we are looking for your reaction to the headlines this morning. want to show you the "new york times" headline on all of this. alissa rubin is on the phone with us. your headline uses the word "aid. explain what it is going to look like if you have details. guest: we really don't have details yet, because the actual t ext has not been released, because it has yet to be signed. a similar process is going on at the white house to just make sure that it conforms to whatever they expected to said. i think the aid will be military and civilian and.

the americans have said already that they are going to commit a significant amount of money to continue to fund the afghans occurred forces, and they are hoping for a large contribution from other nato countries. the total they are looking at is between about $4 billion and $4.2 billion a year to pay for the afghan military. in addition, there are civilian programs, aid in education and agriculture, and i don't know what that will be, but certainly those numbers have been coming down over the last couple of years. we have seen it spending of almost $4 billion a year by u.s. aid down to $2.7 billion or something like that, i am sure it will drop beyond that but it it is still substantial. host: what are you hearing in terms of reaction and

afghanistan and capitol hill? guest: i am in afghanistan, so i don't have a sense of how people would react there. here for most people it is a great relief. particularly people in urban areas, where people feel they have gotten benefits the last 10 years. the continued assurance of u.s. presence is to guarantee or the chances of asen return to the kind of civil war we saw before the taliban arrived. the hope that the u.s. involvement will do that -- i am not sure they will lafollette the effect that afghans hope,

but that is certainly the idea. host: what did it take to get this all together? we read a quotation from ryan crocker, but what is your sense? guest: it took many things. i think it really began kind of in earnest when ambassador crocker are rife last summer and began to focus in a sort of a very concerted way of getting -- and has been almost a year, although not quite, that he has been working on it. there has been an enormous you heard about in "the new york

times" and elsewhere, that president karzai does not have trust in americans, not only because of night raids with civilian casualties, but also a feeling that the americans did not like him, said one thing to him and other things back in the states, a feeling that he was pushed into having a runoff in the 2010 presidential election, which he felt he had won. it was an embarrassing, humiliating moment for him. he had enormous deficit of trust in the americans. i think that has been somewhat rebuild. it allowed a real negotiation to take place and a deal to be struck. host: alissa rubin is with "the new york times" in afghanistan. thanks a lot for your time this

morning. guest: thank you. host: we will take your calls. quick recap, based on "the new york times" and "the wall street journal" reporting on all of this. it pledges american support for afghanistan until 2024. no specific dollar amounts, military presence set forth, and there is a potential $2.7 billion a year discussed by the u.s. first call, kansas city, missouri, michael, independent. caller: thank you. host: what do you think about what you have heard so far? caller: i would like to say to the american people that there is a parallel, given the religious values -- it is at the same as christianity to a certain degree. we would not want to be

misrepresented by radicals. i believe that for the muslims in afghanistan, they have been misrepresented. i know that right now, our economic state, we worry about it to say the least. still, it is important for the muslim religion to be just as effective in its entirety, a holistic value, as it can be without prejudice. for a radical nation or a group of, as obama has put it, "thugs," to the people to believe that these are the holistic values that a bank represent of the religion of muslims -- that they are percent of the religion of muslims, there has to be some distinction. the united states is accurate in helping to make the government represent who they are as a

whole, given their entirety, apart from the extremism. that would be my comments. host: eric is on the line from atlanta. good morning to you. caller: thanks for taking my call. nowadays, it seems like c-span is operating as the gop political arm. it seems as though you are operating as the gop political arm. you had "the financial times," and then headline that says "u.s. is an afghanistan until 2024." it sounds like we have troops in afghanistan until 2024. we pull our troops out next year. iran is in the middle, iraq is on the other side. we went into iraq and afghanistan and was surrounded iran, and of course the

israelis want to attack iran because they feel that iran will wipe israel off the face of the mat. we are surrounding them. this is scaring the daylights out of iran, ok? we are staring iran into getting any clear weapon. -- scaring iran into getting a nuclear weapon. host: are you saying that the pact is not a good idea? caller: excuse mate? and saying that you are a gop political arm -- host: no, we got -- caller: until 2024 -- host: caller, we got that point -- caller: sounds like troops will be there adel 2024, which is what john mccain wanted. host: all right, thanks for

waiting and. -- for weighin in -- weighing in. this is "the washington post." "after more than a year of negotiations, u.s. and afghan officials reached an agreement affirming the u.s. comm anditment -- commitment for a decade. "the wall street -- journa -- "e wall street journal" -- " kabul, u.s. agreed to deal." "it is intended to send a message to the insurgency that the u.s. and its partners won't abandon afghanistan." massachusetts. caller: thank you for taking my

call. treasonous traders in the government weapon and added -- who have been embedded for years, sending us to war and wasting our money when they created these criminals in the 1950's and 1960's. it is an ideology that basically bankrupts the poor, what a nice -- weaponizes the system against the people in this country, while the top 1% get richer, lawyers manipulate everything, and then tell you that they are looking out for best interests. the reason we will be there until 2024 is until they bankrupt the country and change the currency it to the one world order. thank you very much.

