>> you can see all of this discussion on the supreme court's decisions to 9 on c-span at 9:45 eastern. tonight on c-span, mitt romney speaks at the naacp's convention. house debate over repealing the health-care law. mitt romney spoke at the naacp convention today and said, if you want a president that will make things better for the african-american community, you are looking at him. his remarks are 25 minutes. >> i do love that music. and the piano.

a hearing sweet hour of prayer being played, that was a wonderful thing. good morning. and thank you for the generous introduction. thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. and for your hospitality. this is an honor to address here and when i value very highly. i appreciate the chance to speak first even before the vice president. i just hope the obama campaign does not think you are playing favorites. now, you all know something about my background. maybe you wonder how any republican can ever become governor of massachusetts and the first place. when you are in a state with 11% republican registration, you do not get there by just talking to republicans. you have to make your case to every single voter. we do not count anybody out.

we do not make a habit of presuming anybody's support. support is ask for and earned. with 90% of african-americans typically vote for democrats, some may wonder why a republican may bother to campaign in the african-american community. one reason is that i hope to represent all americans of every race, creed, sexual orientation. from the poorest to the richest and everyone in between. there is another reason. i believe that if you understood andi truly am in my heart t if it were possible to communicate what i believe is in the best interest of african- american families, you would vote for me for president. i want you to know if i did not believe my pollard -- policies

would help families of color more than the policies and leadership of president obama, i would not be running or president. the opposition charges that i and people of my party are running for office to help the rich. nonsense. the rich will do just fine weather i am elected or not. the president wants to make this campaign about blaming the rich and i want this to be about helping the middle class in america. i am running for president because i know that my policies and vision will help millions of middle-class americans of all races. it will lift people from poverty and will help prevent people from becoming pour in the first place. my campaign is about helping the people who need help. the president will not do that. my course will. when president obama called to

congratulate me on becoming the republican nominee, he said that he looked forward to an important and healthy debate about american oppose the future. i am afraid his campaign has taken a different course than that. at campaigns and their best, voters can expect a clear choice. with that hope the debate about the course of the nation that i want to discuss with you today. somebody had told us in the 1950's or 1960's that a black citizen would serve as the 44th president of the united states, we would have been proud and many would have been surprised. we might have assumed the presidency would be the last door of opportunity to be

opened. before that came to pass every other barrier in the path to equal opportunity wycherley have to have come now. it has not happen quite that way. many barriers remain. in some ways the challenges are more complicated than before. across america and within your own ranks, there is serious debate about the way forward. if equal opportunity were it and accomplished fact, then a bad economy would be equal for everyone. instead is worse for african- americans and almost every way. in june while the overall unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2%, the unemployment rate for african-americans actually went up from 13% to 14.4%.

americans of every backgrounder asking when the economy will finally recover. you in particular are entitled to an answer. if equal opportunity -- [applause] if equal opportunity in america were an accomplished fact, black families could send their sons and daughters to public schools that are for the hope of a better life. instead for generations the african-american community has been waiting for the promise to be kept. today black children are 17% of students nationwide. they are 42% of the students at our worst performing schools. our society sends them into mediocre schools and expects them to perform with excellence. that is simply not fair. frederick douglass observed "it is easier to build strong

children than to repair broken men." [applause] yet instead of preparing the children for life, too many schools set them up for failure. everybody in this room knows that we owe them better than that. the path of any quality often leads to a lost opportunity, college, graduate school, and first jobs should be the milestones marking the passage from childhood to adulthood. for too many disadvantaged young people these goals seem unattainable. the lives take a tragic turn. many live in neighborhoods filled with violence and fear and nt opportunity. they're impatient for change is understandable. america should be better than this. they are told even now to wait for improvements in our economy and in our schools. it seems to me these americans

have waited long enough. [applause] the point is that when decades of the same promises keep producing the same failures, it is reasonable to rethink our approach to consider a new plan. i am hopeful that together we can set a new direction policy starting with where many of our problems to start, with the family. a study has shown for those who graduate from high school and get a full-time job and wait until 21 to marry and then have their first child, the probability of becoming pour is 2%. of those factors are absent, the probability of being poor is 76%. here you understand the deep and lasting difference that family makes.

your former executive director had it exactly right. the family he said "remains the bulwark and mainstay of the community. that should not be overlooked. any policy that up was the family is going to be good for the country. that must be our goal. i will defend traditional marriage. [applause] would you may have heard, i also believe in the free enterprise system. i believe it can bring change were so many well-meaning programs fail. i never heard anyone look around and an impoverished neighborhood and said, there is too much free enterprise in this neighborhood. what you hear is, how do we

bring in jobs? how do we make good honest employers want to move in, stay in? with the shape the economy is in today, we are asking that question more and more. free enterprise is still the greatest force for upward mobility, economic security, and the expansion of the middle class. we have seen in recent years what it is like to have less free enterprise. i will show the good things that can happen when we have more free enterprise, more business activity, more jobs, more pay checks, more savings accounts. on day one i will begin turning this economy around with a plan for the middle-class. i do not just mean for those who are middle class now. i mean for those who have waited for so long to join the middle class. [applause] and by the way, i know what it takes to put people to work to

bring more jobs and better wages. my plan is based on 25 years of success in business. it is a job recovery plan. it has five key steps. first, i will take full advantage of our energy resources. i will approve the keystone pipeline from canada. low-cost, plentiful coal, natural gas, oil, and renewals will bring over 1 million manufacturing jobs back to the united states. [applause] second, i want to open up new markets for american goods. we are the most productive major economy in the world. trade means good jobs for americans. trade has to be fair and free. i will clampdown on cheaters like china and make sure they play by the rules and do not

steal our jobs. [applause] third, i will reduce government spending. i hope everyone understands high levels of debt slows down the rate of growth of the gdp -- of the economy. that means fewer jobs are created. if our goal is jobs, we have to stop spending over one trillion dollars more than we take in every year. [applause] to do that i will eliminate every non-essential expensive program i can find. that includes obamacare. i will work to reform -- [boos] you know, there was a survey of the chamber of commerce. they carried out a survey of

their members -- about 1500 surveyed. they ask them what affect obamacare what have on their plans. three-quarters of them said it made them less likely to hire more people. if our priority is jobs -- that is my priority. that is something i would change. i would replace it with something that helps people with lower costs, good quality, the capacity to deal with people who have pre-existing conditions -- i will put that in place. i will work to reform and save medicare and social security. people keep talking about that those programs are on the pathway to insolvency and nothing gets done to fix them. i will fix them and make sure they are permanent and secure for seniors today and seniors tomorrow. i would do that by means testing the benefits. higher benefits for lower income people and lower benefits for high income people. [applause]

i will focus on nurturing and developing skilled workers that our economy so desperately needs today and the future demands. this is the human capital with which tamara's bright feature can be built. by the way, too many homes and schools are failing to provide children with skills and education essential for anything more than a minimum-wage job. [applause] finally and perhaps most importantly, i will restore economic freedom. this nation's economy runs on freedom. on opportunity and on to per newers, dreamers to innovate and bill businesses. they are being crushed by high taxation, unnecessary burden some regulations, hostile regulators, excessive health care costs, and destructive

labor policies. i will go to work to make america the best place in the world for innovators,s open up energy, expand trade, cut the growth of government, focus on better educating tomorrow's workers today, and restore economic freedom and the jobs will come back to america. wages will rise again. we have to do it. [applause] i know the president will say he is going to do those things but he has not, he will not, and he cannot. his last four years in the white house prove it definitively. if i am president, a job one for me will be creating jobs. let me say that again. my agenda is not to put employs a series of policies that give me a lot of attention and applause.

my policy will be to create jobs for the american people. i do not have a hidden agenda. [applause] i submit to you this. if he won a president who will make things better in the african-american community, you are looking at him. you take a look. finally, i will address the inequality in our education system. i know something about this from my time as governor. in the years before i took office, our state leaders came together to pass bipartisan measures that were making a difference. and reading and math are students were already among the best in the nation. during my term the took over the top spot. it revealed what good teachers can do if the system will let them. the problem was, this success was not shared. a significant achievement gap

remained between different races. i promoted math and science excellence in schools and proposed paying bonuses to our best teachers. i refuse to weaken testing standards and raise them to graduate from high school in massachusetts, students now had to pass an exam in math and english. i added a science requirement as well. i put in place a merit scholarship for all those students who excelled. the top 25% of students in each high school in massachusetts were awarded a john and abigail adams scholarship, four years' tuition free at any massachusetts public institution of higher learning. [applause] when i was governor not only did our test scores improved, we narrowed the achievement gap.

teacher unions were not happy with a number of these reforms. they did not like our emphasis on joyce three charter schools, which is a great benefit to inner-city kids trapped at underperforming schools. as you know in boston and harlem and los angeles and across the country, charter schools are giving children a chance -- children who otherwise could be locked in failing schools. i was inspired by a kid in philadelphia. right here in houston is another remarkable story. these charter schools are doing a lot more than closing the achievement gap, they are bringing hope and a real opportunity to places where for years there has been none. charter schools are so

successful that almost every politician can find something good to say about them. as we saw in massachusetts, true reform requires much more than talk. as governor, i vetoed the bill blocking charter schools. my legislature was 87% democrat and a veto could have easily been overwritten. i joined with the black legislative caucus and their votes helped preserve my veto which meant new charter schools including some in urban neighborhoods would be opened. [applause] when it comes to education reform, candidates cannot have it both ways. talking up education reform while indulging the same groups that are blocking reform. you can be the voice of disadvantage public-school students, or you can be the protector of special interests like the teacher unions.

you cannot be both. i made my choice. as president i will be a champion of real education reform in america and i will not let the special interests get in the way. [applause] i will give the parents of every low-income and special needs students the chance to choose where their kids go to school. for the first time in history if i am president, federal education funds will be linked to a student so kids can -- parents can send their kid to any school they choose. i will make that a true choice. i will ensure there are good options available for every child. should i be elected president, i will lead as i did when i was governor. i am pleased to be joined by the rev. jeffrey brown who was a member of my kitchen cabinets and massachusetts.

i will look for support wherever there is good will and share conviction. i will work with the to help our children attend better schools and help our economy create good jobs with better wages. i cannot promise you i will agree on every issue, but i do promise your hospitality to me today will be returned. we will know one another. [applause] we will work a common purpose. i will seek your counsel. if i am elected president, if you invite me to next year pose a convention, i would count it as a privilege and my answer will be yes. [applause] you know, the republican party's

record by the measures you rightly apply is not perfect. any party that claims a perfect record is not no history the way you know it. always in both parties there have the men and women of integrity, decency, and humility who have called justice by its name. for everyone of us, a particular person comes to mind. somebody to set a standard of conduct and as better by their example. for me that man is my father, george romney. [applause] it was not just that my dad helped write the civil rights provision for the michigan constitution, although he did. it was not just that he helped create michigan's first civil rights commission or that as governor he marched for civil rights on the streets of detroit, although he did those

things, too. more than these acts, he was the kind of man he was and the way he dealt with every person black or white. he was a man of the fairest instincts and a man of faith to do every person was a child of god. [applause] i am grateful to him for so many things. above all, for the knowledge of god whose ways are not always our ways, but his justice is certain and his mercy in doris forever. -- endures forever. [applause] every good cause on this earth relies on a plan bigger than ours. without dependence on god, dr. king that said, our efforts turned to ashes and our sun rises in the dark night. unless his spirit pervades our

lives we find only cures that do not cure, blessings that do not less, and solutions that do not solve. of all that you bring to the work of today's civil rights cause, no advantage accounts for more than the abiding confidence in the name above every name. against cruelty, arrogance, and all the foolishness of man, this spirit has carried the naacp to many victories. or still are up ahead. [applause] so many victories are ahead. with each one of them, we will be a better nation. thank you so much. god bless every one of you. thank you. [applause]

>> when the convention continues tomorrow morning, joe biden will speak to the gathering in houston. you can watch coverage at c- span.org/campaign2012. are we approaching peak will or a new era of oil abundance? tomorrow morning the new america foundation considers that question as political scientists discuss the global oil market. coverage begins at 9:00 eastern on c-span 3. later a senate confirmation hearing. that begins at 2:30 p.m. eastern. this weekend on book tv, growing up in the shadows and secrets of

the nuclear weapons facility. kristen iverson looks at the facts on the environment and the people. -- the of facts on the environment and the people. >> she saw the dominoes start to fall during this time. after 1979 she was in full- fledged opposition to carter and what she saw as carterism -- that appeasement. crucial in this respect, she saw the fall of the shot, a couple of lacerating experiences for her and people like her. >> the political woman behind the reagan cold war doctrine. sunday night at 9:00. anthony swoford on life after

leaving the military. this weekend on c-span 2. into fiveut them groups. you have nation states, you have cyber criminals, hikers, and terrorists. not all of those are nation states. when you think about deterrence theory, you are not just talking about nation on nation. you have other nomination factors you have to consider. and one of these attacks, you may not know who is doing it. who is attacking your systems? either way, the outcome could be the same. you lose the financial sector or the power grid or your system's capabilities for a period of time. it does not matter who did it, you still lose that. you have to come up with a defensive strategy that cells that.

>> watch keith alexander assess current and future cyber security threats on the c-span video library. >>kathleen sebelius discuss the next steps for implementing the health care law. the supreme court upheld it 5-4 with chief justice john roberts writing the majority opinion. she makes reference to house republican efforts to repeal the law. this is 20 minutes. >> and please join me in welcoming secretary sebelius. [applause] >> good afternoon everybody. i am delighted to be back in george washington.

i was telling the dean at that i had the pleasure of being here a number of times and announcing a number of important new initiatives here in this auditorium. i think it is a perfect venue to discuss the affordable care act and the importance of the supreme court decision. i want to recognize the president, steven knapp, and thanked dean lynn r. goldman for her leadership here at the school. you will have a great treat. some colleagues i have worked with for a long time are members of the panel that you will hear from. certainly, the other keynote speakers. i will tell you a little something about them that may not be a immediately obvious. we all have connections. i am a former governor, former insurance commissioner.

in kansas, my husband is a federal judge. tom unmarried in kansas -- married a kansan. longtime aide and assistant to senator bob dole. you may have thought we were here for our health care expertise, but it is really our kansas connections. over the last couple of weeks, there has been a lot of commentary about the supreme court decision and what it means for politicians in washington. we have heard speculation for about who is a winner and who is a loser. what it means for november. with congressional republicans, today holding their 31st vote to repeal the affordable care acts, it is clear that some want that

political discussion and political battle to keep going. i am really glad to have a chance to be with you today to talk about what the healthcare law means for those outside of washington. a hard-working families that the law was really designed to help. to do that, we need to set the stage and remember where this country was when this law was passed two years ago. back in 2010, the urgency around health care challenges was growing. this was related both to the health care of our nation and also the economy of the country. despite spending more than any nation on earth, we were moving toward 50 million uninsured citizens and really mediocre health results. our health expenditures were it consuming an increasingly greater share of our gdp, threatening our global competitiveness. families, businesses, and

governments or all stressing under the burden of costs. between 2000 and 2009, insurance premiums doubled. the share of small-business owners offering employee coverage drop from 70% of in 2002 to under 60%. medicare costs continue to rise, putting the trust fund to be solved by 2016. one business owner who wrote to me early in my term summed up the frustration many americans were feeling. he wrote, "i am near the breaking point." essentially, we will go out of business, forced t.

either way it is a lousy set of options. becoming more consolidated and less competitive. some americans have dependable access to coverage in public plans. for children, the seniors, disabled, veterans, even the poorest adults and pregnant women through medicaid. employers -- employees of large companies fare pretty well. that left a lot of hard-working families in a broken market where insurance companies made a lot of the rules. totally legally, insurers could cap your coverage, raise your rates, or cancel the coverage with a very little accountability. if you were one of the 129 million americans with a pre- existing condition like cancer or even as much, you could be clocked out or priced out of the market altogether. that was a fairly successful

business model for many insurance companies. in fact, in 2009, the five largest insurers made $12 billion in profit. her but that did not work very well for a lot of the people who were left on the sidelines. the healthcare law was passed in large part to address the twin issues of cost and coverage. that is exactly what has begun to happen over the last two years. the law's first principle is very simple. if you have come. coverage, you can keep it. for the 260 million americans with insurance today, the main change is that they will get more security. the law puts in place new insurance rolls, and many of those are already in place, prohibiting insurers from capping the coverage or canceling it without cause if someone gets sick. preventive care is now free for

