.. >> was there no better ideas like this or better ideas incorporated or yet better things to happen that will be so great that negate the purpose of the programs including -- starting with you and then to you, phil. what's your thoughts on that? >> i think interestingly enough, there's a provision in health care reform for a 10-state three

year demonstration for programs that look a lot like access, but it never got funded. it's incomprehensible -- >> wait a minute. i have to interpret you. >> here we go. >> it didn't get funded? everything in the patient protection affordable care act was prefunded by preordained appropriations for five years. there's one provision that might help someone didn't get funded 1234 >> you got that right. it's not going anywhere despite bipartisan support. >> well, again, this is an important point because a lot of people say, well, it didn't get funded. clearly, that's a problem that congress is just being too parcel with money, but the affordable care act that really lavished money on all kinds of programs, some of some worth, some of dubious worth, and yoursfuls not included? >> that's correct. >> okay. i'm sorry, go on.

>> well, actually, leonard shaffer was part of it, and he's on hi advisory board. when health care passed, he referred me to the person who communicated directly with the president in charge of health care reform. he referred me to todd park, the person in charge of technology for all of this, and we showed him what we had online already, and they couldn't believe it. they had no idea it existed. i already communicated as much as i could, but it's hard to breakthrough, and for real reasons it's hard to break through; right? this time we were right there, and they were very surprised to see the u.s. health care system was already online and millions of americans were already using it. i offered to share my technology with them and everything, but they didn't really want to do that. in fact, they copied it and

tried to come out with their own. it's not as good, but, you know, what do you do? you the best you can. we're doing this not for one side or the other, but to help america, and americans know it. they use it every day. we have 125,000 americans use it last month; right? so, you know, that's how it is. we think we can save the united states somewhere around once it got implemented maybe $20 million a year in administration if they went to eligibility throughout the whole country. >> yeah. libby, i have a number of things i could ask, but i don't want to take up the time. we'll open it up to questions, and rebecca anything from twitter, hand to me. if you are going to ask a question, we need to use the microphone. while people are collecting

their bearings, let me just follow up on my initial question. i guess i don't understand even without funding, what's the barrier to setting up something like this in other states? are there other states expressing interest in this? >> yes. sherry's been talking with several states, california including, saying here's the model, go run with it. they got started with an initial grant that pulled this all together. that's the government funding to start. in ten states about $2 million could be done for about a million dollars. it's not a lot of money, and at the end of the day when you're self-sustaining, that's the kind of investment, i believe, that the government should be making in its priorities. i'm fearful that this is not considered a priority. >> well, let me ask you this because, i mean, it comes up all

the time for employers, questions to our office. so you're a big national retailer, and you have largest retail market out there, and you've been criticized a lot for not providing your employees at the entry level insurance, so you do that. you buy -- you start providing insurance, and it's a fairly low dollar policy, and it has some limit, so these limits are no longer allowed under the affordable care act, the lifetime limits and the out-of-pocket limits that will be enforced in 2014 under the affordable care act will negate these policies so people sought waivers in order to continue arguing that some insurance is better than no insurance and the exchanges themselves don't start until 2014, so the center for consumer information and insurance oversight has provided over the past year, about

october of last year they started, and they provided -- i don't know the number now, 1700 individual waivers -- would your access require a waiver in order to continue? >> it would not because it's not insurance. it is a medical discount plan through the state of nevada, so those are part of our earlier conversations is are you going to put us out of business because we don't fit into the model of what would happen in exchange, and as the leaders at hhs said to us, what if we put you out of business, and, again, they wouldn't because there's still this uninsured population that somebody needs to take care of and that access is doing very well. >> but it's not affected by the lifetime limits and would not need a waiver in order to continue? >> that's correct. >> so in theory, it could continue even after, say the implementation goes off without a hitch, the supreme court says all clear by us, and the affordable care act is the law of the land for the rest of my

natural lifetime, your access could continue to function? >> that's correct. >> the argument would be that it's unnecessary, but some people might still prefer that if they had exposure to it before? >> exactly. >> yeah, please, go ahead. if not, i'll continue badgering the witnesses. [laughter] >> did you have an answer to that, phil? >> that's right. >> let me ask you this, phil, because you made mention of the administrative costs. now, we are constantly told that the private insurance companies in this country take too much of the premium dollar for other things, presumably that other things are profits, and so the administrative cost in private insurance is high, and, in fact,