host: cecilia on the line from democrats, miami, florida. good morning to you. hello, cecilia. miami, argued there? caller: everything he said is right on point. i don't they to bring our troops home? they need to build their own country . we cannot get our own schools correct, that our own kids educated they are putting schools over there to educate their kids so they come over to and bomb us later? for real? we need to be smarter than that. you want to give them assistance -- we should put no money over there. they have their own money. we have to worry about our own country, because we are already suffering and we don't have

money for our own country. they, an attack us -- they come back and attack us. host: back to "the washington post" story -- "the document pledges and american support for afghanistan through 2024 and refers to the ongoing u.s. role in bolstering afghan democracy and civil society. but the specifics have yet to be formally allied and could be governed by future agreements. in the past, american officials have described the strategic partnership as a key signal to the afghan government and the insurgency that the u.s. will not suddenly abandon its fight against the taliban. it only provides vaguely worded reassurance, leaving many to guess means in practice -- to guess what the u.s. commitment

means in practice." charlene, independent, good morning. caller: i have been sitting here watching brian lamb this morning, and if people are, i don't know why people are not screaming at their representatives. this is ridiculous. host: what is ridiculous, exactly? caller: that we will be there until 2024. we have been there forever. host: what you make of what the u.s. wants to express to the afghan people? caller: i think people should watch "q&a" with brian lamb this morning. host: anything about afghanistan? caller: no. i've been watching c-span for 20 years, and this is the only time i ever call. it is said my hair on fire this morning. host: national, tennessee.

good morning. what are your thoughts, sir? caller: my thoughts are basically the same as the other callers who have called in. we don't have business in afghanistan. we have got enough of our own problems. the soviets fought with the afghanis for years and it literally bankrupting the soviet union. why do we think we can spend money we need in the u.s. to stabilize the country that has been at war for years and years? when the soviets were a superpower, they cannot stabilize it or do anything. the war bankrupted them. we need to get the heck out of afghanistan to relieve the people alone. host: a little more from alissa "the new yorkin

times" this morning. "some countries were holding back, waiting to see what the united states would do. western diplomats said that the allies would not be more willing to make commitments. the agreement puts down in writing for the first time the nature of the relationship the united states will have with afghanistan once the bulk of american troops go home. it is meant to reassure the afghan people that the united states will not abandon them, to warn the taliban not to assume that they can wait out the west, and to send a message to pakistan, which american officials believe has been hedging its bets in a place that an american withdrawal would leave the tiny band in charge." north carolina. good morning, sir. caller: the policy of giving a foreign aid to the afghan government is a stupid waste of

money. not authorized by the congress of the american people. representing a silly attempt to bribe people who hate us and want to kill us into going along with us with money. it also represents a policy approach of attempting to approach radical islam with worksement, which doesn't and never will work. this is as absurd as giving $8 billion to pakistan, which secretary of state hillary clinton described at about the same time we found out that the pakistani government intelligence people are siphoning information to be

tallied and -- to the taliban. i'm just totally appalled. host: other viewpoints from our facebook page. this from twitter this morning. california, as you are up now. robert, republican caller. caller: good morning. i'm a disabled vietnam veteran. that was the wrong war to fight, and we should never have went to .raq or afghanistan gue

this form of capitalism we are living under house to be stopped. it is not representing our interests. it is only representing the rich. it is just completely ridiculous. why people would not continue to understand that we have to have another type of financial system in this country. it is and going to fail. we have to do something about it. we have to get down on the street for a mass protest. thank you. host: line for democrats, clarksburg, west virginia. thanks for waiting. caller: i believe the protests are coming. i cannot recall a morning were you had republicans, democrats,

independents, everybody agreeing. it is time to get out. if this country does not start taking care of our own needs, we need to stay out of these types of things. i agree with every one of your callers this morning. i think it is the first time i can ever say that. after a great day. .- have a great day parad host: mike from culpeper, virginia it did mike is on the republican line. caller: i would like to ditto at caller everybody else. hooted they consult on this -- howho did they consult on this? they are alienating the american people by doing this. we don't want to be there, we don't need to be there, they don't want us to be there.

we have to negotiate to be there and use their bases. they only want as their because it did and what our money to use back against us -- because they want our money to use that against us. we have clearwater, florida on the line now. bryant, an independent.

good morning. good morning, brian. clearwater, you there? in maryland.y tony from hyattsville, maryland. one more call here. pennsylvania. allen, republican. caller: yes. host: good morning, glad to have you. caller: i want to reiterate what other callers have been saying. they need to go to a transcript of brian lamb's program this morning just prior to your show -- host: book called "funding the enemy." >> see "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 eastern could now an update on afghan rebuilding efforts with major- general toolan.

this is hosted by the atlantic council in washington. we will show you as much of this as we can until the brief u.s. house session at 11:00. >> it brings senior u.s. and allied military leaders to the council to discuss issues surrounding campaigns, complex issues in the campaigns such as iraq and afghanistan as well as other international security issues. this series is generously supported by saab north america, and the council thanks them for their support for this important series. thank you. last april, at the atlantic council hosted major general richard mills as part of the commanders series, and then the returning rc southwest commander. now one year later, with major general john toolan.