54 million americans with private plans. there are new limits on how much of your premium insurance companies can spend on overhead costs like ceo bonuses. as a result, starting this summer, about 13 million americans will get rebates from their insurance companies. you heard me correctly. insurance companies are actually sending money back to their customers thanks to the new role. -- rule. affordable care act does not cut medicare benefits. in fact, the program -- the program is more robust than ever. new benefits have been added for seniors. the law has begun to close the insurance that in medicare prescription drug plans, saving over of 5 million beneficiaries with the highest medication costs, about $600 a piece. we have a brand new efforts in

new project and new surveillance tools. and new surveillance. king just announced last week. yesterday, our department announced that so far in 2012, more than 16 million seniors and persons with disability automatic car have already -- on medicare have already had a well as visit or a cancer screening g. we also know small business owners were at a very difficult place in the market. they were beginning to see relief things to the new tax credit which cover about one- third. they would not have to pay the

extra thousand dollars per family for americans with no coverage. the law is beginning to provide some better coverage choices for middle-class families. we have about 3.1 million with young adults, and some of them might be here. , who were previously uninsured prior to 2010 and now are covered under their parents's lans.'s pictup we have several thousand across part.untry taken paring at the same time, the affordable care at has begun breaking the stalemate in washington on addressing health-care costs. there was a lot of agreement for decades that our health care costs are too high and they were continuing to rise. while there was a lot of

agreement that we had to do something about high costs, there was not a lot of action in congress. the ideas put forward by those who favor repeal would limit government health spending, lower government health costs, simply by shifting costs to seniors and patience. but there is an alternative vision as part of the construct of affordable care act. it really captures doing on a national scale what some of the best health systems have begun to do around the country. that is bringing down costs by actually improving care. prior to the passage of the affordable care act, many of the financial us -- incentives hicks include about one-third of the country. one of those two programs or

sometimes both. they actually many times penalized care improvement the way we pay providers in hospitals. over the last two years, we have begun to change the incentives in the health-care system toward providers for improving care. we've had an enormously enthusiastic response from doctors and hospitals across the country. just on monday, we announced that a total of 150 for health organizations serving 2.5 million americans have already signed up under the law to form the so-called accountable care act association. he had in the structures where providers share the savings when they stay healthy. there are many more of those strategies under way, lowering

hospital-based incessant -- infections, medical health homes, bundling care, all designed to to keep people healthy in the first place, out of the hospital, and lower the opportunities for return. all of that progress has been going on in the last two years. when we have this, we have again today people talking about repealing the law, can i think it is important to remember what is really at stake. this has nothing to do with the fortunes of elected politicians around washington. all of whom already have excellent health care. it is the health and economic security of middle-class families around america that are really at stake. repeal actually could subject those families once again to some of the worst insurance abuses carried we now would automatically raise the price of

senior's medications and had financial barriers to their preventative care. it would end the tax credits that are currently helping small businesses and force millions of young adults to once again begin their careers without the security of health coverage. it would mean that, too often, the best quality of care would continue to be out of reach for most americans. what we know is that the supreme court decision, there were four justices who actually voted to strike down the law that would accomplish those goals. but the majority of justices have allowed us to move ahead on full income -- implementation of the act. medicaid, which now makes the program a voluntary program and removes the penalty phase of medicaid so that the department of health and human services cannot take all of the

underlying medicaid funding away from the states that chose not to dissipate, medicaid expansion will operate very much like other expansion has operated over the past number of years, where state's voluntary come into the program -- voluntarily come into the program and we have given a very generous framework of state federal participation and the opportunity to ensure the largest number of low-income adults in that program that states will indeed decide to insure their populations. most of you know that two major parts of the program to not take effect until 2014. the new marketplaces will be set up in every state where families and small business owners actually get to make, for the first time, a comparison of health plans and choose the one that is right for them. there will be new rules for

insurance companies. no one can be discriminated pre-nst because of a priest existing health condition, and you cannot be charged more because of your gender in an insurance plan. others who cannot afford coverage can qualify for a tax credit, averaging about $4,000 per family. members of congress and their families will get coverage through the same exchanges, alongside their constituents. over the past two years, we have been working on implementation because setting up these new march -- new markets cannot happen overnight. set up a new consumer from the market places. far from what is reported as a federal takeover, he tell what really gives states maximum flexibility in shaping their own market. states can decide, for instance, to fully operate the marketplace, to partner to run

pieces of the exchange, or to have us do it all. the law contains a provision that if states come up with their own way of covering the same number of people with the same kind of quality and low cost increase, they can present a plan and take over the whole system. the president has asked congress to move up that provision from 2017 to 2014 so states can have the flexibility in year one. yesterday, i received letters from 12 governors saying there are already fully engaged in planning to establish their own market places. we anticipate more to be fully ready as we move through 2012. in the month to come, we will keep working with states to meet them where they think it is appropriate and have all of the exchange's running in every state by 2014.

another key change that is coming in 2014 is that states will begin receiving a very generous federal match to expand medicaid coverage to uninsured adults can at 133% of poverty. those of you who do not walk around poverty tables in your heads, that means for an individual who makes less and $15,000 a year and for a family of four, the income is less than $31,000 a year. we are talking about some of the poorest working families in this country. here is, states are being offered. for the first three years, the federal government pays 100% of enrollees.insured and r after 2017, the federal government share is reduced, but never less than 90%. the lowest it gets at the end

of 10 years his eighth 90/10 his share. -- share. the states also have flexibility in setting benefits. their expenditures will be offset by reduced spending on compensated care. this has unprecedented federal support, access to affordable coverage for low-income residents and steep reductions in costs. we think at the end of the day, this is a deal that states will not want to turn down. as i said, we have been through this before. when congress expanded coverage for kids in 1997 and offered to pay 70% of the costs, not one

item% of the costs, states were initially skeptical. only eight states began covering eligible children in the first year. but within to the us -- 2.5 years, all 50 states decided the benefits, far outweigh the costs and participated. the 2014 deal offers states a better deal. cates will event -- take advantage of it to cover the needs of their families to ensure their doctors actually get paid. earlier today, i sent a letter to all governors, many of them my former colleagues, laying out this information. we will keep working closely with states to make sure the hard-working families who are looking forward to this new day have access to affordable coverage. now that the supreme court has issued their decision, i am hopeful we can stop fighting the old political battles and tried

to take away the benefits milles it -- millions of americans are already enjoying and instead move forward in implementing an improving the lot is right -- to more for americans. thank you all very much and i will turn the podium back over to elmhurst dean lynn r. goldman. [applause] >> when you realize these armies are not coming to his aid and trying to escape, that is when we collapse when he felt it was going to come to an end and it was a question of suicide. >> the story with a look at the second world war, from eight of hitler's rise to power to his dark final days. >> his main objective was not to be captured allied -- alive by the russians. being spat out and ridiculed. he was determined to die.

he was internment to die with him. he >> more sunday at 8:00 on c- span's "q & a." >> oklahoma city, may. wichita in june. this past weekend in jefferson city. watch for the continuing travels every month on booktv and next month, look at the history and literary culture at the neck stop. the weekend of august 4 and fifth, on c-span 2 and 3. >> 5 democrats joining republicans in repealed. the senate is not expected to bring legislation to the senate floor, though the republican leader said he would push for a

vote before the elections. speaker of the house, the gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker of the house is recognized. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding. and say to my colleagues, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 6079, legislation that would repeal the president's health care law. when this bill passed, we were promised that the health care law would help create jobs. one congressional leader even suggested it would create 400,000 new jobs. guess what, didn't happen. this bill's making our economy worse, driving up the cost of health care and making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. you know, the american people, we're told, they'd come to like this bill once it was passed. well, that didn't happen

either. most americans not only oppose this law, but they fully support repealing it. the american people were told taxes on the middle class wouldn't go up if this bill passed. well, guess what, there are 21 tax increases in this health care law and at least a dozen of them hit the middle class. let me just give you a glimpse of the damage that all these tax hikes will do to our economy. a tax on health insurance providers will end up costing up to 249,000 jobs, according to the national federation of independent business. a tax on health care manufacturers will put as many as 47,000 jobs in jeopardy, according to one nonpartisan estimate. then you got the employer mandate, which will affect every job creator with 50 or more employees. let's take white castle, company in my home state.

they say that the employer mandate would eat up most of their net income starting in 2014. and that's on account of just one provision in the law. and then there's the individual mandate that the supreme court has now ruled is a massive tax. and the congressional budget office says roughly 20 million americans will either have to pay this tax or be forced to buy insurance that they wouldn't have purchased otherwise. if you add it all up, the tax increases in this health care law will take at least $675 billion out of our pockets over the next 10 years. all this at a time when employers are just trying to get by. listen, i think there's a better way and that's why we're here today. americans want a step-by-step approach that protects the access to care that they need from the doctor they choose at

a lower cost. they certainly didn't ask for the government takeover of their health care system that's put us in this mess that we're in today. at the gipping of this congress, the house voted to repeal this health care -- beginning of this congress, the house voted to repeal this health care law. unfortunately, our colleagues in the senate refused to follow suit. and since then we've made some bipartisan progress on repealing parts of this harmful health care law including the 1099 paperwork mandate. but this law continues to make our economy worse and there's even more resolve to see that it is fully repealed. now, i think this is an opportunity to save our economy, and for those who still support repealing this harmful health care law, we're giving our colleagues in the senate another chance to heed the will of the american people . and for those that did not

support repeal the last time, it's a chance for our colleagues to reconsider. for all of us, it's an opportunity to do the right thing for our country, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise to yield one minute to the -- our democratic leader, the gentlelady from san francisco, without whom there would not be an affordable care act and we greatly appreciate her efforts. the speaker pro tempore: minority leader is recognized for her one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, more than two years ago we put forth a vision to america's middle class to ensure health care would be a right, not a privilege for a few, but a right for all americans. today and yesterday, the past

two days, they've done more than 30 times in this congress, republicans are set to take away that right. over the past two days we have heard the talking points of the health insurance industry that are trying to drown out the facts and the facts are these. what is the takeaway from this debate? the takeaway is that the protections the republicans are voting to take away from america's families. today up to 17 million children have the right to health care coverage even if they have diabetes, as ma, leukemia -- asthma, leukemia or any other pre-existing medical condition. put an x next to that. republicans want to take away protections for children with pre-existing conditions. today all young adults have the right to get insurance on their

parents' platforms -- on their parents' policy. republicans want to take away the -- that right from america's students and young people, that coverage for young adults, put an x next to that. today 5.3 million seniors have saved $3.7 billion on their prescription drugs. republicans want to take away prescription drug savings for seniors. today small business owners have used tax credits to help them afford insurance already for two million additional people and the bill is not full iny -- fully in effect. republicans want to take away the tax credits for businesses to help their entrepreneurship and job creation. today nearly 13 million americans are set to benefit from $1.1 billion in repay thes from health insurance companies.

republicans want -- rebates from health insurance companies. republicans want to take away those cost savings from america's families. today american women have free coverage, they have a right to free coverage for life-saving preventive care like mammograms, starting in august women will gain free access to a full package of preventive services. no longer will being a woman be a pre-existing medical condition. but republicans want to take away those protections for women and all americans. many of the cost -- many across the country have heard republican colleagues claim that very few people are affected by the pre-existing condition provisions. the fact is the republicans are wrong. the fact is you be the judge. 138 million americans have a pre-existing medical condition. i asked our friends on the other

side of the aisle, do you know anybody with breast cancer? with prostate cancer? with asthma, with diabetes? the list goes on and on. people with disabilities? with this bill that you have on the floor today, you will take away their right to affordable coverage. and that's why the american cancer society opposes this repeal effort. on behalf of -- and their, quote, 13 million cancer patients and survivors who need access to adequate and affordable coverage. that's why they oppose this repeal effort. the american cancer society. do you know the millions of people living well the disability? with this bill you take away people with disabilities' rights to quality, affordable care. that's why easter seals wrote that, quote, millions of parents of children with disabilities are breathing a huge sigh of relief knowing their children

will not be dropped from their insurance. do you know any parents of children with diabetes or asthma or childhood leukemia? do you know any? with this bill you will take away the right of these children to affordable care throughout their lives. that's why the american diabetes association, on behalf of the nearly 26 million americans, with diabetes, urged us to oppose this bill. to, quote, protect people with diabetes who for too long have been discriminated against because of their disease. my republican colleagues are taking away patient protections for millions of americans. protections you as a member of congress already enjoy. i think that that's undermining a fundamental fairness. you repeal this bill which means you keep your federal health insurance benefits while you take these current patient

protections away from the american people. what a valentine to the health insurance industry. when i think of people protected by this law i always remember the powerful testimonial at a hearing last year from stacy ritter, the twin daughters are both cancer survivors. they're 4 years old, they're twins. they're 4 years old, both were diagnosed with leukemia. hanna and madeline faced stem cell transplants, chemotherapy and total body eradiation. yet over time stacy said, we ended up bankrupt even with full insurance coverage. today hanna and madeline are happy, healthy 13-year-olds. and according to stacy, quote, my children now have protections from insurance discrimination based on their pre-existing cancer condition. they will never have to feel rescissions of their insurance policy if they get sick. they can look forward to lower

health insurance cost and preventive care. we passed the affordable care act for people like stacy, hanna and madeline, we passed it for some of the people we heard from today at an earlier meeting and, madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit their statements for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. pelosi: thank you. i urge my colleagues to think about them and to think about stacy and her children when they cast a vote to take away their rights and protections. here's what the affordable care act is about. strengthening the middle class, honoring the entrepreneurial spirit of our country, putting medical decisions in the hands of patients and their doctors. this is about innovation, prevention, wellness. it's about the good health of america as well as good health care for america. it's about restoring and reigniting the american dream and living up to the vows of our founders, of life, liberty and

pursuit of happiness. a healthier life. for liberty and freedom to pursue happiness and defined by your own talent, your own skills, your own aspirations. you want to start a business, if you want to be self-employed, if you want to change jobs, are you not job-locked -- you are not job-locked because your decision about your job, your career, and your life has to be predicated by your health insurance company. that's what this freedom is in this one week from the fourth of july that we celebrate with this bill. with this affordable act, now to make the american dream a reality for all, republicans must stop this effort to take away patient protections from americans. let's review them again. g.o.p. taking away from americans. this is the takeaway from this debate. take away the republicans say protections for children with pre-existing conditions.

take away prescription drug savings for seniors. take away coverage for young adults. take away preventive health services for women. take away the no lifetime limits, so important to so many families in our country. we must work together on america's top priorities. job creation and economic growth. this bill creates four million jobs. it reduces the deficit. it enables our society to have the vitality of everyone rising to their aspirations. without being job-locked as i said. the american people want us to create jobs. that's what we should be using this time on the floor for. not on this useless bill to nowhere. bill to nowhere. that does serious damage to the health and economic well-being of america's families. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and let us move forward together to strengthen

the economy and to strengthen the great middle class which is the backbone of our democracy. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, chief deputy whip, mr. roscoe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. ross: i thank the gentleman for yielding -- scowscow i thank -- mr. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this will bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family. the gentlelady from california a moment ago spoke about things to take away. let's take this away. let's take away the reality of this new health care law that has done this. it is now clear that 20 million americans are likely to lose their employer-based health

coverage. the law will cost $2.6 trillion if fully implemented and add over $700 billion to the deficit . it adds $500 billion in new taxes that are triggered toward the middle class and the average increase in family premiums doesn't go down $2,500, it goes up $1,200. here's what we should take away, we should take away this albatross in the economy, we should repeal it, we should replace it and here's the good news. the voters get the last word in november. stay tuned. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield three minutes to our distinguished whip from maryland, a person who understands what it means to make it in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend. repeal it and replace it. for the 31st time we have a

repeal with no replacement. no alternative. no protection offered by my republican colleagues. not one. you could of course introduce legislation that said, we're going to repeal and replace with this. you haven't done it. you haven't done it. so the american people have no idea. we're on the floor today with the distinguished gentleman from michigan who himself and his father before him said a half a century before, americans need the security of having the guarantee of access to affordable, quality health care. that's what we did. madam speaker, after the landmark supreme court ruling upholding the affordable care act, americans are ready to move on. yet here we are again, voting for the 31st time on a bill to repeal the health care law with no replacement, no alternative,

no protections. that's not what we ought to be focused on. americans want to work -- to create jobs and to grow our economy. according to a kaiser family foundation poll last week, 56% of americans believe that opponents of the law should drop attempts to block its implementation. it's time for republicans to end their relentless obsession with taking away health care benefits from millions of americans. if this bill were to pass, insurance companies could once again discriminate against 17 million children with pre-existing conditions. if it were to pass, 30 million americans would lose their health insurance coverage. it would take away $651 each from 5.3 million seniors in the medicare doughnut hole, making their prescription drugs more expensive. 360,000 small businesses would no longer be able to claim a tax credit to help cover their

employees. and 6.6 million young adults under 26 would be forced off their parents' plans, left to face a tough job market with the added pressure of being uninsured. the republican repeal bill would take away these benefits and end these cost-saving measures. and after 31 votes, as i said, no alternative. nothing, no bill to read, no plan to follow, no security to offer. repealing health care without an alternative would add over $1 trillion to deficits over the next two decades. i don't say that. the congressional budget office says that. it is occurring in a place of a vote, if we could be taking on legislation to create jobs. nothing about jobs this week. nothing last week. nothing scheduled for next week. or the week after. it's a waste of time.

mr. larson: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. hoyer why is it a waste -- mr. hoyer: why is it a waste of time? the republican majority knows it will not pass the united states senate and it would not be signed by the president of the united states. so it's a message bill. it's politics as usual. spurring the base while spurning the average working american. i outlined several proposals yesterday that are bipartisan in nature. it ought to come to this floor immediately. it's called make it in america. let's vote on those bills. let's vote on those bills to create opportunities, not this one to take them away. madam speaker, i ask my colleagues to oppose this bill and let us work together constructively for a better economic future for our people, more economic security, more health care security and a better america, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader, the gentleman

from virginia. mr. cantor: madam speaker, thank you. i yield three minutes now to the gentleman from texas, the republican conference chairman, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, my democratic colleagues come to the floor and question, why are we here to vote to repeal the president's health care program? let me offer a few reasons. number one, the american people don't want it. the longer people have to know this bill, the more interested they are in seeing it repealed. reason number two, we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle, well, the supreme court said it was constitutional. well, the $5 trillion of additional debt that they and president obama have foisted on the american people, it's constitutional, but, madam speaker, it is not wise. seniors know that the president's health care program

cut half a trillion dollars out of medicare. a half a trillion dollars. the independent payment advisory board, one of 159 boards, commissions, programs to get between americans and their doctors, the independent payment advisory board, there to help ration health care for our seniors, another reason. now, i just heard the distinguished leader of the democratic party get up and say we should be talking about jobs , the economy. well, madam speaker, these are the very same people who told us the stimulus bill would help jobs, would help the economy. the stimulus bill was not a jobs bill. repeal of obamacare is a jobs bill. talk to any small business person across america. there's 40, 45 workers, we are

not going to 50. we are not going to do that. we are not going to hire those extra people. talk to a manufacture like i have in my district in jacksonville, texas. half of their work comes from the medical device company. he said, you know what, obamacare, the medical device tax, will force him to lay off workers. the employer mandate costs jobs. the congressional budget office , as the gentleman from maryland just cited, they themselves said it will cost 800,000 jobs. private economists, one million to two million. chamber of commerce just did a survey of small businesses, 74% said this makes it more difficult to hire. so after the president just turned in his 41 straight month -- 41st straight month of 8%-plus of unemployment, the

worst economic performance since the great depression, maybe it's time for a true jobs bill, madam speaker, and a true jobs bill is to repeal obamacare. the american people do not want it. we can't afford it. job creators are losing jobs by -- let's repeal it and repeal it today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from south carolina, a leader in the democratic caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in opposition to repeal the affordable care act. this is the 31st time the majority has orchestrated a vote to repeal in whole or in part this very important and long-awaited law to increase accessibility and decrease the

cost of quality health care. fortunately the other body rejected this ill-fated effort the first 30 times, and this 31st time will be no different. why then are we having this debate? do my republican colleagues really believe that the majority of the other body is now ready to take some children with dithes the right to coverage under their parent's -- diabetes the right to coverage under their parent's health care policy? do my republican colleagues believe that the majority of the other body is now ready to take from children who are seeking employment the right to remain on their parent's health care policies up to their 26th birthday? do my republican colleagues really believe that the majority of the other body is now ready to take from a woman with breast cancer or a man with prostate cancer the right to keep their coverage once they get sick?