in the affordable care agent, there's going to be a limit on how much of the money can be spent on nonclinical issues as sort of a medical loss ratio rules coming out of health and human services, but you're talking about not for private insurance realm, but the public insurance realm where you maintain the administrative dollars, i hate to use the term "wasted," but i'll use it because it sums up what i heard you say when you gave your presentation. how do you keep these administrative costs low in your world? >> well, you know, one of the things they did when they tried to figure out the administrative costs of let's say group insurance, and then small group insurance was include the brocker and marketing -- brocker and marketing costs with the insurance company, but in reality, the insurance company never received that money. they received it, but it went

right out. the day they get it, they don't have that money, and really it's the person buying the insurance, the group, paying the commission to the broker, and the broker does all kinds of services and advocates for all of the people that are under that group, so it could be the dependents or the spouse or the employee or the employer, and there's a whole lot of laws and accounting and everything that brokers do, so when they included that in the minimum loss ratio, it really threw everything else. insurance companies generally work on only 3%-5% as total profit, health insurance, and people think, oh, may must be making 25% or something, but they are not, and so they could cut their profits in half and still within three or four months just by medical inflation, you'd catch it; right? the whole concept of minimum loss ratio should scare anybody in any industry in america

because the health insurance industry is an industry like any industry. it has competition. it's tough. it's a very complicated business, so if they start telling them how much money they can make and how to run their companies, it's not long before they start telling everybody else. >> on one of your bullet points on the handout i have is the foundation could save the country $25 billion a year on health care administration, and we're already told that medicare is, as far as the administrative fees, are only like 3%. i actually would dispute that figure, but let's stipulate that that's the case. how is the foundation going to save additional moneys there? >> well, i'm using california as an example. if we did point of care eligibility and point of care reimbursement, then the patient is out of the picture for having to sign up for all of this, and if you think about it, one of the biggest problems as i see it

with health care reform is they confused health insurance with health care. >> uh-huh. >> so all of the programs that are public programs are really prepaid health care; right? it's not insurance. you're not evaluating risk. yoir not trying to do anything accept for give access to health care for the safety net, which we need. we all believe in that, but the thing is, they created this huge barrier of entry for a -- let's say a single woman with two children at home to have to go down there and get signed up, and then they can never do it in one try, and then she has to go back, but she's working, and now it's a huge problem. why do we make her go through that? >> how does the foundation cut through some of that? >> we have the whole united states health care system online for all -- >> wait a minute. the whole united states health care system online? >> sure. it's a coverageforall.org, go on there, take the eligibility quiz

in two minutes, and you'll see what you're eligible for, it gives you a copy of the application to take with you, it gives what you need to take with you to get signed up for something like medicaid, take your bill, a copy of your last paycheck. we make it to get it done all at one time; right? still, it's really difficult to get signed up in. california i heard they are only allowed to sign up two people per day per person. there's a limit on how many people can sign up. >> each person in the medicaid office? >> yeah, and that's because california's in financial trouble, but the thing is you can't not just sign them up because all that does is transfer the cost to the private sector because the hospital has to charge somebody, and that's why the premiums go up; right? then that creates a cycle, but it makes the insurance companies look like they are the bad guys, but they just work on 3% and 4%

profit margin; right? there's a lot of waste in the system. now, the whole con cement of the exchanges, that's like 1990s technology. that would be like investing in xerox computers with floppy drives, and we have each state doing it separately in exchanges, and yet you can set up the exchange -- for instance, our system's available on your iphone. it's called got coverage. it's all done anonymously with no selling of anything, but we want everybody to understand what they are eligible for, or your ipad; right? that's all on that. all you have to do is do that, it takes two minutes, and it shows you what you're eligible for. you know, it's so simple it's scarry. >> that's the other question i wanted to ask, but let's get a question from our audience. >> just wondering, you said in nevada this program is not

considered -- >> i'll repeat the question, but go ahead. >> it's not considered health insurance, but does that mean those people still have a pay a penalty of not having insurance? >> if it's not insurance if access is offered, which it's not insurance, under the new regime, if you don't have insurance you have to pay a penalty. when we had the conversation about that because we're not insurance, the answer we got from hhs is you would not be affected or deemed for that. how that's going to play out in a regulatory sense is anybody's guess. >> wait a minute. >> i don't make stuff up. >> how can someone use you as insurance? >> i'm not making this up. really. >> the irs -- >> i don't have assurances now to know that's how it works.