he just completed one year as the rc southwest commander. this particular brief is particularly relevant because next month in chicago, nato leaders are going to get together and talk about the progress in afghanistan as well as plan the next terps ahead -- next steps ahead. it is my distinct pleasure to introduce our special guest, major general john toolan, and the moderator, barry pavel. major general toolan spent a year in command. barry, the moderator, has a long

history of distinguished service service and executive -- in the executive branch. prior to joining the council, he served as a special assistant to the president and senior director for defense policy and strategy in the national security council staff, serving both president bush and president obama. only the marine corps' most capable are given an opportunity to command in combat at this level. major general toolan's super leadership and more fighting skills, and forge around his career as an infantry officer and in particular, seeing service in desert storm and desert shield and at two t ours of iraq. he is no stranger to the

transatlantic relationship, or a partnership. he was a deputy j5. he also served as the operational plan team leader for allied force in kosovo, senior planner for operations in bosnia. as you have heard, the major- general clearly meets the standard to command at the highest level. also, on a personal note, i've never served with general toolan before. however, i met with a friend last week and i said i was going to be introducing the general. his name was paul -- sir, i don't know if you remember him. >> [inaudible] >> well, we spent several hours swapping stories. the most important thing that paul said to me is that he would follow the general into hell and

back. as a fellow entry officer, and he has a lawyer, by the way, so there is a high tolerance -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] tolerance for approval, and i take his word. one day i wish i could serve with general toolan, but it speaks volumes that an individual like that, a friend of mine, and i am a sure at many other marines and nato service members feel the same way, sir. for today's event, the sequence -- the general get up and cover some introductory remarks. he will play a video that will run 12 or so minutes and make a few other remarks, and then barry and the general, on stage and we will begin the q&a portion. thank you. sir? [applause]

>> just real quick -- first of all, i am glad to see a tourarry survived his osd when we were running the halls of the pentagon. i think this film will give you a good perspective of what we've done the past year. then i will give some remarks, and i will open it up to questions, so anything you would like to ask, i am prepared to answer. introductory comments are from the district's governor of marjah, talking about the early days of helmand province. "helmand: then and now."

>> 30 years, afghanistan was deeply involved with war, with a war where every household lost -- in every household they lost one or two member of their families. they are all hurt badly. this place was actually war zone, and this provincial province was one of the war zones.

>> when we first came here, our mission was to take the taliban and in fact the insurgency against the government of afghanistan. we've taken the fight to the taliban and the taliban can no longer really engage coalition forces in helmand province. >> when we first pushed into marjah in february 2010, it was a ghost town, for lack of better words. there was no one at there. no one was around. after a few weeks, people started recognizing that marines were there, they would come out, greet us, opened themselves up, and eventually they started to flood in. almost a year later, almost to

the day -- it was a year and two months -- i returned tomarjah. it was packed with people. the greatest improvement i saw was solar panels. when we moved in there, it was a ghost town. all of a sudden, they can walk around with lights all down the main bazaar, which was pretty amazing. >> today, 1000 people are serving with marine forces and resolving problems with the government's. this used to be the center for the terrorists. as of today, you don't even see the signs or the effects of them in marjah. >> you all setting your people free here. >> indeed, sir. we are together.

>> qwwe are together. >> you are helping us, we are helping you. >> it was completely empty, no one here at all. >> two weeks later, you got all this. >> yep. >> the best way, actually, is to go down and see how the commercial trade has develop. -- developed. we have seen that during the last year or so, big trees and activities -- victories and activities. it is is getting better and better on the commercial side and more people -- more popular governors in the city. >> now the mission is changing somewhat, changing from what was our responsibility to engage

that taliban to make sure we're backing up the afghan security forces, army, police, border patrol, national director of services, etc. we are in that advice and training mode. >> it has been a shift for us, in that the ana an afghan police have matured greatly in the past year. >> what we have freedom of maneuver on the battlefield, at any one moment they looked behind them there is a platoon or company of marines that just landed from our helicopters. >> the taliban has had a large presence in helmand the past eight years. i am happy we have soldiers in different areas who are treated by marines. >> the newest corps in the

field, built on operations, learned its skills alongside the british army and the u.s. marine corps. today's afghan soldiers are learning to engineering skills, artillery skills, medical and clerical, that are going to sustain it in the future. tore teaching the afghans lead themselves. they are a welcome stop against the injustice and cruelty. they are the future. >> general mills, now gen. toolan, have established those relationships with afghan counterparts. that gives the afghans a sense of strength, and knowing that that transition from one leader to another will endure, and the

relationship with the afghans is never wavered. >> in addition, we're continuing our efforts with governance and development. we went up a couple months ago. why did we go there? it is the symbol of american ingenuity and development. we needed to convince citizens that there was some benefit in allowing us with their governance. >> in really bringing agri business to the forefront in helmand province, making farming and farmers more business farmers than just subsistence farmers -- that and really getting --

[no audio] >> since 2009, since the coalition forces and the surge began, not only have they contributed to the security the advice and training role in afghanistan, but they also transformed helm and province in other ways. from a commercial perspective, we pulled over 1072 kilometers of road, tying together the major districts of helmand province, allowing farmers to bring their produce to market. they have that stuff around and sell it, and makes them money. >> a simple gravel road. the freedom of movement -- the

first word, "frieden," is really what we are providing a -- "freedom," is what we are providing. >> afghans are innovative people. there are a lot of things we're teaching them. the stomach -- these gentlemen have shops, they can fix them to do what they need to do. >> making that economic engine go -- this will help that. this will help governance said that the provincial government can come up and do the things that are necessary to connect the people owith their own governance. >> poppy is easy to grow, requires little maintenance, provides a lot of money.

it goes to the land mafia, those more concerned about making money than taking care of family. >> this has been led by the governor, and he has made it a strong team to drive down the narcotics trade -- strong theme to drive down the narcotics trade. in the last crop months, for the first time -- last fall months, for the first time in the program, we've gone towards a more high-value crops. >> these roads offer an alternative. it is going to take time, it is not going to happen overnight, but with the help of other nations, with the technical know-how, we will make a difference.