the american people are smarter than that. they know the deal. they do not wish to be taken down this primrose path for the 31st time. the american people want stability in their lives, security for their families and safety in their communities. americans want us to stop jerking them around. they cannot have stability in their lives when we are shipping american jobs overseas. they cannot have security in their homes when they are fearful of getting sick. they cannot have safety in their communities when their teachers, policemen and firefighters are being laid off while we engage in symbolic episodes. i ask my colleagues to reject this charade and let's vote to restore the american dream. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader, the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i

now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. why are we here? we keep hearing that from our friends on the right, why are we here again today? and the reality of it is simple. the numbers keep changing and it simply does not add up. a long time ago in 2010, a long time ago, the estimates were $900 billion will be the cost of obamacare. two years later, now the estimate is at nearly $2 trillion. well, how do we fund this? everybody wants to know this. a program that is already financially strapped, medicare, obamacare takes $500 billion, $500 billion out of medicare. what does that mean? well, to me as a grandson of a

grandfather who's 92 years old, 92 years old, what happens when we take $500 billion out of medicare? well, the answer's clear. there's a 15-member board called ipab, the independent payment advisory board, that will then recommend cuts to medicare payments for doctors, hospitals and other providers. in other words, my grandfather's health may be in the hands of a 15-member autonomous board who will decide what happens to his health. that's wrong. if you look in obamacare, what you'll find is $317 billion of new taxes of a 3.8% tax on dividends, capital gains and other income, you'll find $110 billion on the middle class, for folks who like their health care and want to keep it, oh, no, no, no.

they can't keep it. and then you find another $101 billion -- mr. cantor: madam speaker, i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: another $101 billion, annual tax on health insurance providers, not paid for by those folks who make more than $00,000, but paid for by the -- $200,000, but paid for by the everyday working folks like my granddaddy and mama. who struggle to make ends meet. if you need a medical device, another $29 billion of new taxes. there is just not enough time, mr. leader, to talk about all the taxes that can't be articulated in just two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself before i defer to the vice chair of the caucus just 30 seconds to respond here, as mr. andrews has very

patiently and eloquently pointed out, that the $500 billion that was just discussed by the previous speaker is something that the republicans have voted on twice. perhaps they didn't get a chance to read that bill as they sometimes claim about health care on this side. with that i defer to the vice chair of the democratic caucus, javier becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for how long? mr. larson: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding the time. it took 19 presidents and 100 years dating back to president teddy roosevelt to open the door to all americans to quality health care that is centered on the patient-doctor relationship. 105 million americans who will fall ill no longer will have a lifetime limit on the coverage they receive from their health insurance company. up to 17 million children today

who have pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage by an insurance company. 6 1/2 million young adults under the age of 26 today can stay on the health care policy of their parents. 5 1/2 million seniors today receive an average of $600 to help cover the cost of their prescription drugs when they fall into the so-called doughnut hole. 360,000 small businesses in america, men and women who own their own business, got assistance through a tax credit to help provide health insurance coverage to their employees. 13 million americans will benefit in insurance premium rebates from insurance companies who must now show that they're spending the premium money they get from those americans for health care, not on paying c.e.o. salaries or not on profits. $1.1 billion in rebates for 13 million americans. and perhaps the most important thing that most americans don't recognize, the $1,000 that those of us who do have health

insurance throughout america that we pay in premiums to our insurance companies to cover care that -- not for us and our families -- but for those who don't have insurance, the free riders, that will start to drop. those are the things that are at stake. yet, while it took 100 years to get to this point, it has taken our republican colleagues a year and a half to vote over 30 times to try to repeal these patient rights and protections. patient's rights and protections president obama promised, this house delivered and the supreme court confirmed. my colleagues say to repeal and replace this patient's rights and protections is the right way to go, but the only thing we have seen on this floor is all repeal and no replace. it's time for this congress to get to work on the most important thing before us, getting americans back to work. let us vote this down and get to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i now yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from washington, the republican

conference vice chair, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i thank the leader for yielding. i rise in support of this legislation today, to repeal obamacare, because the control of health care and health care decisions belong in the hands of patients and families and their doctors. obamacare was a big government takeover of one of the most personal aspects in our lives. and i come to this debate as a mom, as a wife. i have two children, one that was born with special needs, and i understand firsthand talking to so many within the disabilities community and i hear their fear, their fear of not being able to find the doctors, not being able to find the therapists within the medicaid programs, within tricare because of the government -- these are government programs that are too often making false promises. i think about my parents who are signing up for medicare and over $500 billion in cuts to the medicare program.

and in eastern washington, it is very difficult to find a doctor right now who will take a new medicare patient. because of obamacare, my family, like millions all across this country, are facing longer lines, fewer doctors and lower quality of care. we can and we must do better. if we don't repeal this law, the results are going to be disastrous. c.b.o., the congressional budget office, has already estimated 20 million americans will lose their employer-provided health insurance. health care premiums continue to soar. innovation and life-saving technology and devices are being threatened. the first step to putting individuals and families back in charge of their health care is to repeal obamacare and i urge support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: it gives me great honor to introduce the dean of the connecticut delegation and a voice for compassion, who

believes passionately about this health care law that's in effect for the american people, rosa delauro from connecticut, i yield a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. ms. delauro: what will happen if the house majority skeds in repealing the -- succeeds in repealing the affordable care act? 16 million children will once again be denied coverage. 6.6 young adults under 26 will no longer be covered by their parent's insurance plan. insurers will be allowed to discriminate against women again, charge them more, deny them coverage because they had a see syrian section, leaving maternity and peed at rick care out of -- pediatric care out of their policy. 360,000 small businesses will lose tax credits. americans will have to pay out of pocket for preventive services like cancer screenings and wellness exams. preventive services that could have saved the life of syria, a 50-year-old east haven woman who died from breast cancer

because she simply could not afford a mammogram. and 30,000 americans will lose their health insurance and be left to their fate, while every single republican in this house will maintain their health care coverage. . repealing is wrong. it was wrong the first time. it is wrong the 31st time. welcome to "grouped hog day" in the house of representatives. -- "groundhog day" in the house of representatives. this majority needs to start working to make our economy healthy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: i now yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from georgia, the republican policy committee chairman, dr. price. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. price: i thank the leader. as a physician one of the tenets of medicine is first do no harm. sadly the president's law does real harm. the supreme court has said the law is constitutional. that doesn't make it good

policy. it harms all of the principles that americans hold dear as it relates to health care. it increases cost, decreases accessibility, will hers quality, and limits choices. the wrong direction for our country. it harms patients, especially seniors, by removing $500 billion from medicare and having 15 unaccountable bureaucrats deny payment for health care services. decisions that should be made by pasheents and doctors, not government. it harms doctors. over 80% of whom in a recent poll said they would have to consider getting out of medicine because of this law. and it harms our economy, killing over 800,000 jobs and making it more difficult for small businesses, the job creation engine of our nation, to create jobs. and it's that much more frustrating because it doesn't have to be this way. there are positive solutions that don't require putting washington in charge. there's a better way. the first step to that better way is to repeal this law so that we may work in a rational and deliberative and yes,

bipartisan process, for patient centered health care, where patient, families, and doctors make medical decisions, not washington. the president's law doesn't just harm the health of patients and seniors, it harms the health of our economy and nation. the first step to replace is to repeal. we can start today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larsen: may i inquire how much time -- mr. lrson: may i inquire how much time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has five minutes remaining. mr. larson: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. million miller: for the 3 st time this congress, the house republicans are trying to put insurance companies back in charge of america's health care. the house republicans are preoccupied with taking away the patient protections while they are keeping their own protections. i recreptly got a letter from a woman who lives in the fran san francisco bay area.

she told me how vital this law s her husband is self-employed. he has diabetes, and thanks to the affordable care act the husband will fenally have access to qult affordable coverage. -- quality affordable cofrpbl. thanks to this law insurance companies won't be allowed to deny her coverage. and annie's son, a 25-year-old, thanks to this law is able to get on his mother's health care plan and save the family money. today the republicans want to take that away. they want to takeway these protections and benefits these american families haven't had in the past. today the republicans in the congress want to put the insurance companies back in the business. the same insurance companies that took away your policy, where your child was born with a disability. the same insurance company that didn't allow to you have cancer surgery because had you a lifetime limit or pre-existing condition. the same insurance company that decided that your children would be kicked off their policies when you're 18. i don't think we should go there, america, but that's what repeal brings you.

that's what the republican plan is to give it all back to the i shurens company after 00 years of struggling to take it away -- insurance company after 100 years of struggling to take it away. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i now yield three minutes to the majority whip, gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccarthy: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to our respected leader for yielding. from the moment obamacare was introduced, house republicans and the american people have expressed concerns about the quality, the cost, and the effect it would have on our jobs. we are here today because the supreme court ruling made one thing clear. it's up to congress to do the repeal. the devastating tax increase and what it would affect upon our

economy. obamacare stands today because the supreme court said it's constitutional as a tax. the chief justice stated in his opinion, members of this court are vested with the authority to interpret the law. we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. those decisions are entrusted to our nation's elected leaders who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. it is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of the political choices. but it is our job. unfortunately we have learned over the past two years this law has proven to be bad policy. you know what's more important? it's filled with broken promises. we all remember president obama's first promise, if you like the health care you have today, you can keep it. that's not true. 80% of those in small employer

plan risk even keeping what they have today. the president also promised the law would bring down premiums by $2,500. but that's not true, either. because it's already been increased $1,200. c.b.o. says it will even rise higher. president obama did promise as i sat right here and listened to him, he would not add one dime to the deficit. you know what? that's not true, either. it's going to add billions of dollars. president obama promised he would not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000. turns out obamacare includes 21 new taxes, 12 of them on the middle class. promises made, promises broken. there was another president from illinois who was quoted as saying, as our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.

we must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country. now is the time to listen to the american people. now is the time to put the patient first for they are empowered. now is the time to repeal and begin to bring this country back together with a quality of health care, where the patient has the choice, not the government. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself 15 seconds as we ask the dean of the delegation to step forward and just say that aside from the platitudes that we have heard today as been expressed by many on our side and so many elements of debate we have heard, we continue to see no plan from the other side but a persistence endeavor to repeal a plan that would cost more than $100 billion for the taxpayers. recognize the dean of the house

of representatives, the gentleman from michigan, john dingell. mr. dingell: i thank my good friend. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend just for a moment, please. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dingell: this is a gavel i used when i pre the speaker pro tempore: sided over the passage of medicare. and when i presided over the passage of legislation called a.c.a. this legislation takes care of the american people. i'm willing to say to my republican colleagues they can use it for a good cause. what is important here, you are going to lose the debate because the american people know what you're trying to take away from them. this is the 31st time we voted on this and it isn't a law. we have 44 days left to finish the business of this congress and interestingly enough we are not going to deal with important

questions like jobs, employment, the economy. the worst economy that the president inherited since the days of herbert hoover. the american people wonder why this congress has not been doing it. the reason is the republicans have been wasting the public's time. in those 44 days they are not going to be able to do the nation's business. unemployment -- unemployed will continue to be unemployed. i'll loan you the gavel if you promise to use it for something good. it's a fine piece of good and its tasks in terms of dealing with the public's concerns are not yet done. having said these things, i say shame. you are wasting the time of the american people. you are wasting the time of the congress. where is the replacement? it is not to be seen. where are the steps that you should be taking about jobs?

they are not to be seen. you have the gavel. use it. use the leadership the people have given you to lead the congress of the united states. the democrats will work with you. but you won't work with us and you won't work for the american people. the time of dealing with the business of this nation is short. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dingell: nowhere are we seeing anything, my republican colleagues -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. million dingell: i say have a -- mr. dingell: i say have a more enlightened outlook. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i'm prepared to close and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. the gentleman from connecticut has two minutes remain maining. -- remaining. mr. larson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i want to

compliment both sides for the quality of debate that has occurred on this floor over the last couple of days. today we are here for the 31st time to act on repealing the affordable health care act. i give my colleagues credit for their persistence, but i'm deeply troubled by the obstinance and the obstruction that they have demonstrated in an almost indifference to the needs of american families. most importantly the simple dignity that comes from a job that more than 14 million of our americans are being denied. and we can't in this great civil body bring forward the president's bill that will create jobs. one of the people in my district

said, do you not understand that you have plunged us into the dark abyss of uncertainty? the only thing that creates and corrects that situation is the simple dignity that comes from a job. yet today we spend our time on the floor talking about something where we should be working together. where members on our side of the aisle who would have preferred medicare for everyone, the majority of our caucus would have been there, and yet embrace the compromise that extoled the virtues of the romney plan in massachusetts, but there is no room for compromise on the other side of the aisle. so we can only surmise this, that you would rather see the president fail than the american people succeed.

person after person on both sides of the aisle have gotten up and talked about the need for us to come together. you embrace most everything that's in this plan but would rather see the president fail than the nation succeed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i introduced this legislation on behalf of my colleagues so that we may all be on record following the supreme court's decision in order to show that the house rejects obamacare. and that we are committed to taking this flawed law off the books. this is a law, madam speaker, that the american people did not want when it was passed and it remains the law that the american people do not want now.

first and foremost obamacare violates president obama's central promise to the american people, that if they like their current health coverage, they can keep it. . the jastvort of people like the coverage they have and they can keep it. now, thanks to this law, patients across the nation are losing access to the health care they like. millions stand to lose health care coverage from their employers because obamacare is driving up costs and effectively forcing employers to drop health care coverage. beyond that, obamacare takes away from patients the ability to make their own decisions and individual choices. instead of letting patients and families work with their doctors to decide the best care, obamacare puts washington in the driver seat to make

health care choices for them and their families. driving up costs and making health care draw matcally more -- dramatically more is not what americans asked for. madam speaker, we know in this tough economy we need to be doing able we can to help our small business men and women. they are struggling because of uncertainty and facing the pros pects of one of the largest tax hikes in history. obamacare increases that burden by adding new costs and more red tape. the new harsh reality is that creating new jobs and bringing on new employees may just be too expensive and too burdensome if this law is left to stand. the president said throughout the health care debate, as did

former speaker pelosi and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this health care law was not a tax. well, we now know that the supreme court has spoken. it is a tax. madam speaker, it's time to stop all the broken promises and give back to the kind -- get back to the kind of health care people in this country want. it cannot be overlooked that obamacare also has disast russ implications for the moral fabric -- disastrous implications for the moral fabric. this paves the way to funding of abortion. violating individuals' religious, ethic and moral beliefs. it is when president obama required employers to cover items and services with which they and perhaps their

employees fundamentally disagree. washington-base care is not the answer. there is a better way to go to improving the health care system in this country. the american people want patient-centered care that allows them to make the very personal decisions about health care with their families and their doctors. they want to keep the care they like. they want to see costs come down. and they want health care to be more accessible. that is the kind of health care we on the republican side of the aisle support and frankly the type of care that the vast majority of the american people support. madam speaker, we have said since day one that we must fully repeal this law. today we can start over and we can tell the american people we are on your side, that we care about your health care, we want quality care and affordable

the house includes cuts to the food stamp program. on tomorrow's washington journal, a conversation about those cuts. also in the house, members voted today to repeal the health care

law president obama signed two years ago. we will talk about that with a texas republican congressman michael burgess. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this weekend on "book tv," growing up in the nuclear weaponry facility from full and body burden. she looks at the effects on the environment and the people, saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern and sunday, the life of jean kirkpatrick. >> carter was covered with a magnolia accent. she saw the dominoes start to fall during this time. by 1979, she was a full-fledged -- in full-fledged opposition to carter. particularly crucial in this respect, she saw the fall of the shah and some lacerating

experiences for her and people like her. >> the political woman behind the reagan-cold war doctrine. sunday at 9:00. 10:00, marine sniper and author anthony swofford on life since leaving the military. this weekend on c-span 2. >> at the heritage foundation's review of the supreme court term, u.s. solicitor general donald -- donald verrilli, jr., discussed the court's ruling. the panel of journalists gives their perspective on the supreme court term and previews the cases coming up in the next term. this is two hours. [applause] >> thank you ladies and gentlemen.

i am joined in welcome you to the heritage foundation and this annual event, looking at the most recent supreme court term. we have had over the last several weeks and number of rather momentous decisions by the court and so we have the scholars in this panel and the writers in the next panel to analyze them and put them in perspective and give their opinions and analysis. we have as the scholars here, three excellent attorneys. people who have themselves participated in either actual appearances in advocacy before the supreme court or extensive writing about it. our first speaker who has requested to lead off is the honorable donald verrilli, jr., the solicitor general of the united states. we appreciate you being here.

the solicitor general has been -- has held various offices within the department of justice. before that, he was in private practice with a well-known law firm here in washington, d.c. he also has been active in pro bono work, helping to serve the community and has received several awards for that effort. in addition to all of this, he has been a commentator on the supreme court advocacy and graduated from yale university and has received his doctor jurors degree from columbia law school. he served there as editor in chief of the columbia law review and was later a clerk at the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit and for the honorable justice of the united states supreme court. our second speaker will be michael carvin.