i'm hopeful, and we continue to talk to the administration and frankly, plead and beg, that those people getting it done in a really smart way that really works for them will not be financially penalized for how the system works out. i don't have the answer. >> it's judged as credible coverage? >> it's not credible coverage because it's not coverage. it's not insurance. i don't know if one of the 17,000 waivers is coming our way, but i hope those assurances we go is they will not hurt us. >> i think hhs is out of the waiver business is my understanding. >> lately. >> other questions from the audience or from twitter? if not, i've just go to ask you this, phil. states, and you referenced california's having trouble with paying for what their obligations are, and the medicaid population is going to increase by, pick a number, but probably around 15 million as a

pretty safe guess with the coverage of more and more adults which should have been a safety net in medicaid is now primary medicaid insurance anyone under the poverty level, so how are the state -- i mean, the states are obviously going to be concerned about a group such as yours finding more and more people covered under medicaid. is this a problem for the states for the future? i mean, understand it's a problem because we added so many newly eligible people to the medicaid rolls, but you said already they are not taking care of what they should be taking care of, and your point of service engine that will then drive people to the coverage that they actually should have and we're adding 15 million more people on the rolls, it looks like a tremendous burden for the states. >> well, that's one way of

looking at it, but if you think about it, it's a zero-sum game because the 15 million people already use the emergency room as their primary care; right? they are not paying, and so we're paying anyway; right? it's not all the sudden more money. in fact, it should be less money because if the 15 million people who are eligible and not signed up understand that they can go to doctor or clinic without having to worry about, you know, paying for it or at least being covered through a government program, perhaps that person that's let's say having symptoms of diabetes is going to go early and then get it under control rather than showing up at the emergency room when they have an infection or something like that and they need an amputation, and so i don't see this as costing us more, but fully understanding exactly where we are. it's the beginning of getting it under control. you can't go somewhere unless you know where you are; right? if we get everybody signed up,

we'll collect the data. we'll have all the data, and we'll know what we're spending money on, and like i said before, it's the first time in american history that we can actually budget welcome in the united states. if the states paid more, you know, for all the people that were eligible that they are supposed to be paying for, theoretically, the cost of insurance for the premium payers should go down, but for us, that's not really the issue. we want all americans to have health care access. if we have a program that is passed by law, and that person's eligible, they should be able to use it. it shownd be hide-and-seek. let's make a law that feels good and then not let anybody use it and put a giant bureaucracy in the middle to control what our budget is, all right -- we want to know exactly what it is. we want to make it accountable, do cost containment, waste, fraud, and abuse control and provide access to all americans for health care. >> we'll come back to the waste,

fraud, and abuse, but let me ask -- >> there's one in the back. >> let's go to the way back there first. >> hello? is it on? >> i'll repeat it too. >> okay. hi, i had a question about coverage rule. you mentioned it's similar to the health exchanges, but it's better. i was wondering how the health exchanges will affect your program in california? >> well, our program is actually -- >> repeat the question. >> oh, she was asking how the health exchanges are going to affect our program. i'm kind of like the person who is out of words. if it made sense, what we do is our mission is to lower the ranks in the un?ired throughout -- uninsured throughout the whole united states, and that's why we put this all together, but by bringing it all together for the

first time, people didn't have to know the program existed. that's the key actually. the five questions is an ailing -- algorithm. you don't have to look at 5,000 programs, and so that's the beauty of it, and then it pulls up the application, and that's the really simple thing. it's really hard to do, but it's a very simple concept, and so i think california -- and they already use 2 in the employment development office of california, we get referred by the department of insurance and if they ask what to do, and think refer to us as well as ohio, louisiana, and other states. it's really amazing. in our annual report, we have a funnel, and what's happened here, if you think about it, the people who need health care are the people who are either sick or injured. the rest of the people don't need it now, so they don't think about it. i think that's why a lot of