>> this is much more than a road. it is symbol of creation. it is a symbol of thafghanista's will to provide security. >> we have made an investment in afghanistan education. the teachers are coming here because they snow they can come down here and eat properly and don't -- or about and -- and teach properly and don't have to worry about their lives. >> the 17 or 18 schools we have had here, which are all active -- teachers and students -- the teachers are coming to schools, and students are attending schools. almost, as i mentioned before,

60% with 70% compared to the past, education has been improved here. >> the mission continues to change and evolve. putting more and more of the focus on the afghans, we are stepping back and supporting. >> it is 85% less violent than it was last year. at this tremendous progress. perhaps the trump card in all of that is the ever increasingly , who artopulation in defining themselves against the insurgency. we are seeing that every day. >> the locals can see the ana up front, also doing all the searching so that we are going to turn it over and the locals

will have trust in the ana. >> it is important for us to understand why we argue, the purpose, will we accomplish our mission or will we stay here as long as it takes. >> the security has got to stay strong. we've got to make sure the afghan national security forces resource. that is a very important thing. as long as they our resources properly, security will be maintain --. they -- they are resourced properly, security will be maintained. as long as we can offer resources to the afghans, we will cut through corruption. we will have a rule of law, attorneys and judges willing to come into helmand province and establish a rule of law. people that do turned towards

corruption will be held accountable. >> because we trust it to other -- trust each other, have confidence together. >> trust builds everything. >> we have taken helmand province from a very convict environment, a place where we had significant of violence and battles against the taliban. today we have the number of kinetic activities diminished. the difference is very evident. >> so, i think, hopefully, that gave a little perspective of what i think has occurred over the past year. we hit on a couple of positive

spirit the film, hopefully, identified a couple of the challenges as well. i think the threat that i mentioned about corruption is very real. if we want to lose everything we have gained, if we allowed corruption to take root, it will come fresh again. there are two types of corruption. one is the parasitic corruption, i call it, which is like any parasite. it needs a weak host to survive. if the central government of afghanistan does not stay strong, there are individuals in the central government who could significantly hurt progress that has been made. for example, you saw the governor. he has been the governor of helmand province for at least three years. he has had a long-term feud with

an individual. he is a a senator in the central government. he is the same person that was a governor in helmand province six, seven years ago. i would say he singlehandedly has been responsible for turning about 25% of the population in upper helmand valley to taliban, because he was such an abuse of gov., sort of the warlord, guy who fought against the communists, made a lot of money in the drug trade, and he was very abusive of the local population. the very people you are looking for to step up and be responsible as far as leadership and the government of afghanistan, when he was a governor, the same people he forced to join hands with the taliban to throw him out of government. it is a very interesting dichotomy.

now those people who got rid of them are seeing some progress in helmand, particularly under it this governor, and they are looking to reintegrate. they say, ok, it looks like a the government is successful, making progress. i want to reintegrate, i want to give up this taliban support. they are seeing positive things. the senior leadership are in quetta, not in helmand anymore. they cannot operate in helmand, because we will target them. we have had some very good success. guys like him are sort of the parasites. if we cannot hold these people accountable, or at the very minimum, keep them out of business, we will have

challenges in the future. the second level of corruption is guys be dealt with in uniform -- taking the afghan national security forces, who have been empowered to support their local communities -- if that power is abused, and you know the saying, "absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- if they prey on the locals, we will lose the home team advantage. we are the home team. the taliban ran local communities. they controlled what is going on with provinces and districts. today we've changed that. the taliban are the visiting

team. the leadership does not come into helmand province. if they do, they sneak in. if you want to think of their individual pride, it is diminished because the public knows that these guys are sneaking in, sneaking out and, oh, by the way, when you talk about this in the q&a, their funding stream is severely diminished. we are taking over as the home team, and it is having a good, positive effect. but afghan security forces are allowed to prey on the public -- it is mike it is so important that we maintain the advise and training role through 2014. we need to show them by example. integrity, good moral values,

protecting the families is the way to do business. that will keep the success is moving along. with that -- >> thanks, general, for a very interesting video, a very insightful video. i think it is a medium that helps capture the realities on the ground, and certainly your report, after being there about a year and at this very important point in time, is critical for us. thank you for the time with this very important audience to engage. i will ask a question, then look to the audience to continue the discussion. you give us a good sense of the threat specifically. can you talk more broadly about the taliban?

where are they now, in your estimation? what are the chances of them popping back up? that depends on the trajectory of the afghan security forces, but can you give us a sense of where they are, in your view? >> the taliban -- i believe there is always going to be a hard-core element that wants to law.all sharia i have seen some of those folks. it is a hard core radical believe that this is the way they needed to operate. what produced that, i am not exactly sure, but they will continue to exist. currently they are operating on the other side of the border. quetta has been a safe haven for the leadership, as long as we

are in there. engage along the border, at least to put some pressure, cannot make it so easy for them to move across borders. that is where the taliban senior leadership are operating. the program that general allen has been encouraging commanders to use is focused on the lower level -- the mid-level and lower level taliban. really, the mid-level taliban has been our focus. in many cases, they turned taliban because the leadership at the local level at the time was abusive, totalitarian, authoritarian government.