he also has extensive appellate experience. he served in the department of justice and handled a number of cases there and now in private practice again, heading up the supreme court advocacy there. he was one of the lead lawyers in the famous case of bush against four -- gore. he has been involved in a number of other major cases. our third speaker is professor richard epstein. he is a distinguished professor both at the university of chicago law school and also at new york university. he is also -- he started his career in california at the university of southern california where he started teaching and is also a fellow of mine at stanford university. he is an extensive writer on

legal subjects, having published many books and many more articles of the various sorts and specializes in his teaching in a variety of legal setbacks, including constitutional law and legal history and law policy. we are pleased to have the speakers with us. please join me in welcoming the first speaker, the solicitor general of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. i will take a sip of water here. [laughter] having done that, thank you for that race is introduction. i am sure you all understand that because of my position, i will not be offering any personal views today about the courts' decisions or the term. i will stick closely to what the government said in its greece and the argument -- its briefs

and the argument. i will touch initially on three cases, the health-care cases, the arizona immigration case and united states and alvarez. it is not clear how much i can add to what everybody already knows given the saturation coverage of the last couple of weeks in. i think it is safe to say everybody knows that the court upheld the affordable care act's minimum coverage provision and the insurance reforms which will make it affordable insurance coverage available to millions of people who cannot now obtain health insurance they need. everyone knows that the congress has the authority under the spending law to enact the medicaid expansion but the states could not required to give up their existing medicaid funding as a condition of

declining -- if it were to decline to participate in the medicaid expansion. i am sure that michael carvin and richard epstein will have more to say about the decision. the bottom line is that the court held the act as a legitimate exercise of the federal government's constitutional authority. i would like to spend some time on the arizona case which was also quite a significant decision in. it had a couple of days in the sun but then was quickly obscured by the health-care decision. the provisions of the immigration law were pre-empted by federal law and declined to hold a fourth provision which required state officers to check the immigration status of anyone detained for other reasons which pre-empted. the three preempted provisions for section 3 of the law which

made a state crime punishable by imprisonment to violate federal immigration registration requirements. section 5 which made it a state crime for on lawfully present -- to seek or obtain employment in section 6 unauthorized ever some officers to make warrantless arrest of those they believed had probable cause to be removed under federal immigration law. the constitution -- each state is not free to impose its own regime for deciding who may lawfully be in the state. i think that is best seen in section 3 of the law were the court held congress occupy the field regarding registration removal of aliens and that states cannot enforce their own sections even if the standards were identical to the federal standards. six of the eight justices participating in the case

joined that bottom-line conclusion on section 3 of the law. section five is also significant. the court held that because congress had stepped in and enacted a very significant set of standards to govern the sanctions for employment of law -- of unlawfully present aliens, that the state could not at sanctions on top of what congress did. you also have a section 6 of the law. i do think those rulings on section 3 are quite significant. the court did allow section 2 of the law to go into effect. that is the provision that requires officers check on the immigration status of a part -- of persons lawfully detained for other reasons. unlike the provisions that the

court found preempted, the court thought this provision was capable of being implemented in a way consistent with the federal emigrates -- the federal government's immigration authority. caveat indicating how the law is interpreted could have a bearing on whether it was a lawful exercise of the state's authority. a couple of minutes now on the united states versus alvarez. united states did not prevail. it is fair to say it is of less practical significance than either of the two decisions i mentioned so far but it is a case with first amendment significance. the stolen of dollar act -- stolen valor act, the defendant in that criminal prosecution made a false claim that he was a medal of honor winner. one thing about it is there was no opinion for the court.

there was an opinion by justice kennedy and four members of the court which built on a decision a few times earlier in the steven's case to a poll there was no categorical exemption from first amendment protection from false statements of fact and that false statements of fact that fell into historically a protected categories such as defamation or fraud or beyond protection of the first amendment. the broad category of false statements were not. two members of the court did not join the opinion and instead suggested that this kind of case was one that called for something approaching intermediate scrutiny. but they femme -- but they foun d there were other means by which the government could achieve its interests and therefore the law was unconstitutional.

justice alito wrote a -- for himself. false statements of fact were held to be beyond the protection of the first amendment. there was no real risk of chilling constitutionally protected speech. those are the three cases i put on the table. i am sure we have much to discuss about them later. >> thank you very much. [applause] now if he would join me in welcoming michael carvin. [applause] >> thank you. unlike the solicitor general, i will be offering my personal opinion. [applause] one of the luxuries of being in private fact -- practice.

it is the old saying of the operation was a success but the patient died. we got some really good commerce clause of rulings and the chief justice wrote the statute and gave congress the power. i thought i would quickly explain why this was clearly a judicial regrading of the statute and not an interpretation of the statute as the chief justice correctly noted. if you have a legal violation that you cannot offend them whatever monetary consequences attached to that is the penalty. if they ban cigarettes across

the united states and say if you sell them, the penalty is $5 a pack fine. that is a penalty. if they say sell the cigarettes but when you do, what attach a $5 a pack surtax, the same economic consequences but one is obviously a tax and the other is a penalty. chief justice roberts looked at a provision that said you shall buy insurance and we will pay a penalty by failing to do it by the legal requirement. he interpreted that to mean he may pay a tax if you do not do with the government suggests. he clearly rode the stat sheet. he did not look at the structure of the statute which had different exemptions for the penalty on the one hand and the mandate on the other which showed that they were not the same. a high-level of generality. opposite the government did not want any money from the individual mandate. they wanted people to purchase

insurance because that was the key to the entire scheme. the last thing they wanted to do was have them pay the penalty and four or the insurance -- and forgo the insurance. that overlooks the obvious point witches who else but the irs can monitor and activity by a citizen? you cannot establish a new bureaucracy to say have you bought your health insurance? the only way you will be able to do is to have the americans tell you whether or not they bought the mandate. some conservatives are taking solace in the fact that while the chief justice wrote the statute and not the constitution and made some commerce clause law, i do not think that survives scrutiny either. everything he said that the

commerce clause was designed to prevent the federal government from doing, impose a mandate to buy a particular product, he then turned around and said they can do that under the tax. and they do not call tax, it is not a question of labour, it is a question of whether or not there is legal violation. the chief justice will rewrite that to say, if you buy broccoli, or don't like broccoli, you will pay a tax. everything that they want to do under the commerce clause they are empowered to do under taxing powers. i don't take it was a victory in terms of limited government in the long term or provisions of this act. contrary to what some people have said, i don't think there are limits on the new found principle the penalties can become taxes. a some people say that the penalties can't be too big. you figure the more the

government would want the revenue and it was 10% of the annual and come. they have very serious ways of imposing these penalties. any activity or inactivity, you can pass the violence against women act that was struck down and say if you commit violence in women -- against women, you will pay a civil penalty. the point of this, people think this is a very different attitude about how they will behave. if you write a statute, congress would never enact its and could never enacted because they could never pass this law if they told the american people it was a tax. that concern about hong -- about independence of the judiciary, it makes it look

like president obama's wholly improper and unprecedented attack on the court somehow did influence the adjudication of the third branch which will give legitimacy to this kind of lobbying in the future. it was a very unfortunate precedent and i am sad to see some reports about the chief justice's activities have confirmed that it could happen again. i will switch to two cases where i did like the results, the alvarez case. the court said that full statements are protected by the first amendment. you had six justices on that quite clearly. the comments about false statements always remain in the context of full statements that induce material, on a fellow citizen. if you defraud them out of money or anything, but they were not

going to extend that to the political arena because there are a number of hogs that would create causes of action is he telling untruths during a political campaign. imagine the work that would create for federal courts of that was ever accepted on the federal level. and finally, there was a significant decision that involved the controversial issue of taking mandatory fees and can you send it to politically related expenditures. as long as you gave the employee, the non-union employee the ability to opt out of the fees that we were going for, the political advocacy, i think it was a strong indication that from now on, the constitutional rule is not to allow the employee to opt out of the payments that go for political advocacy, but to make him talk

yen to endorse it. if that is where they go, it could have a significant effect on public union employees ability to engage in politics and would have an even more significant effect if it was extended to private sector unions under that case, but i will leave it at that. thank you. >> and now, join me in welcoming the professor richard epstein. >> thank you for having me here. how will have to take something -- [unintelligible] speaking of severability. the one point i would like to make is this, on the question of the medicaid exemption, everybody kind of laughed. they said, this argument was so

bad, it will not carry a single vote anywhere, republican or democrat. the argument was so pathetic that the state of texas and florida refused to raise it before the supreme court and were held against their will by a supreme court that said we would like to hear this kind of thing. it seems to me you have a pretty good chance of winning. the interesting feature of that is i regard this as a relatively easy case of a matter of first principle, what i thought it was an extremely difficult case as a matter of constitutional law. one of the most interesting outh dakotawas s.d. ver versus dolt, in principle but said that certain conditions attached to government grants,

he did it in that particular case by introducing the distinction between inducements on the one and and coercion on the other. it is a correct distinction, but he drew it in the wrong place. if i said, give me all your money, that is coercion. if i said, give me a 5% of what you have in your wallet, that is a form of inducement. you can draw the line between what you ask for, but the line is, i would like to get your wallet and i will pay you dollars for it, it is and is meant by giving my own situation. he managed to haul appeal the entire lot of property by not understanding the difference between coercion. the chief justices never wanted to attack the fundamental distinction. what he did do is make an argument completely inconsistent with the way we look at the tax.

it is different from making a direct order to somebody. you are dead wrong on that, the entire lot of preemptions as a penalty is tantamount if you make it large enough. when he got to the other half, he said there are serious conditions the you can and can't attach to the government grant. if we require you to sacrifice something, the action is not voluntary even though you may well choose to do it like the blues states were willing to do. he takes a different view on the relationship and understands the sacrifice of what was previously an entitlement would count as coercion. it was ironic that under these circumstances, you're sacrificing a government grant under terms of a contract where the government was allowed to alter or amend the arrangement, but thinking more of an antitrust law.

consenting to elyssa ties, that will not be the case here. he came up with the right conclusion, you can condition the way in which the money you give them may be used, but you can't tell them they'll have to give millions of dollars of money unless you play ball with the government. everybody will realize that the large dependency you have on other programs or the most hopeless you are in trying to deal with anything else. i think he made the right decision on that particular case, but was desperately wrong. talking about some of the other things, i thought in the arizona case, what struck me, lies nearly closed out of my head. it is clear just looking at this that somebody has got a lot of work on pre-emption. occupation, field, everything is working if you were the government, and i thought he was

going to win all four points. he says the state is sovereign if you go back to the original, the federal government never exerted a zero -- any power over immigration. the only means the same thing by the time we get to the 1870's or '80s. he thought there was a dual sovereignty issue in this case. in effect, he was willing to let the thing ride. i think in the end, he has to be wrong. on that basic score, i am not sure that the court was right saying it was ok when saying that the state can refer people and a corroborative arrangement. it turned out that the federal government was willing to have the cooperation, but they announced, what are you doing in

this thing, these federal enforcement levels we do not accept, it seems to have a reasonably credible case. another couple points of measurement, you ask how is it that these people could wish to bring the kind of action that the government brought against the epa. i am not talking about a lot and if it is a final judgment, but a guy that is four blocks away from the water, he tries to build a foundation and goes to his neighbors. we understand this guy is charging pollutants into the water of the united states. intellectual double talk of the worst nature. the fundamental mistake in every piece of environmental legislation is that instead of waiting for imminent harm, you have all these anticipatory remedies which apply to cases that in one case and a million

will generate the kind of harm in question. you have a discussion about the kind of rock he is using will change the ecology so a single drop of something will end up in summer for 800 feet away. it is a classic case in which the federal government aided by the united states supreme court has grotesque interpretations to things like the navigable waters of the united states, and what should have been done was visit something and say you can't use these kinds of clubs to beat people up. the last case i will talk about, the federal government had no business whatsoever -- ho is a waste of public funds to try to prosecute religious organizations which has its own definitions of who is or who is not a member of its organization. using the handicapped and anti- discrimination laws which i have been opposed to on principle, it

puts the court and the government in the position of telling you are or are not in practice. the obama administration's efforts to narrow the free exercise of religion is, i think, one of the constitutional miscarriages that will play out in the medicaid context in connection with, as we well know, the question of whether or not catholic institutions can participate in federal programs. the government is inexcusably wrong on that gesture. [applause] ." we have heard an analysis of several cases. we will give each speaker a minute or two to respond to anything that they may have heard from the others, and we will start with the solicitor general. >> picking up where he left

off, no doubt those were tough cases for the united states. aboutlly, so we're clear this, although those were tough cases for the united states, they were tough cases based law- enforcement policies that each of the relevant agencies had adopted a long time ago and had been forcing in the particular instances, actually. in the prior administration as well as this one. part of the job in the solicitor general's office is to defend the enforcement positions of the federal agencies, especially when their longstanding and well established. those are tough cases. in terms of thinking about policies at issue, it is important to understand that they were longstanding policies. >> i will pick up on that last

one again. it is true the solicitor general is in the unenviable position of sending the more egregious policies, that is why they make their way to the supreme court. it is quite clear they were seeking to expand their ability to regulate churches hiring decisions or employment decisions. there had been this exception that was pretty well formed that the ability to eliminate employment discrimination did not apply to somebody that was a minister. there was a lot of confusion about who qualified as a minister and who did not. that was the enforcement policy. the thing that got most attention was not the bottom line position as motive analysis where they argue that the free exercise clause did not give churches or religious institutions any special

autonomy, even making their most basic decisions that go to the heart of who is going to run the ministry. that position was rejected by the supreme court. the solicitor general's position is that you can get some protections and the general right to associate, but the court said there is a specific provision that deals with religious institutions and the notion that they have the same rights as everybody else in the religion clause does not make a lot of sense. i will point out that there is a bit of confusion. under this decision of the court, in terms of eliminating religious practice, it is a non- discrimination rules. you can stop people from exercising their religion, which, if you have a prohibition, catholics can't have sacramental wine.

the church is to have greater rights than other citizens in terms of resisting the nondiscrimination commands of the government, as some of the things you saw in that line of cases seems to have wiped away some of those rights, all of which would be implicated in the affiliated catholic challenges to the contraceptive mandate under the affordable care act. >> in terms of long-term enforcement, i have lots of uneasiness about it. it is clear that that case is not going to be enforced, but it is quite clear that there will be some selectivity. looking at the particular statutes, it is not a longstanding policy to give a narrow interpretation as is under earlier administrations. this is such an utterly indefensible position, and i will take it one step further.

the freedom of association should dominate against anti discrimination cases. i would go so far as to say this stuff is completely unconstitutional, a limitation on freedom of association. the reason is you don't want the government or anybody to have to say, religions have themselves greater preferences from everybody else because now you or favoring an establishment of religion. you are establishing a religion or prohibiting. no matter what you do, you are always wrong. if you have the freedom of association position, you don't have to worry about those kinds of embarrassments. those guys just have to go home and return to contracts. the mandated terms essentially never make things work. the thing to understand about

this is the bad structure of the anti-discrimination laws which are accepted in respectable circles, i am getting a sense of that. the central theme here is that it does something that gets the common law's distinct went backwards or long -- or wrong. it never should be part of competitive markets. they get it backwards in the case like that. there was a huge change in position when the republicans ran this operation. the navigable waters of the united states meant navigable waters of the united states. that becomes anything that has an effect on navigable waters. what they and defensively did of the commerce clause, using the

stress test instead of saying, are you interstate commerce? and you get an administrative policy that essentially, when it comes to a joint of relief, cares about one kind of error. the one in a billion chance that it will start it forever, and they don't care about the 999,000 times it wishes to go over protection. it seems to me the common-law rules on this to preserve the cases for imminent peril should apply for people forced to the government and collectivization of remedies designed to pick up coordination. it should never allow the government to have more force than a group of private individuals to be polluted to get things that they themselves did not get. the fundamental mistake of the modern environmental movement is the moment you bring this into government area, it becomes unlimited power. you see what is going on in

these cases. the only suits are those about cases that are so egregious that people are willing to do it. most of the permits issued in the united states are professional busywork which essentially destroys the industrial fabric of the united states while doing precious little to protect the environment, given the fact that the structure of all the clean air is crazy, every time you have tough standards, you perpetuate the use of old and dirtier ones so that the net effect of the various crusades for a pollution free environment has increased the total lovell because they simply don't understand how the whole system is put together. >> you have heard from these colors, it is time to hear from the audience. please wait until the microphone has reached you so that you can give your name and your organization if you wish and ask

your question. let's start from the back there. please give your name and ask your question. see if the microphone is on. >> [inaudible] >> of the question for the audience watching us, the question about your performance

where there is a second thoughts about your performance and how might it have been upgraded if you see it that way. and what were your thoughts? were you vindicated by the decision? >> i will answer the question this way. we have a first amendment. not one of its primary purposes is to protect criticism of government officials had exercised their responsibilities. i am a government official. i have a responsibility and i ought to be subject to criticism. i guess i was, i must pay with that. that is just the nature of the process and that is the way it should be. >> [talking over each other] ways.> i take this two

you get this in high-profile cases. there are a hundred experts on the commerce clause, and i am like, if you gave me three days to sit down and cried out in answer to what has just been shot at me by nine very aggressive justices, maybe everything oaxaca -- it is real easy to sit at home and come to your senses. i think it was such a liberal echo chamber in terms of how strong the government's argument was, that this was really a case of killing the messenger. i think the case was much more difficult to grapple with how than the liberal intelligentsia is giving it credit for. when there were a perfectly satisfactory answers and some of the justices were skeptical,

instead of rethinking your position, they attack the messenger. i don't want to get into the nonsense about it, but i want to make the points that the guys are always going to get a disproportionate amount of temporary shows shot at them and 99% of the time, it is completely unfair. >> i like to attack the criticism. i think he made some good arguments, some bad arguments, but i was on the charlie rose show the night before the argument. jeff was in his swaggering best style, and all the rest of this stuff. it seems like the man was slightly crazed, which, in fact, he was. my view is that the government should have lost cold because the correct thing was to overrule what had no

constitutional foundations whatsoever. but then, the next day comes around and all of a sudden, he is embarrassed about it and takes it out. what is interesting about everyone of these guys that said he made a wrong argument, they proceeded to make arguments that were so incompetent himself that it was almost unreasonable. explaining why insurance markets must necessarily fail, he is supposed to know some economics. it turns out that they put this mandate in question. there is a long history in the health insurance debate. the difference between social insurance and insurance. social insurance is not a subset of insurance, it is a completely different beast.

the transfer as from those people that are less risky or more affluent, and no voluntary market will ever create an uncompensated transfer. if you are a high-risk person at the market is working well, your insurance has to reflect your risk. they didn't want to do it, they wanted to socialize the risks. you have to use some degree of coercion. to say insurance markets will always felt this to say that markets -- when they start talking about the fairness of the private markets, he forgot to talk about the difference between these forms of insurance. the reason the case is so difficult under these circumstances is that it made two arguments simultaneously. of these young folks are freeloaders on the system. then you have to require them to buy market rate insurance against losses. but it requires them to

subsidize everyone by eliminating the difference between the top at the bottom. it is not an easy thing to say that you have to inconsistent purposes. we are doing both, but it is a hard argument to make. if you put too much weight on one and ignore the other, it will sound very wrong. the scheme as designed by the administration is the epitome of incompetence. require a waiting times before pre-existing conditions chicken, and when you buy insurance, keep it for at least a year to allow the insurance company to put a penalty on it. the difficulty of the administration is that when they put this thing together, there is not a single market oriented economist that anyone was prepared to talk to.

a piece of economic gibberish that puts itself in the name of an insurance situation. it is a terrible piece of substantive legislation. when you watch the way this thing works, it will be the rocky road were show. >> raise your hand high. >> this is a question -- i am of the competitive enterprise institute. it is good to see you again. i was wondering if you could discuss the possibility of a discriminatory effect in the provision of the arizona law that was upheld. will people who look like they might be illegals more likely to be pulled over for going to miles over the speed limit? >> my general view about most public officials is that they have been schooled in the dangers of discrimination with respect to enforcement that they bend over backwards to try to

avoid these kinds of situations. it turned out the guy was in the master of teaching people how to avoid these problems. the correct answer is to presume the legitimacy of government action given this background until you confide some serious deviation from the standard rule. in a state like arizona where there are so many people of hispanic origin, this would be a very reckless policy to undertake. i think that there is always a risk, but the other risk is that people will bend over backwards to avoid this kind of conflict. don't try to upset a scheme on the grounds of potential abuse until it is in operation nbc some evidence of that abuse. i don't think anybody arguing on either side of the case has said that the arizona public officials have misbehaved in any systematic fashion.