people don't sign up. what we've done is with this funnel is through the american cancer society and diabetes and heart and lung, the hospitals, the department of insurance, the employment development departments, all of these people refer to us, and all the people who have preexisting conditions or are sick are finding out what they are eligible for, and they are able to go and use it right now, and so it's a beautiful thing, and by the way, this happened all on its own. we set it up, we had no idea it was going to have this demand. there was a big vacuum for this information, and it just keeps driving us and driving us, and there's lottings of things i'd rather do, but this is so important to the question, and there's so much consumer demand, and we get so many wonderful letters and phone calls and everything from people saying, oh, you saved my life. i had no idea that i could do this, and that we see 2 as a gift, as something we can do. it's a private sector,

nonprofit, anonymous program, but it helps millions of americans, and if you go to coverageforall.org, it's all there, all laid out, the finances and everybody who donates and that sort of thing, so that's what drives us really. we want to help. >> if we can do so under the limits of house ethics rules or if we can put a link to both the access and to the coverage for all on the health caucus website, people might find that interesting. now, if somebody wanted to know, for example, the five questions you asked when someone comes into the emergency room, that's on your website? >> they would, and if anybody out there knows somebody without health insurance, send them there, and they don't have health care access, send them there, they'll find it. >> this is in states owner california? >> oh, no, all 50 states and the district of columbia 6789 it's up an running for a long time.

coverageforall.org, and the number is the 800 number. we have 32 operators all trained answering the phone 30 24* hours a day -- phone 24 hours and can speak in 190 languages. >> their access is only for nevada? >> access is only for nevada, and they want to teach others what they are doing, and the beauty of the programs is there's a lot of different ways to do this. there's not one answer. we know that there are models that work and why are we not looking to those models and using them all over? >> i wonder if the emergency room is also considered a point of care? >> it is a point of care, yes. >> the emergency room is considered a point of care, the answer is yes, the hospitals and doctors are all services of point of care.

the emergency room is a very exceptive center for point of care. >> why not have the application right there? >> well, it's online. when a hospital decide to use our system, we're actually -- we integrate it into their system, and it becomes theirs. we stay on top of all programs throughout the whole united states. if they change medicaid or they change an s-chip plan in one state, we change it, and it gets done. we centralized all the information; right? they don't have to, and the hospital can use our system. it's very inexpensive. it's very successful. >> the beauty of this, again, is what access does is they try to keep it -- and they do it well -- is keep people out of the emergency room, again, at 1.5%. it sounds what phil's group does is that's where they catch them and then try to prevent them. good ideas from different places. >> your idea is more on controlling costs, which is what we want to do as a country, all right? until we know who's in the

programs, we can't control costs because they are not there. >> oh, yes, we can. we'll only answer two of your medicaid questions in the course of the 24 hour period. >> that's one way. we can transfer costs somewhere else, but don't you think as a country we should know exactly where we are, and let's be honest with ourselves and not fight over this and that, and then as we fight, people are not having access to care? we want to give everyone access. we want or programs to work; right? this is a great country we're in, and people need to know that. they need to know that we can figure this out, and we will, and it's working, and we're getting there. >> i have to tell you, i'm so impressed listening to both of you. i can think of times within my practice lifetime, i'd have someone come in, and even i said, okay, you need this done, i won't charge you, but then you

are always up against the hospital, and you're up against the an thesologist, the pathologist, and a way to access that with one phone call opposed to, you know, like i got punished twice. i was not getting paid for the procedure, and i had to organize and orchestrate all the other ancillary activities that would surround that person's hospitalization, and i just got to tell you, i never once -- i worked at a hospital, it was a private hospital, and known primarily by its initials, and they never gave anyone a break. this is an exciting transformation, an exciting difference, and certainly for the person who comes in recognizes they have a problem, semielective, but i want to take care of it in the right way, this is an opportunity for them to do that if they live in the state of nevada. now, i hope it's rep my catted in other areas, and, phil, in

your instance, i can't tell you the number of times i did a delivery at two o'clock in the morning on a saturday morning, the patient would be long gone from the hospital by the time the social ork -- social workers arrived on monday, so as far as verifying -- even if it was an emergency medicaid that the patient might be eligible, the person who can sign them up was long gone by the time -- or the patient was long gone by the time the person arrived at the hospital, so the actuality point of contact, your system works 24 hours a day, seven days a week; right? >> right. >> that in and of itself would be a game changer for a practicing ob/gyn. i was not close to the southern border, but nemples, we had a number of people every weekend coming in and sought services who didn't have a social security, but might be eligible for emergency medicaid under a federal program, but then they