what we're seeing now is that they are wanting to come back into the fold. it is all the result of making some progress. there will be taliban, it will exist, there will always be -- i don't understand it, but there will always be people willing to kill themselves, to put a suicide vest on or drive a suicide vehicle, and they abuse that -- the senior taliban abuse that. i think there will always be people willing to conduct that time of business. we need to make sure we maintain our guard. -- i'll it there, but end it there. >> any questions from the audience? second row here. >> hi, general.

if you could describe the nature of the enemy there, because when helmandnicate in an these days, the group's they are fighting to seem to be as much drug-trafficking networks and what i categorize as young men being stupid. whether they are connected to the taliban other than production money is hard for me to figure out. >> very good question. i will say that the nature of an inmate in helmand province -- depends on -- the nature of the enemy in an amman province depends on where you are. in the south, i use the analogy that the taliban are on their

back. they and not operating in the southern part. in central helmand, which is really the responsibility of task force helmand, the u.k. forces, we use the analogy that they are on their knees. they are still getting support, funding -- i could talk in more detail, but it and are still getting funding from networks fuelling in session activity in places like -- insurgent activity in places like helmand. the most connecticut district in afghanistan -- most kinetic district and afghanistan, it has changed over the past year, but there are still some taliban insurgent activity there. in other places, the taliban are

on their heels, because it was the last place of real estate be cleared. but behind them is a transit area for drugs, poppy growth, owned by a our friend we just mentioned earlier. they still own that territory. at this stage, we are not in the business of clearing real estate. it is the afghans providing security. so from south to north, it is increased taliban involvement, funding, etc. but you are absolutely right, there are a lot of local nationals who get themselves into trouble, who get an opportunity to make a few bucks by planting an ied.

they are not really taliban. if we offer them another opportunity for employment, they would not be taking the job. if you look at the people in helmand province, they are not supporting that thing. we are the home team on this and we've got to support the local nationals. >> yes, in the middle. >> eric schmidt with "the new york times." yousuf you have tried to -- gauge the pakistani -- you say you have tried to engage the pakistani army on the other side. >> from my perspective, i have had no support. we have tried to conduct

discussions, conferences. there always seems to be something that interferes with the at. -- with that. it is an area that my boss, gen. allen, and others have been working very hard at. but it is difficult because -- as you know, and helmand province has pakistan and iran as its borders. on the pakistan border there is a place -- i know for a back that trucks are moving out through pakistan -- for a fact that drugs are moving after pakistan and coming in on a regular basis. it is a long way from the helmand river valley, so to provide forces to interdict and stop that, it takes away from

working in the upper helmand river valley. if i had the pakistani army support to a least conduct patrols along the border and limit the amount of movement along the b -- across -- limit the amount of movement across, it would help, but i've not been able to get that support. >> bloomberg news. general, a couple of questions. he mentioned that it is really important to sideline actors you are referring to -- one who is a senator now. how is the most effective way of doing that? how difficult to you think it will be for asns and the remaining forces in helmand to

maintain the progress you've been describing in some timber when -- in september when a significant number of marines will let been withdrawn? >> the first question -- he is an individual who has a large financial investment in helmand province. a lot of it comes through the drug trade. he's got his hands all over it. the only real way of changing his impact -- 2 ways. one is we have to do a better job of working the government of afghanistan's narcotics interdiction unit, which are working very closely with dea. dea is doing a great job in

teaching the narcotics interdiction unit and the narcotics lead in the government of afghanistan in things which are challenging for the afghans, but they are getting better at it. things like collecting evidence, doing criminal investigations. it has got to move from a paramilitary operations to legitimate criminal investigations and using the rule of law to hold these people accountable. we are making progress. it is really only in the last year that narcotics interdiction unit and the government of afghanistan have been effective. that has curtailed his activities and cronies. that is a good thing. and i think it will pay dividends later on.

the of the thing that is vitally important is that the central government and people who have influence over government officials -- >> we will leave this event for equip session in the u.s. house this morning. live coverage of this discussion will continue on our website. we will also rejoined after the house session this morning. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the united states house of representatives will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speakers' rooms, washington, d.c., april 23, 2012, i hereby appoint the honorable john abney culberson to act as speaker pro tempore

on this day, signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. gracious god we give you thanks for giving us another day. you have blessed us with all good gifts and with thankful hearts we express our gratitude. you have created us with opportunities to serve other people iner that need, to share together in respect and affection and to be faithful in the responsibilities we have been given. in this moment of prayer, please grant to the members of this people's house the gifts of wisdom and discernment that in their words and actions they will do justice, love with mercy, and walk humbly with you. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and

glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. will you please join me. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on april 23, 2012, at 9:15 a.m. that the senate passed with an

amendment h.r. 1021. with best wishes, i am signed sincerely karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the 362nd judicial district court in denton, texas, testify in a criminal case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedence and privileges of the house. signed, sincerely, eric with, director, district office of congressman michael c. burgess. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the united states house of representatives stands adjourned until noon tomorrow for