>> anyone else want to comment? we will take the next question right here. >> i am an attorney that filed when of the briefs in the fisher case. i wanted to ask the panel, in light of justice roberts opinion in the affordable care case, do you see any reasonable limit at all on the government's authority to occurs you to do something by imposing a tax? if you don't, could the government say that you must divide general motors or chrysler cars. if you buy any, there is a 10% tax because we have a stake in gm and chrysler. >> i don't perceive any serious limits on that. they can call it a mandate. you will buy a gm car and

pursuant to the interpretation that was engaged, it is just and forth like a civil penalty so we will call it a tax. i don't know why they can't require you ag -- to buy a gm car tomorrow. you have just alluded to some limits. one was that you can invoke & site of your -- 10% of your annual income. by the way, we have abandoned this analysis, so all of these cases are no longer block. i did not come around with a warm and fuzzy feeling. i think it will be the political check of not wanting taxes raised. i think there will be more about if the efficacy of eating broccoli is a good thing and not whether you call a penalty or a tax. >> we do have mayor bloomberg, the obesity situation.

a and this would be my reaction on the political front. it is a complete howler of a decision. it is almost a painful. it is exactly the same kind of question that the tax is wrong. the definition of what counts as public use, it expanded so far that any kind of ridiculous this that you wanted to put into place is perfectly ok. but states tightened up their rules and the level of condemnation has gone down and not up. i think that if anybody tries to introduce the kind of statute that you put into place now, it will be harder to get to it politically than before this case. it will be more difficult to keep this thing underneath the radar. in fact, my hope is that i might be involved in one such case. if you look at the way in which

the government runs its various programs, these are all domains which are sovereign unto themselves. nobody cares about what they say, they say if you don't like it, sue us. and if you sue us, you will delay your application. i think that after the medicaid expansion, there will be more attacks on the way or the government propagates itself. while that may be the line, there is nothing in the roberts opinion that helps anything, but i think there is a great deal in the publicity to let people sufficiently uncomfortable about the whole situation, the political price going forward will be hard. >> the civil lighting is that now is taxed, you do not need a super majority to appeal it.

>> since this was a hypothetical question, you get a free opinion here. >> discussing limits, i think they speak for themselves. >> in the next question. raise your hand high, please. >> i was curious what you guys think about the leaks that appeared to be coming out of the court over the last week, the leaks that have been coming out of the court? what you think about them and if this is going to be a continuing problem, if this is good or bad for the public's understanding. >> the question has to do with the leaks coming out of the court recently. >> since i have no connection, i don't like the the leaks coming out. one of the things i tried to do is to concentrate on the academic issues had not of the

personalities associated. in the end, they make the justices seemed all too human. the effect on the overall performance and the prestige will have to be negative. i wished they would not take place. if they don't like each other, that is fine, let them do it in private. i wish the journalists would back off on that kind of thing. it is easy to destroy the credibility of a public institution. it is extremely difficult to build it back up after it has been torn down. >> questions or comments? >> i will endorse all that. i am usually the one making the controversial comments at these things. [laughter] [talking over each other] >> i got nothing to say.

>> any comment? >> i am sure you understand it would not be appropriate to comment on the speculation involved in that issue. >> a question we will leave to the second panel, those at the members of the news media that can react to richard's suggestion. over here. >> i understand the need for the solicitor general's office to rescind existing federal law, but why did the obama administration enter the fisher vs. university of texas case on the side of the university in in the administration's position, are there any limits at all on the use of race in admissions? >> i was not at the department when the decision was made the file.

if i was, i would not be able to answer your question anyway because it would be subject to deliver to of privilege that the justice department guards very zealously. -- deliberative privelege that the justice department regards very zealously. ds very zealously. >> i take strong exemptions to what the supreme court said in that case. the government does two things and there ought to be two standards applicable to each behavior. one is that it enforces laws and beat people up. under that situation, the constitution is not only plausible, but completely required. the government runs all sorts of

things it should not run, including public schools and public universities. if these were private, they could have whatever racial policy they want. everybody would wish of the brown people would disappear from the face of the universe so people can run their affirmative-action programs without any kind of interference. that is a bit of an extreme position, but the correct position is that if you are running one of these complicated organizations, the business judgment rule to apply to the way in which you decide how to organize your resources. what is the test? i was the dean at the university of chicago. i said i think the constitution requires everyone be color blind. i think we are abolishing all affirmative action programs. that is not my position. my view is that i can run these

things better than the federal government. i think that when you have public universities, they have to be given at least some of the discretion he would give to the direct private competitors. the basic level but i would want to apply there is that the university of texas should be free to organize its internal programs the same way as any private university. this is fairly different from the current situation where you have this completely stupid situation in texas where you have the direct coalition against affirmative action programs that you can organize. what you do is take the top 10%, and you get an inferior student body when you do if he ran the policies in the opposite direction. no one is going to be happy on the question of how much affirmative action hewed to and you do not have. anyone who thinks there is a

universal solution thinks you can solve the middle eastern problem tomorrow by reasoning with a few people. you have to have decentralized and decisions. let each particular campus go its own way, and these judgments will outperform coercive judgments whether it is the one side saying you have got to do it or the other side saying that you can't do it. you need to figure out how to get into the immediate positions from you can't get substantive positions unless you have experimentation and can't have experimentation if you're going to have a government monopoly positions coming one way or the other. it is one of the reasons why you have anti-discrimination laws, because they have such rigidities into have these flip- flops' that make it extremely difficult to do long-term planning because you never know

if you have a republican or democrat in office and the winds in washington that will be blowing. >> other people that want to comment? toisn't it wonderful represent no clients? that is what you learn that. >> down here. >> this question -- at the outset of the program, you described the president's statements and criticisms as being an unprecedented. i was wondering if you could expand on that. given fdr's court packing plant, it doesn't seem in the same ballpark. >> what ever fdr did, he did not criticize the court while there was a matter in front of the court. he did not see george bush question the patriotism of

judges if they rule against him in that unprecedented way, striking down a law that was passed with bipartisan majority. you did not see a sustained media solving with the conservatives to uphold the bush detainee and congressional enactments in that area. i think it is unquestionable that he created an atmosphere where it was a sustained attempt by a senator right here on the floor of the white house and by the allies to try to intimidate the court. one of the unfortunate aspect of the leaks is that it gives real credence to the notion that this kind of attack worked. the relatively simple thing for the government act like other litigants. they make their arguments through the solicitor general and a reason to stay out of it. i don't think it does anybody any good to engage in this kind

of lobbying campaign, particularly since it will cheapen a question any victory you get with the court like this one is going to be subject to questioning for a long time. i don't know what good it gets out of you, and presumably, that is why we did justices life tenure so that they don't have to pay attention to this kind of nonsense. >> the state of the union address takes after citizens united with the sitting justices their, and they can't talk back at justice aledo whispering that is not true, that is a stupid thing for any sitting president of the united states to do. he had his views on citizens united, he set up the time, and i am happy to do it. that is not the issue, the question was that particular form. if in the light of that particular unprecedented move, i

think the second part that has to be made, i was alive and remember the arguments on brown vs. the board of education. maybe there was a banner headline in the paper. the amount of coverage on this case and the amount of pressure during that time was probably a thousand fold. let's keep things in perspective. the individual mandate with respect of desegregation of the south, we know that this question is more important. we would hate for someone to say, plessy and ferguson has been on the books for seven -- if you are in litigation on a point, you don't speak outside of your designated

representative. >> obviously, these are political points being made. i will say that, with respect to this, generally, the right course is to assume that everybody involved is acting with integrity. i do believe that to be the case. >> i think we will adjourn this part of the panel. we will be replaced in a moment by representatives of the journalistic community. please join me in thanking this panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [applause] >> thank you all for coming, and

thank you listeners and viewers on tv. i want to thank the communications department that sponsors the event at heritage. the it is a pleasure to work with rachel. i asked her to give me a brief squaduction be cuts thesquacaue said that they are much more -- that last part isn't true. i will stick to their wishes. the first speaker will be mark sherman that has worked for seven years on the supreme court. he worked for 20 years before that, reporting on health care, national politics, and justice department issues. he began his professional career as a foreign service officer.

later on, you can regale us with insight to the legal world. howard vassman was an appellate lawyer in his day job. he is our new media representative on this panel. he is the founder and editor of appellateppealing blog. it is one of the essential blogs for those of following appellate legal matters. and since 2004 legal intelligence, a daily news cable for lawyers. -- newspaper for lawyers.

howard has spoken at this program before. he always brings heritage audience is bad luck, i don't agree with that. reporting for the supreme court for 25 years, you have many years ago to catch up as the dean at of the entire court. he works out of the washington, bureau. and for the chicago tribune as well. he is the author of the book " turning right." published in 1992. perhaps we can get him to tell us where reagan, and the george bushes went wrong. if it is not as much a right wing court as some of us hope. i will turn it over to mark.

[applause] i will ask the panels to try to pull the mic close to you. >> i wanted to start by talking a little bit about how i spent most of my spring. like most of my colleagues, i was looking for any sort of side or indication of how the court was going to rule in the health- care case. we practice the body language theory, trying to figure out. it was only in retrospect that i found an undeniable clue. that was on june 15 of this year, justice ginsberg gave a talk about the term. she'll described the cases that have already been decided and not hint at what's to come. she said, "this term has been more than usually taxing."

i thought right that in there, it was a giveaway. i asked her about that and she was not intending to foreshadow the outcome of all. i think it is the case that many of us thought that the body language as the supreme court went on would suggest that the liberal side of the court was going to prevail even before the dissent in the arizona case. a couple of words about the outcome of the health care case. i want to get into the details away the last panel did. it was only the second time the chief justice had provided the fifth vote for the liberal outcome. the other time was his first term in a case called jones v. flowers, about proper notice of

a tax sale. it is the only other example we have so far. there has been a lot of talk about the markers laid down regaring fees, and regarding the commerce clause and spending clause. whether those markers are brought to bear is largely dependent on the future composition and direction of the court. that will depend almost entirely on who, as president, gets to make the game changing appointment. it shows the public is more evenly divided since the ruling that it was previously. i think we would have expected of the president and the democrats to try to use the court and the conservative majority as a campaign issue to rile up their base.

but i think the single biggest thing that the chief justice did in the political realm by casting the deciding dohvote iso take away from the republicans a fairly devastating line of attack. one that mitt romney would have used. what does the president have to show for what he had built as the biggest domestic issue of his presidency? the answer would have been nothing. that we don't know what role it will play in the campaign, but it is worth noting that that might have been very effective as a line of attack. i want to talk about the immigration case that i think one could argue was the most surprising outcome of the term. that was a case that once the court decided to hear the case, based on the argument, we

expected a mixed outcome that we got. what was surprising was the tone of justice kennedy's opinion for the court, which was almost a complete victory for the administration in spite of the fact that section 2 was not printed at this point. more surprising than that was the fact that the chief justice joined in that opinion and so did the liberal members of the court. including justice sotomayor that about the word so-called "show me your papers" provision of the law. you capture the magnitude of how big a win this was for the administration. i think at this point, i would

like to say a quick word in defense of and in praise of what people call the mainstream media, which i call, the media. we have heard a lot, obviously, about what happened at a couple of the cable news network's. i want to point out that the associated press, bloomberg news, dow jones, reuters, we were fast of of the mark and we were also entirely accurate. that has been of little bit onst with what happened that day. lastly, i will say a couple of words about a set of criminal cases because it turned out not to be a bad term for criminal defendants. we had the cory mabel's case, the alabama death row inmate that was essentially abandoned

by his legal team. the court ruled him a new hearing to fight of his death sentence. there were cases when the court extended the claims to plea- bargain. a case in which the court ruled a legislative effort to reduce the disparity between crack and powder cocaine crimes should apply to people whose crimes were committed before. and also the case involving the mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile. all of those were 5-4 cases and all three were sort of the usual alignment with justice kennedy siding with the liberal side of the court and the chief justice in descent along with the other conservative justices.

my final last word is just in quick comment to what the professor said. it was presented as a case of big government versus the little guy and very effectively presented that way. while it wasn't part of the record, it was the case that they had received word from the biologist that they had hired that their land was -- it contained wetlands. a slightly interesting fact i wanted to point out. thank you. [applause] >> howard? >> good morning, thank you for having me here today. this term was certainly a memorable one. the of the 10 years i have been running blog, this is perhaps the second time where it became

the event to view, for the super bowl of constitutional law. the only day that you know which cases are going to come out is the last day of the term. tens or hundreds of thousands of people were turned into a news networks and news outlets trying to figure out what the ruling was going to be. the court's own web site was so inundated with visitors that the court could not oppose the decision as promptly as it ordinarily pose decisions. i could not access it until 30 minutes after it was released in the press office. i was glad to get ahold of it because i was heading to the phillies game that afternoon and i was hoping to post a link

before i headed out the door. the case dominated the news for one new cycle until tom cruise and katey holmes announced that they were getting a divorce and then it was removed from the main intention. people will be mulling it over for years and years. i would like to focus on three important but somewhat lower profile cases. two of which arise from the criminal law category. and one that involves taxes, but not the health care case. in the case that is called williams against illinois, the court confronted a criminal defendant the was found guilty based on a dna match. evidence left at the scene included samples of bodily

fluids and from a dna lab. later, a second technician ran that dna profile against the entire database of other dna profiles and found that that dna profile was the dna profile of the defendant charged with the crime. the question was whether the criminal defendant had a confrontation clause to cross- examine the person that tested the original sample. the only person that testified was the technician that ran the test. they said the one produced was the one in the system. but the person that ran the original test involving the evidence was not at trial and did not testify. jurorsn an age wher e expect a scsi-type evidence and

many do not have that. this one did. what the court held, by a splintered vote of 4-1-4, was te circumstances of this case which involved a non-jury trial, the defendant did not have the right to cross-examine the person iran the original test. -- did not have the right to cross-examine the person who ran the original test. what the court did was to perpetuate the confrontation clause cases. many of which had been decided by a split could vote. a second case which was of interest to me, it rises above the third circuit, involved someone who was stripped searched at a jail after being

arrested for a misdemeanor. and number of years back, the court held that if you are arrested -- if you are found have been violated a misdemeanor offense, the police officer has the right to arrestee. one of the consequences is you are brought into the police station. he may be held and put into the jail system. individual was put into the jail system. in the course of being imprisoned, was forced to undergo a strip search. the court, by a 5-4 vote, held the the strip search was lawful. the chief justice issued concurring opinions that saw to limit. the four liberal justices

dissented. a full -- a few case where paul comment came into a buzz saw. this was the case of akrmer vs the city of indianapolis. the petitioner was seeking to obtain a refund of taxes paid for real estate assessments of involved in sewer hookups. what happened is taxpayers had an option of paying the entire assessment upfront or pain just $30 a month for 30 years. what indianapolis decided to do a year or so after the land owners paid the full amount, it did away with the tax. the folks who had paid the full thing said we are entitled to get a refund of a monthly paid.

we've paid the full amount. what the court said, the court held by 6-3 that the clause did not give the people the right to get a refund because the city had given reasons why it was rational not to give them a refund. that was a case where they joined with prior and justice roberts wrote a very strong dissenting opinion. the lesson from that case is that the way things go in oral argument does not tell you the outcome of the case. in that case, paul comment did win, even the people who saw thought he might not. thank you for having me here today. [applause]

>> david. >> thank you. it is good to be here. i think it is a mistake to invite me to these. not because i made bill speaker. i have been here a few times before. i am always here when the liberals when the big cases, the conservatives lose, and the audience is very calm. i do not think it is my fault there is nothing as fun as to have a big story with a surprise ending. this term lived up to that on both parts of it. i do think that there were a lot of surprising development. some of them got very little attention. one was that the criminal defendants one the major criminal law cases. there was a man named jones, a drug dealer, selling drugs. his case comes up.

his complaint was vitrectomy with a gps device. the law was the government contract you. you do not have any right to privacy. he won 9-0. justice scalia said the head attached the device which viola did the fourth amendment. justice toledo wrote a product shipment -- justice toledo wrote a broad opinion that said you do have a right to privacy. i would not have guessed that the outcome. i thought it was an interesting surprise. the plea bargain case is the same way. i would not have guessed it -- these people pled guilty. they got sentenced. one fellow had shot his girlfriend. his claim was, i did not intend to kill her.