were lost to the four winds because the address they gave was frequently incorrect and contact information was less than accurate, but the way to verify when they immediately came in to access the coverage for the hospital, for the physician who rendered the service, it's such a tremendous step forward and it's utilizing things already there. no building of new infrastructure, and i was struck by your comments why in the world did we -- if we're restructuring health care in this country from soup to nuts, top to bottom, why didn't we go back and recreate 1950s and 1960s's programs? surely we can be smarter than that, and that's what i like so much about what you articulated here today. there was a way to be smarter than that. there is a way to be smarter than that, so regardless of what happens with the affordable care act for the future, regardless of its fates in the court, these type of concepts that both of

you brought to us today are ones worthy of study, worthy of recognition, and implementation at some place, either in the affordable care act or in the brave new world that follows its demise in the courts, so thank you, both, for being with us, and as always, health caucus will keep this web cast up in perpetuity on the website, so if you know someone who can benefit or someone you know who would have been fitted from one of these programs, the contact information, if it comports with the rules of the house ethics, will be available on the health caucus website. thank you, all, for your attendance today. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up a little later today on c-span2, president obama on the economy and home refinancing. live from las vegas at 5:30 bp eastern. the "wall street journal reports he'll talk about new rules making it easier for struggling home owners to refinance no matter how low their homes have fallen in value, as long as they are current on payments. that's live coverage of the president's remarks at 5:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. tomorrow, the president heads to california with events in los

angeles and san fransisco. tomorrow and wednesday, the president will be in denver, colorado. in all three states, he plans a mix of official white house events and campaign fundraisers. the house of representatives is back for business today considering a number of bills under suspicion of the rules prohibiting u.s. airlines from participating in a european union plan requiring airlines landing in europe to pay for their carbon emissions. later in the week, a vote on legislation to repeal the rules requiring the government to withhold 3% of payments to contractors. similar legal legislation was blocked by the senate who, by the way, is not in session this week. that's on our companion network, c-span.

>> the iowa faith and freedom coalition this weekend hosted a presidential candidate forum. the group heard from six republican hopefuls, herman cain, michele bachmann, ron paul, newt gingrich, and rick

santorum. from the iowa state fairgrounds, this is three and a half hours. >> he's a great spokesperson, he is the founder of the national faith and freedom coalition, a multiissue pro-family organization, and organization that is going to make its mark more and more as we see the years proceed, and it's an organization that political can dates and causes have to pay attention to. without further adieu, please welcome my great friend, the great ralph reid. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you, iowa. [applause] did you notice when they were introducing the dignitaries earlier, that steve's name was mentioned more than anybody's? [laughter] did you notice that? that's because he's doing such an incredible job building movement, and steve, on behalf of faith and freedom members all

over iowa, thank you, my friend, for your leadership. we're honored to be you know your team. [applause] i know i speak not only for the members here in iowa, but for members all over america that we want to make sure that iowa continues to play a decisive and pivotal role in choosing the next leader of the free world, and iowa should continue to go first in choosing our president. [applause] i thought you might agree with that. you know, the pundits and the pollsters continue to be confounded by the purr sis tense and the endurance of the e evangelical vote, not just here in iowa, but all over the country, and you may have seen the exit polls from 2008 that found that between 55 and 60% of all the voters who walked into a

caucus location in 2008 were self-identified e van evangelical rise chans, but it was not just here in iowa. if you look at the exit polls in the 26 states that held primaries for which we have exit polling data, 44% of all the voters who shadowed darkened the threshold of a voting booth and a republican presidential reference primary four years ago was a self-identified evangelical christian, and i don't know why the media and the pollsters continue to be surprised after in 1988, pat robertson shocked the political establishment by defeating the vice president of the united states here, after george w. bush came here in 1999, and when tom brokaw asked him who his favorite philosopher, he said