can you talk about what the transition for the mission will look like? what do you expect for the spring fighting session -- season. to mark the expected people to hold the gains made in the south? -- do you expect to be able to hold the gains made in the south? >> insurgency in the self --

south is the greatest threat to the government of afghanistan. if it should strengthen, that will provide a greater threat, the greatest threat, to the afghan government. currently, the south is the main effort. the preponderance of resources is in the south. we need to maintain the pressure arliss speaking of in the south. we cannot but it up -- let it up. as we are drawing down on forces, we're drawing of the national debt drawing up the afghan national forces. we're getting the numbers up. -- we're also drawing up the

national afghan forces. we're getting those numbers up. those numbers are on the rise. somewhere in the middle is the sweet spot. i think we're there. we do not want to change the main effort until after this season. i do not like using the term "fighting season." there is a little psychosis as if we're giving up the initiatives to the insurgents. we look at it as more of a poppy cycle. in kabul we have had some attacks, very weak.

the afghan forces have stood up easily. last year, may 17 was the big published date. there were going to come out and it was going to be big. it was a 1 per. i do believe the insurgents -- it was a whimper i do believe the insurgents cannot release a complex attack. it will not happen in helman province because they do not have the capability. they do not have the leadership , the capability to orchestrate that kind of attack. they do not have the same capacity as two years ago. the harvest is about to begin. it will take another 30 days. i do believe the afghan

national security forces, with their strong capability of gathering intelligence at the human level, it is powerful intelligence. they will know ahead of time. you combine that with the support of the local nationals. it is hard for them to swim among the local nationals because they're not getting the support. we will see. as the main effort dose shift, one network has gotten a lot of attention. it operates to maintain itself. it does not have the grand design. as the insurgency goes, the network goes. if you can keep a lid on the

insurgency, it will not be as all-powerful as people have talked it up to be. they do operate in other places. that is where they want to shift the main effort. this post-harvest season, we will see. i think we will find we will be able to hold the line. then we may be able to make the shift next year. >> in the back. >> i am with aol defense. having talked to young officers and nco's back from both wars, address young marine leaders that have served with you. they have been doing all of this coin. a national strategy says no longer a that, did it to asia,

partnership building, the court is trying to get back to its maritime and expeditionary roots. everything is drawing down, including the number of personnel. marine lieutenant or captain, why is their experience in the last decade role of the relevant? why should they stay in which everything is changing radically? >> that is good. i have had those discussions recently with aryan leaders and marines. i will say coin is a complex type fighter. think it is very clear, cold, build.

then the job is done. what we're doing this year is critical to the transition. we're not changing the mission in afghanistan. walkinganging -- we're into the final stage of the counterinsurgency, to revise and train. it is to set the indigenous forces up for success. the mission is not changing. we have trained our guys to understand in the counterinsurgency, you cannot win the counterinsurgency with coalition forces. you have got to win with indigenous forces. they know that. they know their mission is to support and back up the afghan security forces. we are following through on that mission of a way to the end. 2014 looms as being the end of the counterinsurgency.

the final phase is the support phase. we have not put a descriptor on what will be left, but there will be things left after 2014 to continue to support the afghan security forces. you are absolutely right on the fact of the past 10 years we have concentrated on the fight in afghanistan and iraq. it has been counterinsurgency. it has required different skills of our marines. we have concentrated on the operations on the ground. we have not conducted as much amphibious operations.

those are areas we might be returning to. this successful operation was in 2001 when we went into afghanistan and moved personnel and equipment over 400 miles into afghanistan. there will be some shifts. we will be losing marines, soldiers, and sailors who have ph.d. as in counterinsurgency right now -- have ph.d.'s in counterinsurgency right now. they like it and are effected. as we draw down, we will lose some of those guys. we have learned in counterinsurgency there are basic principles that apply across the board. we realize those fundamentals we can never lose. as a marine, being expeditionary

force, being able to operate in helman and nimruz province without a huge footprint, sometimes it requires discipline. let's close this down and live over there with the afghans in their facility. we are doing more of that. we're getting to that both the. -- we are getting to that low footprint. >> we have the news of u.s.- afghan partnership agreement. i understand it was a broad agreement over the weekend. it will hopefully lead to a more specific in agreement hammered out the afghan government on the nature of our relationship. at the atlantic council, we're looking at the nato summit in less than a month in chicago

where afghanistan will be the primary agenda item. we have had headlines over the last couple of months about what it will look like. france, austria, and others have come out about it. from your point of view, what is the plan for the transition? what partners do you see as key going forward? what is the key strategy until the transition in 2014 and afterwards? that is the part that is missing. we have had a lot of announcements. what is the strategy guiding our footprint and activities going forward? this is going to have to be a long-term partnership. we're in places like bosnia

still many years after the fact. we should begin to set the expectations of the american people and populations in the contributor nations as well. if you have any thoughts, that would be great. >> someone's a coalition warfare is very difficult. -- someone said coalition warfare is very difficult. it is even more difficult without coalition forces. the reality is we need to learn and get better at conducting coalition operations. for me, it was a tremendous learning experience as the commander coalition forces. as many of you know and we put on the film, we had a huge coalition force. when you find what they contribute best, it really