i tried to shoot her in the leg. his attorney said, he can go to trial. he was convicted of attempted murder. the court said, effective assistance of counsel. there were four or five along but line. i do not usually think this is a quote war criminals are in good shape. the real surprise is what came at the end. the last week. the two big decisions. the obama administration 1 on immigration and health care. the health-care case was of a type and magnitude that i had not covered in the 25 years i have been doing this job. this is a situation where a big law is passed by democrats in the house, democrats and the senate, opposed by all of the

republicans, signed by a democratic president. the day it is signed, a group of republican attorney general say, this should be struck down as unconstitutional. it became 26 republicans. their argument was it should be struck down entirely. the case comes up in the supreme court two years later. for all of us who write about the court, we're zero is interested in the question about, what is law and what is politics? the supreme court is a little of both. if there is a ride legal answer, you do not need the supreme court. the supreme court is always in the mixture of law and politics. you know what happened.

the four associate justices who a democratic appointee is essentially voted to uphold the law and deferred to congress. the four associate justices who are republican appointees voted to strike down the law entirely. the entire 900 page law. that was the republican position. you had one justice, the chief justice, who came down in the middle. i thought this was a fascinating -- it says a lot about the chief. it says a lot about the court. it strikes me about eight -- as a good thing. that it was not a political vote. i know not everyone would agree with that. the chief justice agreed with

the conservative argument on the two big issues. the commerce clause would not justify is demanded. the medicaid expansion was unconstitutional. i have a couple homemade examples. i was on a radio program and i said i thought the court was going to surprise everybody. my daughter asked me. i said, it is like if congress passed a law that said, families are required to have children or pay a tax. you would say, the government cannot require you to have children. that would be unconstitutional. but if he said, if you do not have children, you are going to pay higher taxes. that is the way the law works right now. i think that is where chief justice roberts came done. you cannot man did this, but it can impose a tax penalty.

on medicaid, someone said earlier, i thought this was a loser for the challenges. the government is paying the entire cost of expansion. how can you complain about that. it is like a gift card, how can you complain about that? the challengers have a good argument. we are being forced to do this. if we do not go along, we could lose all of our money. but amid example -- my homemade example is the boss as to the secretary, how about if we go out to dinner, i will pay the full cost. she says, no, thank you. how about if we go out to dinner, i will pay all the cost. she says, no. another day he says, i would really like it to go out to dinner for me, i will pay the full cost, before you answer, if

he did not want to do it, you may want to think twice about coming to work tomorrow. it sounds pretty coercive. it would not be enough to say, i was going to pay the full cost. that is coercion. i thought seven of the nine justices agreed with that argument. the medicaid provision is coercive. chief justice roberts came up with a middle ground. he said, the state cannot doubt. -- can opt out. the four distances on the right sneered and said, we're not going to go along. the solution remedied the problem. the stakes were not compelled to go along. he remedied the problem. the four on the right said, the entire law has to go.

i think some of the rigidity of the four on the right may explain why the chief justice moved. a better stop there. thank you. [applause] >> and now we have a 3 minute rebuttals. >> i do not have anything to rabat. >> nothing to add? >> i would like to touch on the issue of leaks coming from the court. i think there has been a focus on two different types of leaks, one being leaks before the decision was released. the issue of reporters after the decision was released. i did not put any stock in to the fact that they were revealed well aware and the way. i think it is a entirely

believable that the votes would have been in place if someone had come out and strongly predicted that clarence thomas was going to uphold the mandate and he did not. then a much but some stock in to the fact that something had leaked. i do not think it to come as any surprise. in terms of the post decision lakeeaks. there are reliable sources within the court. i think those will reflect poorly on the people on whose behalf it seemed to be made. when you are on record, it is very collegial. the justices have to make decisions, whether they like each other or not. i come from a state that knows about what it is like for judges to not agree with each other.

they judged on the supreme court of pennsylvania accused one of his colleagues of having tried to run him over with a car. they would sit looking away from each other. the court would still come up with decisions. this court will continue to issue decisions. in terms of time to buy credibility, the series that have been assigned to why chief justice roberts ruled this win them to a man as himself, i did not find that to be credible there was then excellent example of that. the former justice john paul stevens on january 19 appeared on the call their report -- on the colbert report. it shows that he is a wonderful sense of humor.

i guess the lesson is, once you are a former justice, you can show off your wit. >> i do not have any rebuttals for howard or mark. >> any additional? >> i had a lot of time. i was impressed by the opera's decision. we did not get a much to discuss. i am part of the first amendment fraternity. you're supposed to be in favor of all of the first amendment decisions. i did not know it included the right to tell lies in public. i know is going to tell you about my career plan for the lakers in the 1980's. i have a lot of good that magic johnson stores. -- good magic johnson stories.

i thought that was a surprise. i of the first amendment right to live. he said, i won the medal of honor. he ended up winning in the supreme court. >> thank you all. it is our tradition to let the first panelist -- the moderator will go first. i was taken by something that you wrote that and going to pose to you and your fellow panelist. you wrote this on the 30th, but before the revelations that the chief switched his vote. in that piece that you wrote, he said that he saved his statesmanlike position -- it enhanced the court's reputation.

some believe, there is a lot of evidence, that he may have switched his vote. we do not even know that. we do not know whether he was influenced by the liberal onslaught. i will refer to the comment of the previous panel that it is unfortunately raises a cut over the administration's 20. prior to that, you wrote that his admiration, it might have predicted this outcome. you wrote, when the high court in the roosevelt administration seemed headed for constitutional showdown, he persuaded one justice to switch sides and to vote to uphold the minimum wage law. the switch in time defused the

plan to load up the supreme court with additional justices appointed by him. the plan died in the senate. the leadership preserved the court as an independent institution. my own view is it did the opposite. in my own view, there is no such thing as good and bad judicial activism. there is bad judicial activism and really bad. the really bad comes in the big cases. i disagree with my former teacher. i think the justices should not talk. i think it is your job to report it when they do. how are we to, in the hypothetical that chief justice robert was acting in a political manner, how does that with the

balance between whether it enhances the institution or undermines the? >> we do not know why the chief justice did what he did. my impression is that he had said long before this that he believed it was the court's duty to uphold an act of congress when there was any constitutional basis for doing so. i thought that is what he did in this case. that is, he agreed that the commerce clause went too far. mandating a purchase cannot be justified. he agreed with the challengers on the medicaid expansion. i think john roberts thought that the tax power did create a basis for upholding the law.

my belief is it he thought it was the court's duty to try to uphold the law if there was a constitutional basis for doing it. we do not know what happened. i would guess that he reserved judgment on the tax power issue. it did not get a lot of attention. i thought the government's brief made a good argument of sang, there is a lot of discussion about the mandate. everybody knows about the mandate. this is not a true mandate. you do not get prosecuted. you do not get hauled off to jail. the government said, this is simply a tax penalty. it was debated in congress. everybody knew that is how the provision worked.

you pay a tax penalty. i do not know john roberts's thoughts on this. i do think he could believe that there was a plausible basis for upholding the slot on the tax power and that is what he ended up doing. >> i wanted to say a couple things about the charge of judicial activism. it is always put forward by the dissent. we had a case where justice kennedy, the court decided nothing. justice kennedy said, we do not have any reason to decide the constitutional question. they did not. the same day, justice pryor accused the majority of unnecessarily reaching a constitutional question.

the charges are made. they are made not only by one side. they are made by the losing side. what i want to recognize howard. one can also think they are helpful when they are raised to keep the other justices in check. how would. >>-- howard. >> yesterday i received an e- mail that sent me links to two youtube phidias that showed me half a dozen to a dozen times the harvard law professor appeared in public and in his classroom saying that the way the case will be upheld is under the taxing power that the federal government has. he says it repeatedly come again and again and again. he is a teacher that the chief

justice and president obama had. i do not accept that the decision is entirely and principled. the decision stands or falls based on what the things as. i agree that people may disagree with that. that is the way it should be analyzed instead of based on what happened leading up to the decision. >> i certainly agree that chief justice roberts, whenever he came to the conclusion, he believed -- i find his text unconvincing, and persuasive. if it came to it as a matter of law, it is unfortunate that -- the question i was raising is, if he did come to it to preserve the court's integrity, if such

were the case. there is a list some leaks that that might be the case. is that an admirable move? assuming that was the case? if you do not need to comment any more. >> i think the chief justice needs to be concerned about the perception of the court. the degree to which he allows that to influence his fuse is something we will not know for quite some time. i think that all of the justices certainly have a stake in the courts institutional position. i think that they recognize that they have the last word on things. i was surprised that the decision did come out 5-4 as opposed to 6-3.

the thought that justice kennedy, regularly disappoints his conservative colleagues, that maybe that will have some consequences in the future. i cannot buy into that. >> david. >> i do not have anything for that to say. i did not recall a situation would justice kennedy was steamed up. he called the decision fasted judicial overreaching. to uphold the statute. he seemed to genuinely -- he sounded the scalia-like. justice scalia is angry about something and he lets you know. it is very unusual. this time, it was justice kennedy who was quite a rick perry >> as i promised, anyone want to ask a question?

>> it is a question and an observation. to put it in a question form, do we think the stakes in terms of american constitutionalism are as large as in 1937. i think in answer is it is not even close. 1937 was a massive shift in order to preserve judicial integrity. the regulated labor, the standards act, the national labor relations act, it expanded the scope of the federal government. it completely transform the relationship over agricultural, mining, and employee relationships. i cannot conceive of how -- if you think the decision is wrong. people ruled the of the way two

years before. to make this concession in order to stop a political move is catastrophic. there is nothing about the current dispute. but the time you are done, the best way to think of it is the commerce clause was narrowed. if you had got rid of both of those, you are where you were before. institutionally, the change in the scope of the federal government is incrementally larger. it is not one doesn't parts as large as the 1937 transformation. my question is do you agree? >> i would say it is the atmospheric switch to a different. it is not just the aero we live and with the immediacy and pummeled by a 247

communications. it is the partisan nature. not just in the other two branches. even on the supreme court. we have the situation with the ideology and the party line up in a way that they have not. >> in 1937 the republicans have a progressive wing. much of the damage is all a hoover confection. the 1932 revenue act. there were all republican convention. progressive republicans. today, that line is gone. the conservative democrats have become republicans. the progressive republicans have become democrats. in terms of the sons of the state, i do not think it is possible to argue that anything that happened today is remotely as large. >> i do not see what is wrong

with having the general rule in this country that matters of economic and commercial policy will be decided by the congress and the president. not by the supreme court trying to decide is mine in and manufacturing, are those interstate commerce? this decision throws the issue back into the political ran the. it will be a big part of the fall campaign. the republican decision is very clear in saying, elect our candidate and we will move to repeal the affordable care act. obama's position is, keep us in office and we will enforce it. it seems to me the public and the people do not get to the side, how far do we want the

federal government to regulate? for the supreme court to say, we want these decisions to be made by the political government strikes me as a conservative principle. a modest role for the court. >> i will throw it open. >> two questions. it seems there were a number of fractured decisions, jones, williams. i guess it is for mr. sherman and mr. savage. how do you approach writing about and explain in a decision when there is an uncertainty as to what the court has upheld? the second question, it seems

everybody was a supreme court reporter. many wrote admirably. some of them, less so. any interest in anecdotes of the expansion of the supreme court press? >> they are both good questions. >> go ahead. >> the fractured rulings, the outcome was not fractured. that is what everyone cared about and cared about getting it right first. as the day wore on, the reporting became more textured in terms of the fact that there were justices with the chief justice on the question. there was that aspect. it was a case where the outcome

itself was not in doubt. i agree with you on williams. it was hard to say anything meaningful about that case. as far as anecdotes, there were a lot of -- a lot more people at the court. a lot more language was being spoken. there were animated questions in french and japanese. some of the commentary, this is not from members of the press. following the health care oral argument. it put a lot of weight into a sip of water. that struck me as kind of silly. useful and explain in one thing, totally missed the point. >> i know is thought that when

you set them with a decision, there are three questions. what did they decide? what was the legal basis? . what does it mean? what started out, i could listen to the justices deliver an opinion. i could read it, i could go back to the office and figured out. i know methought by 4:00 it was still hard to figure up. it is a fun challenge to try to do it in 10 minutes. now, you get the opinion and because of the website, you have to write quickly. there were quite a few wear, the first thing is count up the votes. we knew in health care what the outcome was. there are quite a few where the

days afterwards, there is a debate among the lawyers about the jones case, about the gps. there were two different opinions. they did not say you needed a search warrant. it was unclear. the fbi has a different view about it. it makes it a fun part of the job, trying to quickly write something that says, what did they decide and what doesn't mean. there is never a day this is not a challenge. >> for the record, on the gps kitts, you seemed to think this was a liberal result. the oral advocate admitted the heritage foundation helped prepare him. it is the right position in more ways than one.

>> i do think it was one of the interesting opinions. he is usually considered a conservative. he is a libertarian view. the four liberals agreed. down the road, the opinions will play out somewhat. the government does not need to attach a device to track it. they can do it for yourself on. at some point, they have to face the question, can they track you everywhere you go? the opinion will be what the judges will look to. >> the justices were searching for the future cases in their oral argument. >> if the supreme court had been able to get the health care opinion on its website, accessible to the public, we

would not have had reports over cnn and fox news that incorrectly characterized what the holdings were in the case. people in the main offices were not able to read the decision the same way people in the press office were reading it. it is always nice when news organizations want to cover the courts. i've always appreciated when local news organizations go to washington. sometimes, the man reporters go to the sticks to report on the case. they write articles about it in the washington post or the new york times. have been more press coverage, all the better. also, making the decisions readily available to the public service an important role. hopefully, next time, the court will be prepared to of web

servers that work. >> all of the listeners know to go to these three gentlemen for their expert opinion. clark? sorry if i am wrong with discriminating against questions. >> i want to go pick up on a theme that david started. if you look at the confirmation hearings for judge roberts, what you see is the dominant theme was republican concerned about restraint and deference. i am puzzled about the sense of the trail that some seem to feel. it is what they made clear they were interested in. these -- do you see some dissonance? perhaps it was disappointing, but it should not have been a surprise? >> i agree very much with that

comment. for many years, as long as i have been doing this, the standard view among conservatives is we do not want judicial activists, we want judges to be restrained. we want the major political and social issues to be decided by the people and the voters, not by judges. that is where john roberts comes down. he says there is a way to uphold this law. we are going to uphold it. not saying it is good or bad. this is up to the elected representatives to decide. it was very much in line. if you did not know the partisan divide, i told you that john roberts opted for judicial restraint, upholding a law based on one rationale, you would say, that is what he promised he would do.

>> i will interject one of the thought. i think the correct view of a judicial activism for many it is calling the balls and strikes. one exchange to senator feinstein, roberts said, i will not rule for the little guy or the big guy, i will rule what the law requires. if he did that, no one would have any complaints. it is an incorrect view to say, whenever a court strikes down a law, they are following the constitution. >> he was part of the citizens united. they struck down a 60-year-old limit on spending by corporations and unions. he was the fifth vote.

he thought the first amendment required. it is not like he is shy and never voted to strike down a lot. >> right here. >> my question is for mr. savage. i am curious, you made this statement, it is important to guard the court's reputation. except for misbehavior were immoral behavior, under what constitutional edict is the courts but to go with the reputation? >> i did not think a said his job is to guard the cook reputation. i did think that the chief justice would rather not have the court decided a whole lot of cases all 5-4 partisan or

political vote. he said that when he came on. i have not talked to him about this. i do not know what his view is. if the court has struck down the affordable care act on a 5-4 vote, with the republican appointees voted to invalidate it entirely. it would have been perceived by many people as a political or partisan decision. about the time of the argument, there were some polls. a lot of the american public said, the think it will decided based on the law or political preferences? two-thirds said they will the senate based on political preference. i do not think that would call -- cause john roberts to say i'm going to move from here.

i do think he would think that, in line with what do talk about, a heavy duty to uphold laws were akin. if there is a plausible basis for doing it, i will do it. if that avoids this perception that the court is a major political, that is good. >> any final thoughts? with that, i want to thank everyone. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [applause] >> denied, mitt romney speaks at thenaacp annual convention.

kathleen sebelius talks but to implement in the affordable care act. then, house debate over repealing the health care law. throughout july, the historic supreme court oral arguments focusing on election issues. >> throw out the braves, to refer to us as being independent, professionally run, the candidate knows who is helping him and what. we think these are all code words for saying, we are effective. because we are effective, of a speech ought to be choked off. >> from 1985, the federal election commission versus ncpac. 90.1 fm, xm satelite channel 119, and cspanradio.org.

