have a second crisis that is coming with the baby boomers.

the first, not having enough money. the second is not managing an appropriately. they are even more worried when they're 85. to make sure we do not have the same individuals her even more worried when they are 85 and their bank account is empty. >> in terms of congress, i am concerned there are a lot of small employers of their where

employers would like to have some kind of employers. what incentive can we help a small businesses in terms to make sure that as many provide some type of retirement package? >> i think many members of this committee are supporting incentives and start of credits for small business. they are sending that signal. we will help you with that. i think he has this in. others in the past have supported it. they can easily be expanded. that is where our problem is. this is partly because of the cost. it is amazing how expensive it is to send out of this paper.

>> thank you. i yield back. >> you both state that despite what some may claim, study shows tax incentives for savings and retirement are quite progressive. what would be the effect on progress if you lower the top marginal rate to 25%? >> that is a very complicated question. it depends in part on what you have done. it is a pact that as it decline, there is less consensus for tax deferral. you're saving less money when you contribute.

there are other competing ways to save. it depends in part on what is happening with gains and dividends. if you have the tax, it becomes very difficult to incentivize an employer to put in a plan unless you have a target if tax credit or some other specific benefits. i think this is something that is particularly sensitive. there are also declined. you have to be careful not to give it a double hit. maybe you need to increase the

contribution limits in order to maintain an incentive there. >> thank you. >> i like to just amplify this a bit. we had done some work last summer, looking more at the some symbols type commercial. -- simpson-bowles proposal. i think a lot of this could be expanded if you are reducing the marginal ones. you are changing the talks later of providing that to the employees. judy has a grass that actually shows as much as an 11% decrease in the number of small plants because of the 20/20 limits. we could very easily modify that to look at the impact of decreasing it could be. i will get back to you on that.

>> i think we would be interested in that. that is an all of our proposals. what would be the overall effect on retirement savings of adopting the 2020 proposal? >> i am not a macro economist. i'm not really modeled it. >> we have a figure that takes a look at what would happen. as the biggest hit would be on this. we found that people if it were

applied today would have about 815% reduction on average on their retirement balances. what comes as a surprise to many is that the second-biggest hit actually comes on the lowest income poured tile. that is because of the 20% not because of the 20,000. a lot of times people will come back into the work force later. they may find that because of ketchup or what ever they have the ability to put much more of their one in. they end up turning the 20% as opposed to the high income that trigger the 20,000. almost 10% reduction in account balances.

>> i think that is understated. small-business owners would have about zero incentive for pretty a plan in. the safe harbor executions would be gone. i think that really understands the negative impact. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for holding this hearing. >> there are folks up there that can benefit for some good work. i want to follow up on a couple of questions that were asked by other members. you mentioned that employers to do not offer any sort of and chairman plan site business concerns. does your research show any

downturn of the folks that were offering its? >> i do not have any data on that. the plan is gone. employers say they're putting this in. there are a few of top line reasons. they do not think the employers care. if they say give me cash, and the employer would rather just give them cash. small businesses are notorious for not lasting very long. if you are not sure you're going to survive, and then you are hesitant to do something that says i have arrived.

most commonly the issue is that they do not feel they can afford to make a contribution or to promise to make a contribution. they will find that employers really do appreciate it. you can kind of get over a couple of hurdles at the same time. >> i told him i was co-author this bill. is anything there that knocked your socks off? >> they were both good and bad.

if you look at new zealand, new zealand has a form of the ira puree to the only have three. one is that is a huge mistake if the united kingdom. they went through. back in 1997, they increase the taxes of retirement plans by about 5 billion pounds a year. the net result was a collapse. the u.k. continuously tinkers. they said the program. -- set up a program. they have a brilliant program that starts to go into effect this fall. the government just announced within the last week for so that they're looking at a completely different approach.