makes a difference. the challenge for general allan , and he has reminded the regional commanders that there is not anything more important than keeping the coalition together until the end. it hurts when a country like france says after an event where french soldiers were killed that we are out of here. that registers a "w" for the insurgency. it is very powerful when a coalition partner like the u.k. steps up and says we're here until the end and we're not reducing our forces. u.k. will only reduce their

forces by about 500 over the next few years. that is helpful. that serves as a great statement in helmand province -- helman province for us. i think their strategic partnership between afghanistan and the coalition has had challenges. the big ones are the night raids and detention operations. the president of afghanistan has been working hard to cut out night raids. what we have done to satisfy a desire by the president is that we have taken u.s. forces out of the conduct of might rates and put them in an advisor-trainer

will. we're still doing night raids. ,e're doing them with commandos the interdiction unit guys. we had a rate several months ago it was done by an niu that was trained by dea agents. that is how we're doing the night raids. we're not conducting them. we are in any supervisory and -- we are in a supervisory role. the problem is we have insurgents from detention operations that do not fall under the criminal investigative line. it is difficult to allow those insurgents, to turn them over to

the afghan government. one area that requires continued attention is the rule of law. the whole system for criminal investigation of the week to prosecution and detention, it is working. it is in progress. it is not complete. until that is established, i think is dangerous to turn over defensive operations completely to the afghans. we're working closely. this strategic partnership is impacted by some of those sensitive issues. >> thank you very much. in the front. >> i am from amnesty international. thank you for the great introduction and speech. what percentage of officers are from the southern pushtu and --

pashtun community? do they have a shadow governor? on the social level, do they have things to do other things? >> good question. unfortunately, in the afghan national army, the percentage of pashtuns serving in the court response will for the southwest region is probably less than 15%. -- in the corps responsible for the southwest region is probably less than 15%. pashtuns out of helmand

province do not look to the army for employment. we've tried to bring more into the army. in the 215th corps, i have a corps commander and three brigade commanders. two of the brigade commanders are pashtuns from helmand. the corps commander is from paktika. he is not pashtun. the other is hitaggi. it would be better if there were more. we're trying to focus our attention on the afghan forces and police. we realize they are the center of gravity. if we're going to make a difference and keep the support of the local nationals, the police are the ones that will control population and support the populations in the helmand

river valley. the intent is for the army to leave. we're leaving the populated areas in moving into the furniture into further reaches -- we are leaving the populated areas and moving into the further reaches. our focus becomes the border. their focus becomes the population centers. that is where you find the locals taking responsibility for their homes. it is interesting because the average pashtun does not want to leave home. as americans, it is tough to realize some of these people do not want to leave home if they are transferred. we have to understand and respect that. that is a challenge. they do not like leaving home.

home is home. we're trying to make sure the pashtun are in the police in the afghan army moves out of the population centers. we're not at the point where police are conducting criminal investigations, collecting evidence, doing the paperwork. it is still a work in progress. the police are still working through the history of corruption. the local people are still hesitant. the army is still playing a strong role. they are well respected. we're working through the state of moving the army out and having the police do more law enforcement rather than combat operations. that is where the local homegrown pashtuns will focus

their efforts. >> we have a question in the back. >> good morning, general. i am originally from afghanistan. a work is an expert in quantico, virginia. welcome back home. it is a very good presentation, very motivational. for long time, we saw good news coming from home. how do we convince the american public and insert these images into the american media to convince them to stay committed to or have more patience in the fight against terror? thank you. >> that is one of the reasons i am on this tour next tenace the 10 days -- on this tour for the next 10 days, to get the word out to a variety of people. i told the marines and folks

that just left afghanistan,, to try and explain to them what they have accomplished. it is difficult sometimes for them to put the whole picture together. as a leader and my junior leaders, it is their job to put the picture together. you did a great job down here, but what is the bigger picture? showing them how -- i was very disappointed with an article written called "roads to nowh ere." i wanted to write an article but i was in afghanistan. those roads are critically important. any expert will tell you the insurgency begins with the roads and -- where the roads

end. the thousands of soldiers, marines, and sailors as served in afghanistan, when they are told and understand the big picture, there the best salesmen on what they have accomplished. they are the best salesman on what they have accomplished in afghanistan. statistics, i can give you those. it is dramatic and impressive when you look at what was going on in what is called the festering sore of afghanistan. you saw pictures of marja. it is a bustling area. i brought congressmen, senators and walked them right down to the market square. those stories need to come back.

i also understand and we are sensitive to the fact, the marines and sailors are sensitive to the fact they have to maintain the highest standards in afghanistan because the impact of negative press, the impact of a marine or soldier being shot by an afghan soldier or police officer has a powerful impact. there could be 103 stories and then that one. -- there could be 100 great stories and then that one. is a matter of making sure we maintain and keep our honor clean. we maintain the highest standard operating in afghanistan. when we come back, we are informed enough to be able to explain to people that we did make great progress.