>> when you think about cyber actors, let's put them into five groups. you have nation states, criminals, hackers, activists, and terrorist. not all of those are a nation state. when you think about deterrence, you're not talking in the legislation on nation. you have other, non nation-state actors you have to consider. you may not know who is doing it. who is attacking your system. either way, the outcome could be the same. you lose the financial sector or the power grid or your system's capabilities for a time. it does not matter who did it. you lose that. you have to come up with a defensive strategy that solves that. >> watch general keith alexander assess current and future such births -- cyber threats.

mitt romney told na theacp convention, "if you want a president who will make things better, you and looking at him piq." >> i do love that music. and the piano. hearing sweet hour of prayer being played, that was a wonderful thing. good morning. and thank you for the generous introduction. thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning.

and for your hospitality. this is an honor to address here and when i value very highly. i appreciate the chance to speak first even before the vice president. i just hope the obama campaign does not think you are playing favorites. now, you all know something about my background. maybe you wonder how any republican can ever become governor of massachusetts and the first place. when you are in a state with 11% republican registration, you do not get there by just talking to republicans. you have to make your case to every single voter. we do not count anybody out. we do not make a habit of presuming anybody's support. support is ask for and earned. with 90% of african-americans typically vote for democrats, some may wonder why a republican may bother to campaign in the african-american community. one reason is that i hope to represent all americans of every race, creed, sexual orientation. from the poorest to the richest and everyone in between.

there is another reason. i believe that if you understood who i truly am in my heart and if it were possible to communicate what i believe is in the best interest of african-american families, you would vote for me for president. i want you to know if i did not believe my pollard -- policies would help families of color more than the policies and leadership of president obama, i would not be running or president. the opposition charges that i and people of my party are running for office to help the rich. nonsense. the rich will do just fine weather i am elected or not. the president wants to make this campaign about blaming the rich and i want this to be about helping the middle class in america. [applause] i am running for president

because i know that my policies and vision will help millions of middle-class americans of all races. it will lift people from poverty and will help prevent people from becoming pour in the first place. my campaign is about helping the people who need help. the president will not do that. my course will. when president obama called to congratulate me on becoming the republican nominee, he said that he looked forward to an important and healthy debate about american oppose the future. i am afraid his campaign has taken a different course than that. at campaigns and their best, voters can expect a clear choice.

with that hope the debate about the course of the nation that i want to discuss with you today. somebody had told us in the 1950's or 1960's that a black citizen would serve as the 44th president of the united states, we would have been proud and many would have been surprised. we might have assumed the presidency would be the last door of opportunity to be opened. before that came to pass every other barrier in the path to equal opportunity wycherley have to have come now. it has not happen quite that way. many barriers remain. in some ways the challenges are more complicated than before. across america and within your own ranks, there is serious debate about the way forward. if equal opportunity were it and accomplished fact, then a bad economy would be equal for

everyone. instead is worse for african- americans and almost every way. in june while the overall unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2%, the unemployment rate for african-americans actually went up from 13% to 14.4%. americans of every backgrounder asking when the economy will finally recover. you in particular are entitled to an answer. if equal opportunity -- [applause] if equal opportunity in america were an accomplished fact, black families could send their sons and daughters to public schools that are for the hope of a better life. instead for generations the african-american community has been waiting for the promise to

be kept. today black children are 17% of students nationwide. they are 42% of the students at our worst performing schools. our society sends them into mediocre schools and expects them to perform with excellence. that is simply not fair. frederick douglass observed "it is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men." [applause] yet instead of preparing the children for life, too many schools set them up for failure. everybody in this room knows that we owe them better than that. the path of any quality often leads to a lost opportunity, college, graduate school, and first jobs should be the milestones marking the passage from childhood to adulthood. for too many disadvantaged young people these goals seem

unattainable. the lives take a tragic turn. many live in neighborhoods filled with violence and fear and nt opportunity. they're impatient for change is understandable. america should be better than this. they are told even now to wait for improvements in our economy and in our schools. it seems to me these americans have waited long enough. [applause] the point is that when decades of the same promises keep producing the same failures, it is reasonable to rethink our approach to consider a new plan. i am hopeful that together we can set a new direction policy starting with where many of our problems to start, with the family. a study has shown for those who graduate from high school and

get a full-time job and wait until 21 to marry and then have their first child, the probability of becoming pour is 2%. of those factors are absent, the probability of being poor is 76%. here you understand the deep and lasting difference that family makes. your former executive director had it exactly right. the family he said "remains the bulwark and mainstay of the community. that should not be overlooked. any policy that up was the family is going to be good for the country. that must be our goal. i will defend traditional marriage. [applause]

would you may have heard, i also believe in the free enterprise system. i believe it can bring change were so many well-meaning programs fail. i never heard anyone look around and an impoverished neighborhood and said, there is too much free enterprise in this neighborhood. what you hear is, how do we bring in jobs? how do we make good honest employers want to move in, stay in? with the shape the economy is in today, we are asking that question more and more. free enterprise is still the greatest force for upward mobility, economic security, and the expansion of the middle class. we have seen in recent years what it is like to have less free enterprise. i will show the good things that can happen when we have more free enterprise, more business activity, more jobs,

more pay checks, more savings accounts. on day one i will begin turning this economy around with a plan for the middle-class. i do not just mean for those who are middle class now. i mean for those who have waited for so long to join the middle class. [applause] and by the way, i know what it takes to put people to work to bring more jobs and better wages. my plan is based on 25 years of success in business. it is a job recovery plan. it has five key steps. first, i will take full advantage of our energy resources. i will approve the keystone pipeline from canada. low-cost, plentiful coal, natural gas, oil, and renewals will bring over 1 million manufacturing jobs back to the united states.

[applause] second, i want to open up new markets for american goods. we are the most productive major economy in the world. trade means good jobs for americans. trade has to be fair and free. i will clampdown on cheaters like china and make sure they play by the rules and do not steal our jobs. [applause] third, i will reduce government spending. i hope everyone understands high levels of debt slows down the rate of growth of the gdp -- of the economy. that means fewer jobs are created. if our goal is jobs, we have to stop spending over one trillion dollars more than we take in every year. [applause] to do that i will eliminate every non-essential expensive program i can find.

that includes obamacare. i will work to reform -- [boos] you know, there was a survey of the chamber of commerce. they carried out a survey of their members -- about 1500 surveyed. they ask them what affect obamacare what have on their plans. three-quarters of them said it made them less likely to hire more people. if our priority is jobs -- that is my priority. that is something i would change. i would replace it with something that helps people with lower costs, good quality, the capacity to deal with people who have pre-existing conditions -- i will put that in place. i will work to reform and save

medicare and social security. people keep talking about that those programs are on the pathway to insolvency and nothing gets done to fix them. i will fix them and make sure they are permanent and secure for seniors today and seniors tomorrow. i would do that by means testing the benefits. higher benefits for lower income people and lower benefits for high income people. [applause] i will focus on nurturing and developing skilled workers that our economy so desperately needs today and the future demands. this is the human capital with which tamara's bright feature can be built. by the way, too many homes and schools are failing to provide children with skills and education essential for anything more than a minimum- wage job. [applause] finally and perhaps most importantly, i will restore economic freedom.

this nation's economy runs on freedom. on opportunity and on to per newers, dreamers to innovate and bill businesses. they are being crushed by high taxation, unnecessary burden some regulations, hostile regulators, excessive health care costs, and destructive labor policies. i will go to work to make america the best place in the world for innovators,s open up energy, expand trade, cut the growth of government, focus on better educating tomorrow's workers today, and restore economic freedom and the jobs will come back to america. wages will rise again. we have to do it. [applause]

i know the president will say he is going to do those things but he has not, he will not, and he cannot. his last four years in the white house prove it definitively. if i am president, a job one for me will be creating jobs. let me say that again. my agenda is not to put employs a series of policies that give me a lot of attention and applause. my policy will be to create jobs for the american people. i do not have a hidden agenda. [applause] i submit to you this. if he won a president who will make things better in the african-american community, you are looking at him. you take a look. finally, i will address the inequality in our education system. i know something about this from my time as governor. in the years before i took office, our state leaders came together to pass bipartisan measures that were making a

difference. and reading and math are students were already among the best in the nation. during my term the took over the top spot. it revealed what good teachers can do if the system will let them. the problem was, this success was not shared. a significant achievement gap remained between different races. i promoted math and science excellence in schools and proposed paying bonuses to our best teachers. i refuse to weaken testing standards and raise them to graduate from high school in massachusetts, students now had to pass an exam in math and english.

i added a science requirement as well. i put in place a merit scholarship for all those students who excelled. the top 25% of students in each high school in massachusetts were awarded a john and abigail adams scholarship, four years' tuition free at any massachusetts public institution of higher learning. [applause] when i was governor not only did our test scores improved, we narrowed the achievement gap. teacher unions were not happy with a number of these reforms. they did not like our emphasis on joyce three charter schools, which is a great benefit to inner-city kids trapped at underperforming schools. as you know in boston and harlem and los angeles and across the country, charter schools are giving children a chance -- children who otherwise could be locked in failing schools. i was inspired by a kid in philadelphia. right here in houston is another

remarkable story. these charter schools are doing a lot more than closing the achievement gap, they are bringing hope and a real opportunity to places where for years there has been none. charter schools are so successful that almost every politician can find something good to say about them. as we saw in massachusetts, true reform requires much more than talk. as governor, i vetoed the bill blocking charter schools. my legislature was 87% democrat and a veto could have easily been overwritten. i joined with the black legislative caucus and their votes helped preserve my veto which meant new charter schools including some in urban neighborhoods would be opened. [applause]

when it comes to education reform, candidates cannot have it both ways. talking up education reform while indulging the same groups that are blocking reform. you can be the voice of disadvantage public-school students, or you can be the protector of special interests like the teacher unions. you cannot be both. i made my choice. as president i will be a champion of real education reform in america and i will not let the special interests get in the way. [applause] i will give the parents of every low-income and special needs students the chance to choose where their kids go to school. for the first time in history if i am president, federal education funds will be linked to a student so kids can -- parents can send their kid to any school they choose.

i will make that a true choice. i will ensure there are good options available for every child. should i be elected president, i will lead as i did when i was governor. i am pleased to be joined by the rev. jeffrey brown who was a member of my kitchen cabinets and massachusetts. i will look for support wherever there is good will and share conviction. i will work with the to help our children attend better schools and help our economy create good jobs with better wages. i cannot promise you i will agree on every issue, but i do promise your hospitality to me today will be returned. we will know one another. [applause] we will work a common purpose.

i will seek your counsel. if i am elected president, if you invite me to next year pose a convention, i would count it as a privilege and my answer will be yes. [applause] you know, the republican party's record by the measures you rightly apply is not perfect. any party that claims a perfect record is not no history the way you know it. always in both parties there have the men and women of integrity, decency, and humility who have called justice by its name. for everyone of us, a particular person comes to mind. somebody to set a standard of conduct and as better by their example. for me that man is my father, george romney. [applause]

it was not just that my dad helped write the civil rights provision for the michigan constitution, although he did. it was not just that he helped create michigan's first civil rights commission or that as governor he marched for civil rights on the streets of detroit, although he did those things, too. more than these acts, he was the kind of man he was and the way he dealt with every person black or white. he was a man of the fairest instincts and a man of faith to do every person was a child of god. [applause] i am grateful to him for so many things. above all, for the knowledge of god whose ways are not always our ways, but his justice is certain and his mercy in doris forever. -- endures forever. [applause]

every good cause on this earth relies on a plan bigger than ours. without dependence on god, dr. king that said, our efforts turned to ashes and our sun rises in the dark night. unless his spirit pervades our lives we find only cures that do not cure, blessings that do not less, and solutions that do not solve. of all that you bring to the work of today's civil rights cause, no advantage accounts for more than the abiding confidence in the name above every name. against cruelty, arrogance, and all the foolishness of man, this spirit has carried the naacp to many victories. or still are up ahead. [applause]

so many victories are ahead. with each one of them, we will be a better nation. thank you so much. god bless every one of you. thank you. [applause] >> when the convention continues tomorrow morning, joe biden will speak to the gathering in houston. you can watch coverage at c- span.org/campaign2012. are we approaching peak will or a new era of oil abundance? tomorrow morning the new america foundation considers that question as political scientists discuss the global oil market.

coverage begins at 9:00 eastern on c-span 3. later a senate confirmation hearing. that begins at 2:30 p.m. eastern. >> hitler had no plan. when he realized the remnants of armies were not coming to his aid, but were trying to escape to the west, that is when he collapsed. he realized it was ending. it was a question of suicide. >> a new look at the second world war, from adolf hitler's rise to power to his chaotic final days. >> his main objective was not to be captured alive by the russians. he was afraid of being paraded through moscow in a cage, being

spat at and ridiculed. a. braun was determined to die with him. -- eva braun was determined to die with him. >> shreveport in march. april in little rock. oklahoma city, may. wichita, and june. this past weekend, and jefferson city. watch the local content vehicles every month. next month, look for the history and literary culture of our next stop, louisville, ky. >> health secretary kathleen sebelius outlined the next steps for implementing the health care lot today at george washington university. the supreme court last month upheld the health care law 5-4 bang, with chief justice roberts

writing the majority opinion. there are efforts to repeal the health-care law by house republicans. this is 20 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> please join me in welcoming secretary sebelius. [applause] >> good afternoon everybody. i am delighted to be back in george washington. i was telling the dean at that i had the pleasure of being here a number of times and announcing a number of important new initiatives here in this auditorium. i think it is a perfect venue to discuss the affordable care act and the importance of the supreme court decision. i want to recognize president steve knapp and thank him for his hospitality and dean goldman for her leadership here at the school.

you will have a great treat. some colleagues i have worked with for a long time are members of the panel that you will hear from. certainly, the other keynote speakers. i will tell you a little something about them that may not be immediately obvious. we all have kansas connections. i am a former governor, former insurance commissioner. in kansas, my husband is a federal judge. tom married a kansan. sheila burke, longtime aide and assistant to senator bob dole, the senate majority leader from kansas. you may have thought we were here for our health care expertise, but it is really our kansas connections.

over the last couple of weeks, there has been a lot of commentary about the supreme court decision and what it means for politicians in washington. we have heard speculation about who is a winner and who is a loser, what it means for november. with congressional republicans, today holding their 31st vote to repeal the affordable care act, it is clear that some want that political discussion and political battle to keep going. i am really glad to have a chance to be with you today to talk about what the healthcare law means for those outside of washington, the hard-working families that the law was really designed to help. to do that, we need to set the stage and remember where this country was when this law was passed two years ago. back in 2010, the urgency around health care challenges was growing. this was related both to the health care of our nation and

also the economy of the country. despite spending more than any nation on earth, we were moving toward 50 million uninsured citizens and really mediocre health results. our health expenditures were consuming an increasingly greater share of our gdp, threatening our global competitiveness. families, businesses, and governments were all struggling under the burden of rising costs. between 2000 and 2009, insurance premiums doubled. the share of small-business owners offering employee coverage dropped from 70% in 2002 to under 60%. medicare costs continue to rise, putting the trust fund on pace to be insolvent by 2016.

one business owner who wrote to me early in my term summed up the frustration many americans were feeling. he wrote, "i am near the breaking point. with guaranteed annual increases at 10 to 15 times the rate of inflation, eventually, we will go out of business or be forced to cancel our employees' insurance. either way it is a lousy set of options." at the same time, the private health market was becoming more consolidated and less competitive. some americans had dependable access to coverage in public plans -- more children, the seniors, disabled, veterans, even the poorest adults and pregnant women -- through medicaid. employees of largest companies usually fared pretty well. that left a lot of hard-working families in a broken market where insurance companies made a lot of the rules.

totally legally, insurers could cap your coverage, raise your rates, or cancel the coverage with a very little accountability. if you were one of the 129 million americans with a pre- existing condition like cancer or even asthma, you could be locked out or priced out of the market altogether. that was a fairly successful business model for many insurance companies. in fact, in 2009, the five largest insurers made $12 billion in profit. but that did not work very well for a lot of the people who were left on the sidelines. the healthcare law was passed in large part to address the twin issues of cost and coverage. that is exactly what has begun to happen over the last two years. the law's first principle is pretty simple.

if you have coverage, you can keep it. for the 260 million americans with insurance today, the main change is that they will get more security. the law puts in place new insurance rules, and many of those are already in place, prohibiting insurers from capping the coverage or canceling it without cause if someone gets sick. preventive care is now free for 54 million americans with private plans. there are new limits on how much of your premium insurance companies can spend on overhead costs like ceo bonuses. as a result, starting this summer, about 13 million americans will get rebates from their insurance companies. you heard me correctly. insurance companies are actually sending money back to their customers thanks to the 80/20 rule. the affordable care act does not cut medicare benefits.

in fact, the program is more robust than ever. new benefits have been added for seniors. the law has begun to close the insurance gap in medicare prescription drug plans, saving over 5 million beneficiaries with the highest medication costs, about $600 apiece. we have brand new efforts and new surveillance tools in fraud and abuse areas. we have already returned in the last two years about $5.4 billion to the trust fund, and that does not include the new $3 billion settlement just announced last week. yesterday, our department announced that so far in 2012, more than 16 million seniors and persons with disability on medicare have already taken advantage this year of at least one free preventive service like a wellness visit or a cancer screening. we also know small business

owners were at a very difficult place in the market. they are beginning to see relief thanks to the new tax credit which covers up to about one- third of their insurance bills for employees. all americans with insurance will benefit from no longer having to pay the extra $1,000 per family that is estimated to cover the cost of uncompensated care for americans with no coverage. the law is beginning to provide some better coverage choices for middle-class families. we have about 3.1 million young adults, and some of them might be here, who were previously uninsured prior to 2010 and now are covered under their parent's plans. we have 70,000 americans around the country taking part in new high-risk pools that were

previously locked totally out of the insurance market because of their pre-existing health conditions. at the same time, the affordable care act has begun breaking the stalemate in washington on addressing health- care costs. there was a lot of agreement for decades that our health care costs were too high and they were continuing to rise. while there was a lot of agreement that we had to do something about high costs, there was not a lot of action in congress. the ideas put forward by those who favor repeal would limit government health spending, lower government health costs, simply by shifting costs to seniors and patients. but there is an alternative vision that is part of the construct of affordable care act.

it really captures doing on a national scale what some of the best health systems have begun to do around the country. that is bringing down costs by actually improving care. prior to the passage of the affordable care act, many of the financial incentives in our two large public programs and medicaid and medicare right now include about one-third of the country. almost 100,000,000 people are participants in one of those two programs or sometimes in both. the financial incentives actually many times penalized care improvements the way we pay providers in hospitals. over the last two years, we have begun to change the incentives in the health-care system to reward providers for improving care. we've had an enormously enthusiastic response from doctors and hospitals across the country.

just on monday, we announced that a total of 154 health organizations serving 2.5 million americans have already signed up under the law to form the so-called accountable care organizations. these are structures where providers share the savings when their patients stay healthy. there are many more of those strategies underway -- lowering hospital-based infections, medical health homes, bundling care -- all designed to keep people healthy in the first place, out of the hospital, and lower the opportunities for return. all of that progress has been going on in the last two years. when we have, as we have again today, people talking about repealing the law, i think it is important to remember what is really at stake.

this has nothing to do with the fortunes of elected politicians around washington, all of whom already have excellent health care. it is the health and economic security of middle-class families around america that are really at stake. repeal actually could subject those families once again to some of the worst insurance abuses. we know it would automatically raise the price of seniors' medications and add financial barriers to their preventative care. it would end the tax credits that are currently helping small businesses cover their employees and force millions of young adults to once again begin their careers without the security of health coverage. it would mean that, too often, the best quality of care would continue to be out of reach for most americans. what we know is that the supreme court decision, there were four justices who actually voted to strike down the law that would accomplish those goals.