i think that will probably work. here is the bottom line for me. there's been a lot of sacrifices made in afghanistan and iraq. in helmand province, the casualties for u.s. forces has dropped dramatically. the casualties on the afghan side have increased dramatically. it shows that afghans are now on the lead in many districts. they are responsible for the security. those sacrifices are important. we of the afghan and coalition force sacrifices, week zero it to them to make sure we stay the course. we're making great progress -- we owe it to them to make sure we stay the course. it is on track. it is moving. hopefully between the discussions we have, we will get

some supporters to stay the course. >> time for one more question, the gentleman in the front row. >> thank you. roger kirk, atlantic tells a. what kind of training and support do you expect will be needed after 2014? what do you see as the prospects of getting them? " there will be some areas the afghans will not be able to build capability or capacity over the next few years. they will need our support. the afghans on human intelligence, nobody is better than them. that is a car full resource for them. they do not have the rest of the intelligence capability we have. they do not have the reconnaissance assets.

those are grown exponentially on the battlefield. i am very happy with what we're getting out there. they want to maintain or have access. i think we're going to have to provide that for a while past 2014. there is no medical support capability anywhere in the world better than what we have. nowhere on the battlefield was a casualty without support for more than an hour. we could get a guy stabilized and the hospital. amazing support. we have been providing that support for the afghan army and police and many of the local

nationals. that is something the afghans know that they will have to provide some level of care. it will not be what we have, but that will take time. we will have to stay there to provide medivac and medical care. we're doing great work. every member of my staff was advising in some world. my surgeon was working with their doctors. that will have to continue. they are support -- fire support is an area that will have to be maintained through 2014. they do not have the capability to put rounds on target and be precise like we can.

it makes your eyes water to see how precise hour fire support systems are. the afghans know an errant round or bomb could exacerbate the problem again. that will have to stick around. it is more complicated. as we lose our balls on the battlefield, -- as we lose eyeballs on the battlefield, we have to have some way of seeing it. one thing we are developing in the southwest is full motion video. as we leave places, we're maintaining systems. we have balloons and various kinds of looking devices we have integrated which will allow us to provide near-instant support for the afghans when they call for fire.

those are three areas. probably the one area most delicate is that we have been working the police. the police are the center of gravity. they're the ones that will win this thing for the duration. we dabbled in criminal investigations and evidence collection. we have to stop babbling. we need to get the experts in. it is similar to what we did in bosnia. we brought in police forces from all over. if i was at a force conference in nato, i would be looking to build the capability for the long haul. lastly, we have made humongous improvements in the specialization of forces to the

point that is almost seamless. special operations forces will continue to be required. their capabilities will take longer to nurture and mature. the special operation forces will have to be there to back them up. >> unfortunately, our time is up. i have another 10 questions. i am sure the audience does as well. our time is up. thank you for coming here and telling us the importance story for our country and allies, certainly for afghanistan and our other partners. thank you most of all for your service to this country and the effort. >> bank you very much. -- thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[unintelligible] >> this afternoon, a conversation with former vice president dick cheney. he is the featured guest at a washington center event today. steve scully will moderate a discussion. beginning tomorrow, three days of testimony by james murdoch

and his father rupert murdoch in the investigation of british phone hacking. rupert murdoch is on wednesday and thursday mornings. . will be live on c-span2 and c- span radio. rodney king recounts his life in the days and years following the police beating in 1991. he recalls the riots in los angeles after the acquittal of four of the officers and reports on his own legal problems and alcohol addiction. that will be live tomorrow from harlem starting at 6:30 p.m. one of the lead attorneys who argued against the constitutionality of the

affordable health care act and health care law before the supreme court law represents the national federation of independent business. the case argued the entire law is unconstitutional. this is about 30 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. argue the case in front of the supreme court on behalf of the nib. please welcome to the stage mike carvin. [applause] thank you.

i will try to make is relatively painless and brief. you are gluttons for punishment on this beautiful day sitting here talking about the commerce clause. 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 -- argue 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 -- do not need, and are economica lly 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. regulate does not mean compel.

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. at 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 -- analagous to bootleggers. it 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 conscript 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 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. e.r. being brought in because -- we are being brought in because 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. -- good they 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 -- scapegoat certain people and make them the problem and make them buy the products in order to offset the cost burdensome 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

-- sensible 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 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 -- range of affordability. the are of their argument they made is everybody goes to the doctor.

100% of people in the united states will lead some. -- will at some point 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. a limiting principle is wherethe 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 -- conceded to 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. 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 -- come 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 -- what limiting principle do you have? 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 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. -- knows what severability is. 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 ban 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 -- i do know why they took that position. is what i was talking about before. the individual made it was put -- mandate 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 burdensome regulation or part of the deal.

basically the insurance companies came in and said, look, we but like a lot of your -- we would like a law that would 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 -- ban, 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 -- they agreed were in any material way different from all the other provisions that added to the insurance company's cost. in the other. point stressing -- wwe kept

stressing is you have read the whole point out of this act. individual mandate makes the regulations are formidable -- affordable. 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 -- had known this part of a law was not in play. this counterfactual a hypothetical when you have taken the steps of live at is like -- taken the guts out of the law 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 -- law going for the next four years. i do not think you would never -- ever again elect a democrat in the united states. i think it would be hunting them down with dogs by 2018. [laughter] i have to put my patriotism before my party. but we will see what happens.

anybody else? >> [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 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 point was, i investing

get negative i was discussing this with justice kennedy -- my only point was when i was discussing it with justice kennedy. 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 healthy 30-year-olds, they would have allowed them to do the only economically sensible option which is for $500 a year option which is for $500 a year by