but the majority of justices have allowed us to move ahead on full implementation of the act. with a slight change in medicaid, which now makes the program a voluntary program and removes the penalty phase of medicaid so that the department of health and human services could not take all of the underlying medicaid funding away from a state that chose not to participate, medicaid expansion will operate very much like other expansion has operated over the past number of years, where states voluntarily come into the program and we have given a very generous framework of state federal participation and the opportunity to ensure the largest number of low-income adults in that program that states will indeed decide to insure their populations. most of you know that two major parts of the program do not take effect until 2014.

the new marketplaces will be set up in every state where families and small business owners actually get to make, for the first time, a comparison of health plans and choose the one that is right for them. there will be new rules for insurance companies. no one can be discriminated against because of a pre- existing health condition, and you cannot be charged more because of your gender in an insurance plan. others who cannot afford coverage can qualify for a tax credit, averaging about $4,000 per family. members of congress and their families will get coverage through the same exchanges, alongside their constituents. over the past two years, we

have been working on implementation because setting up these new markets cannot happen overnight. we have partnered closely with states to set up the new consumer-friendly market places. far from what is reported as a federal takeover, the law really gives states maximum flexibility in shaping their own market. states can decide, for instance, to fully operate their marketplace, to partner to run pieces of the exchange, or to have us do it all. the law contains a provision that if states come up with their own way of covering the same number of people with the same kind of quality and no cost increase, they can present a plan and take over the whole system. the president has asked congress to move up that provision from 2017 to 2014 so states can have the flexibility in year one. yesterday, i received letters

from 12 governors saying there are already fully engaged in planning to establish their own marketplaces. we anticipate more to be fully ready as we move through 2012. in the months to come, we will keep working with states to meet them where they think it is appropriate and have all of the exchanges running in every state by 2014. another key change that is coming in 2014 is that states will begin receiving a very generous federal match to expand medicaid coverage to uninsured adults can at 133% of poverty. those of you who do not walk around with poverty tables in your heads, that means for an individual who makes less and $15,000 a year and for a family of four, the income is less than $31,000 a year. we are talking about some of the poorest working families in this country.

here is what states are being offered. for the first three years, the federal government pays 100% of the newly insured enrollees. after 2017, the federal government share is reduced, but never less than 90%. the lowest it gets at the end of 10 years is a 90/10 share. the states also have flexibility in setting the benefits for the newly covered folks. their expenditures will be offset by reduced spending on uncompensated care for the uninsured. this has unprecedented federal support, access to affordable coverage for low-income residents and steep reductions in costs for the state, the citizens, and the health care provider.

we think at the end of the day, this is a deal that states will not want to turn down. as i said, we have been through this before. when congress expanded coverage for kids in 1997 and offered to pay 70% of the costs, not 100% of the costs, states were initially skeptical. only eight states began covering eligible children in the first year. but within 2.5 years, all 50 states decided the benefits far outweighed the costs and committed to participating. the 2014 medicaid expansion offers states a better deal. we are hopeful states will take advantage of it to cover the needs of their families to ensure their doctors actually get paid.

earlier today, i sent a letter to all governors, many of them my former colleagues, laying out this information. we will keep working closely with states to make sure the hard-working families who are looking forward to this new day have access to affordable coverage. now that the supreme court has issued their decision, i am hopeful we can stop refighting the old political battles and trying to take away benefits millions of americans are already enjoying and instead move forward in implementing and improving the law to provide more security to americans who have insurance, more choices for those who do not, and lower costs for everyone. thank you all very much and i will turn the podium back over to dean goldman. [applause] >> the farm bill under consideration in the house

includes cuts to the food stamp program. on tomorrows "washington journal," a conversation about those cuts. also in the house, members voted today to repeal the health care law president obama signed two years ago. we'll talk about that with a texas republican. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> growing up in the shadows of a nuclear weapons facility. the effects on the environment and the people. and, the life of jean kirkpatrick. >> parker, in her opinion, governed with a magnolia accent. she saw the dominoes start to fall.

by 1979, she was in full opposition to carter. particularly crucial in this respect, and she saw the fall of the shock -- shah and the fall in nicaragua, a couple of lesser rating experiences. >> the woman behind the reagan cold war document -- called for doctrine. and life since leaving the military -- hotels, hospitals, and jails. this weekend, on c-span 2. >> when you think about cyber actors and, you have nation states, hackers, activists, and terrorists. not all of those are nation states. when you think about deterrence theory, you are not just talking

about nations. you have non-nation-state factors to consider. in one of these attacks, you may not know who is doing it, who is attacking your systems. either way, the outcome could be the same. you lose the financial sector or the power grid, or your system's capabilities. it does not matter who did it. you still lose that. you have to come up with a defensive strategy that solves that. >> current and future cyber threats come on line at the c- span video library. today, the house voted to repeal the affordable care act, with five democrats joining republicans in voting for repeal. the senate is not expected to bring legislation to the floor,

although republican leader mitch mcconnell says he will push for a vote before the november elections. this begins with house speaker john boehner. boehner. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker of the house is recognized. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding. and say to my colleagues, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 6079, legislation that would repeal the president's health care law. when this bill passed, we were promised that the health care law would help create jobs. one congressional leader even suggested it would create 400,000 new jobs. guess what, didn't happen. this bill's making our economy worse, driving up the cost of health care and making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. you know, the american people, we're told, they'd come to like this bill once it was passed. well, that didn't happen

either. most americans not only oppose this law, but they fully support repealing it. the american people were told taxes on the middle class wouldn't go up if this bill passed. well, guess what, there are 21 tax increases in this health care law and at least a dozen of them hit the middle class. let me just give you a glimpse of the damage that all these tax hikes will do to our economy. a tax on health insurance providers will end up costing up to 249,000 jobs, according to the national federation of independent business. a tax on health care manufacturers will put as many as 47,000 jobs in jeopardy, according to one nonpartisan estimate. then you got the employer mandate, which will affect every job creator with 50 or more employees. let's take white castle, company in my home state. they say that the employer

mandate would eat up most of their net income starting in 2014. and that's on account of just one provision in the law. and then there's the individual mandate that the supreme court has now ruled is a massive tax. and the congressional budget office says roughly 20 million americans will either have to pay this tax or be forced to buy insurance that they wouldn't have purchased otherwise. if you add it all up, the tax increases in this health care law will take at least $675 billion out of our pockets over the next 10 years. all this at a time when employers are just trying to get by. listen, i think there's a better way and that's why we're here today. americans want a step-by-step approach that protects the access to care that they need from the doctor they choose at

a lower cost. they certainly didn't ask for the government takeover of their health care system that's put us in this mess that we're in today. at the gipping of this congress, the house voted to repeal this health care -- beginning of this congress, the house voted to repeal this health care law. unfortunately, our colleagues in the senate refused to follow suit. and since then we've made some bipartisan progress on repealing parts of this harmful health care law including the 1099 paperwork mandate. but this law continues to make our economy worse and there's even more resolve to see that it is fully repealed. now, i think this is an opportunity to save our economy, and for those who still support repealing this harmful health care law, we're giving our colleagues in the senate another chance to heed the will of the american people . and for those that did not support repeal the last time,

it's a chance for our colleagues to reconsider. for all of us, it's an opportunity to do the right thing for our country, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise to yield one minute to the -- our democratic leader, the gentlelady from san francisco, without whom there would not be an affordable care act and we greatly appreciate her efforts. the speaker pro tempore: minority leader is recognized for her one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, more than two years ago we put forth a vision to america's middle class to ensure health care would be a right, not a privilege for a few, but a right for all americans. today and yesterday, the past

two days, they've done more than 30 times in this congress, republicans are set to take away that right. over the past two days we have heard the talking points of the health insurance industry that are trying to drown out the facts and the facts are these. what is the takeaway from this debate? the takeaway is that the protections the republicans are voting to take away from america's families. today up to 17 million children have the right to health care coverage even if they have diabetes, as ma, leukemia -- asthma, leukemia or any other pre-existing medical condition. put an x next to that. republicans want to take away protections for children with pre-existing conditions. today all young adults have the right to get insurance on their parents' platforms -- on their

parents' policy. republicans want to take away the -- that right from america's students and young people, that coverage for young adults, put an x next to that. today 5.3 million seniors have saved $3.7 billion on their prescription drugs. republicans want to take away prescription drug savings for seniors. today small business owners have used tax credits to help them afford insurance already for two million additional people and the bill is not full iny -- fully in effect. republicans want to take away the tax credits for businesses to help their entrepreneurship and job creation. today nearly 13 million americans are set to benefit from $1.1 billion in repay thes from health insurance companies.

republicans want -- rebates from health insurance companies. republicans want to take away those cost savings from america's families. today american women have free coverage, they have a right to free coverage for life-saving preventive care like mammograms, starting in august women will gain free access to a full package of preventive services. no longer will being a woman be a pre-existing medical condition. but republicans want to take away those protections for women and all americans. many of the cost -- many across the country have heard republican colleagues claim that very few people are affected by the pre-existing condition provisions. the fact is the republicans are wrong. the fact is you be the judge. 138 million americans have a pre-existing medical condition. i asked our friends on the other

side of the aisle, do you know anybody with breast cancer? with prostate cancer? with asthma, with diabetes? the list goes on and on. people with disabilities? with this bill that you have on the floor today, you will take away their right to affordable coverage. and that's why the american cancer society opposes this repeal effort. on behalf of -- and their, quote, 13 million cancer patients and survivors who need access to adequate and affordable coverage. that's why they oppose this repeal effort. the american cancer society. do you know the millions of people living well the disability? with this bill you take away people with disabilities' rights to quality, affordable care. that's why easter seals wrote that, quote, millions of parents of children with disabilities are breathing a huge sigh of relief knowing their children

will not be dropped from their insurance. do you know any parents of children with diabetes or asthma or childhood leukemia? do you know any? with this bill you will take away the right of these children to affordable care throughout their lives. that's why the american diabetes association, on behalf of the nearly 26 million americans, with diabetes, urged us to oppose this bill. to, quote, protect people with diabetes who for too long have been discriminated against because of their disease. my republican colleagues are taking away patient protections for millions of americans. protections you as a member of congress already enjoy. i think that that's undermining a fundamental fairness. you repeal this bill which means you keep your federal health insurance benefits while you take these current patient

protections away from the american people. what a valentine to the health insurance industry. when i think of people protected by this law i always remember the powerful testimonial at a hearing last year from stacy ritter, the twin daughters are both cancer survivors. they're 4 years old, they're twins. they're 4 years old, both were diagnosed with leukemia. hanna and madeline faced stem cell transplants, chemotherapy and total body eradiation. yet over time stacy said, we ended up bankrupt even with full insurance coverage. today hanna and madeline are happy, healthy 13-year-olds. and according to stacy, quote, my children now have protections from insurance discrimination based on their pre-existing cancer condition. they will never have to feel rescissions of their insurance policy if they get sick. they can look forward to lower

health insurance cost and preventive care. we passed the affordable care act for people like stacy, hanna and madeline, we passed it for some of the people we heard from today at an earlier meeting and, madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit their statements for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. pelosi: thank you. i urge my colleagues to think about them and to think about stacy and her children when they cast a vote to take away their rights and protections. here's what the affordable care act is about. strengthening the middle class, honoring the entrepreneurial spirit of our country, putting medical decisions in the hands of patients and their doctors. this is about innovation, prevention, wellness. it's about the good health of america as well as good health care for america. it's about restoring and reigniting the american dream and living up to the vows of our founders, of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

a healthier life. for liberty and freedom to pursue happiness and defined by your own talent, your own skills, your own aspirations. you want to start a business, if you want to be self-employed, if you want to change jobs, are you not job-locked -- you are not job-locked because your decision about your job, your career, and your life has to be predicated by your health insurance company. that's what this freedom is in this one week from the fourth of july that we celebrate with this bill. with this affordable act, now to make the american dream a reality for all, republicans must stop this effort to take away patient protections from americans. let's review them again. g.o.p. taking away from americans. this is the takeaway from this debate. take away the republicans say protections for children with pre-existing conditions.

take away prescription drug savings for seniors. take away coverage for young adults. take away preventive health services for women. take away the no lifetime limits, so important to so many families in our country. we must work together on america's top priorities. job creation and economic growth. this bill creates four million jobs. it reduces the deficit. it enables our society to have the vitality of everyone rising to their aspirations. without being job-locked as i said. the american people want us to create jobs. that's what we should be using this time on the floor for. not on this useless bill to nowhere. bill to nowhere. that does serious damage to the health and economic well-being of america's families. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and let us move forward together to strengthen

the economy and to strengthen the great middle class which is the backbone of our democracy. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, chief deputy whip, mr. roscoe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. ross: i thank the gentleman for yielding -- scowscow i thank -- mr. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this will bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family. the gentlelady from california a moment ago spoke about things to take away. let's take this away. let's take away the reality of this new health care law that has done this. it is now clear that 20 million americans are likely to lose their employer-based health

coverage. the law will cost $2.6 trillion if fully implemented and add over $700 billion to the deficit . it adds $500 billion in new taxes that are triggered toward the middle class and the average increase in family premiums doesn't go down $2,500, it goes up $1,200. here's what we should take away, we should take away this albatross in the economy, we should repeal it, we should replace it and here's the good news. the voters get the last word in november. stay tuned. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield three minutes to our distinguished whip from maryland, a person who understands what it means to make it in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend. repeal it and replace it. for the 31st time we have a repeal with no replacement.

no alternative. no protection offered by my republican colleagues. not one. you could of course introduce legislation that said, we're going to repeal and replace with this. you haven't done it. you haven't done it. so the american people have no idea. we're on the floor today with the distinguished gentleman from michigan who himself and his father before him said a half a century before, americans need the security of having the guarantee of access to affordable, quality health care. that's what we did. madam speaker, after the landmark supreme court ruling upholding the affordable care act, americans are ready to move on. yet here we are again, voting for the 31st time on a bill to repeal the health care law with no replacement, no alternative,

no protections. that's not what we ought to be focused on. americans want to work -- to create jobs and to grow our economy. according to a kaiser family foundation poll last week, 56% of americans believe that opponents of the law should drop attempts to block its implementation. it's time for republicans to end their relentless obsession with taking away health care benefits from millions of americans. if this bill were to pass, insurance companies could once again discriminate against 17 million children with pre-existing conditions. if it were to pass, 30 million americans would lose their health insurance coverage. it would take away $651 each from 5.3 million seniors in the medicare doughnut hole, making their prescription drugs more expensive. 360,000 small businesses would no longer be able to claim a tax credit to help cover their

employees. and 6.6 million young adults under 26 would be forced off their parents' plans, left to face a tough job market with the added pressure of being uninsured. the republican repeal bill would take away these benefits and end these cost-saving measures. and after 31 votes, as i said, no alternative. nothing, no bill to read, no plan to follow, no security to offer. repealing health care without an alternative would add over $1 trillion to deficits over the next two decades. i don't say that. the congressional budget office says that. it is occurring in a place of a vote, if we could be taking on legislation to create jobs. nothing about jobs this week. nothing last week. nothing scheduled for next week. or the week after. it's a waste of time.

mr. larson: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. hoyer why is it a waste -- mr. hoyer: why is it a waste of time? the republican majority knows it will not pass the united states senate and it would not be signed by the president of the united states. so it's a message bill. it's politics as usual. spurring the base while spurning the average working american. i outlined several proposals yesterday that are bipartisan in nature. it ought to come to this floor immediately. it's called make it in america. let's vote on those bills. let's vote on those bills to create opportunities, not this one to take them away. madam speaker, i ask my colleagues to oppose this bill and let us work together constructively for a better economic future for our people, more economic security, more health care security and a better america, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader, the gentleman from virginia.

mr. cantor: madam speaker, thank you. i yield three minutes now to the gentleman from texas, the republican conference chairman, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, my democratic colleagues come to the floor and question, why are we here to vote to repeal the president's health care program? let me offer a few reasons. number one, the american people don't want it. the longer people have to know this bill, the more interested they are in seeing it repealed. reason number two, we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle, well, the supreme court said it was constitutional. well, the $5 trillion of additional debt that they and president obama have foisted on the american people, it's constitutional, but, madam speaker, it is not wise. seniors know that the president's health care program

cut half a trillion dollars out of medicare. a half a trillion dollars. the independent payment advisory board, one of 159 boards, commissions, programs to get between americans and their doctors, the independent payment advisory board, there to help ration health care for our seniors, another reason. now, i just heard the distinguished leader of the democratic party get up and say we should be talking about jobs , the economy. well, madam speaker, these are the very same people who told us the stimulus bill would help jobs, would help the economy. the stimulus bill was not a jobs bill. repeal of obamacare is a jobs bill. talk to any small business person across america. there's 40, 45 workers, we are

not going to 50. we are not going to do that. we are not going to hire those extra people. talk to a manufacture like i have in my district in jacksonville, texas. half of their work comes from the medical device company. he said, you know what, obamacare, the medical device tax, will force him to lay off workers. the employer mandate costs jobs. the congressional budget office , as the gentleman from maryland just cited, they themselves said it will cost 800,000 jobs. private economists, one million to two million. chamber of commerce just did a survey of small businesses, 74% said this makes it more difficult to hire. so after the president just turned in his 41 straight month -- 41st straight month of 8%-plus of unemployment, the

worst economic performance since the great depression, maybe it's time for a true jobs bill, madam speaker, and a true jobs bill is to repeal obamacare. the american people do not want it. we can't afford it. job creators are losing jobs by -- let's repeal it and repeal it today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from south carolina, a leader in the democratic caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in opposition to repeal the affordable care act. this is the 31st time the majority has orchestrated a vote to repeal in whole or in part this very important and long-awaited law to increase accessibility and decrease the

cost of quality health care. fortunately the other body rejected this ill-fated effort the first 30 times, and this 31st time will be no different. why then are we having this debate? do my republican colleagues really believe that the majority of the other body is now ready to take some children with dithes the right to coverage under their parent's -- diabetes the right to coverage under their parent's health care policy? do my republican colleagues believe that the majority of the other body is now ready to take from children who are seeking employment the right to remain on their parent's health care policies up to their 26th birthday? do my republican colleagues really believe that the majority of the other body is now ready to take from a woman with breast cancer or a man with prostate cancer the right to keep