jesus christ, and i still rem, when brokaw said, can you elaborate on that? [laughter] george w. bush looked at him wit blinking an eye and said if i have to explain it to you, then you don't understand. [laughter] [applause] and then when mike huckabee came from nowhere to win these caucuses and catapult his way to seven primary victories, you see the heart beat of this movement. ultimately, we're not looking for a human messiah to save our country. we're not looking for somebody like the other side was looking for four years ago. we understand that there's only one messiah who is only walked on the face of the earth, there's only been one perfect man who walked in the villages

of judea and is a mare ya, rose from the dead, and sits on the right hand of god the father, and that's where we put our hope is in the name and the person of jesus christ. [cheers and applause] [applause] and it is because of our love for him and the calling of god on our lives that we're involved in this process, not in order to impose our values on anyone else, for one can only come to god as an act of their own will, but rather to address evil and injustice where we see it, to seek to establish the common good in the public arena, and to seek to minister to those hurting and otherwise would be left behind. we believe we've been given a great birthright. we believe we've been given a

priceless inhair tense by those who came before us in the form of the constitution of the united states, the bill of rightings, and the declaration of independence, and we want the government in washington to return to that blueprint and do nothing further beyond that blueprint. [applause] we know that sometimes we bring forward issues that others might prefer not to talk about, but we are compelled to do so, like the fact that every human being is made in the image of almighty god enevery life is sacred from conception to natural death and is worthy of our love and our protection. on that we cannot and will not reprieve. [applause] and as three members of the iowa

state supreme court found out the hard way, we believed that marriage should be defined as a sacred union between a man and a woman as the essential building block of our society. [applause] we believe that the federal government should have to balance its books every month just like we have to sit down at our kitchen table and balance our checkbook every month and live within their means. [applause] and now we have a key ally in this struggle, especially on the fiscal issues. in the tea party movement, how many of you all are active in some way, shape, or form in the tea party here in iowa? let me see your hands? good for you. you know, i've noticed they've been taking your name in vain recently.

[laughter] have you heard some of the things they are saying about you? jimmy hoffas said you should be quote, "taken out." know, folks when a teamster leader says you should be taken out, he doesn't mean to dinner. [laughter] this was at a rally for the president of the united states. nancy pelosi compared you to nazis which is part of why tonight she's the former speaker of the house and john boehner is the speaker. [applause] then there's joe biden. [laughter] he's become a punch line. just the mention of his name. he compared you to terrorists. can you imagine?

well, i've got news for pelosi and biden and for the people who smear you and attack you every day, and that is our right to organize, to speak out, and to petition our government has been purchased with the blood of those who bore the ultimate burden and paid the ultimate price that we might be free, and they now surround us as the apostle paul so elegantly said like a great cloud of witness, and if only to honor their sacrifice, we will not be silent, we will not be intimidated, and we will not go away until america is restored to the principles upon which he was founded. [applause] now, let me tell you what's going to happen here in iowa and

nationally in the next 12 months as a result of this organization, the faith and freedom coalition. we're going to distribute over 40 million voter guides in america's evangelical and pro-family churches. we're going to build a prequalified voter file of social conservative voters of both parties and independents. a voter file that we estimate will be 27 # million voters strong. we're going to contact every one of those voters seven to 12 times. we're going to mail them, phone them, we're going to text them, we're going to e-mail them, we're going to knock on doors, and if they have not voted by election day, we're going to get in the car, pick them up, and take them to the polls and make sure they vote, and when -- [applause] and when the dust settles, barack and michelle obama will

be packing boxes, and a mewing van is going to pull up to 1600 pennsylvania avenue, and he's going back to chicago where he belongs. [applause] and then on january 20th, when the new president that you have helped elect finishes taking an oath of office, that president will walk into a room in the capitol, and a few minutes after that inaugural ceremony, they're going to sign into law legislation that's already been passed by a republican and senate house repealing obamacare and leaving it on the ashes of history where it belongs. [applause] you know, ronald reagan said the closest thing to eternal life on this planet is a federal program. [laughter]

this time, it's going to be different, but in order for this to happen, my friends, we have to work harder than we ever worked, give more than we've ever given, and we're going to have to pray for the country like we've never prayed now, there's a bucket on every table. i want someone at the table to hold the budget upright now. i want to see those buckets. there are white inveal lopes in every one. pass those out at that table right now, and i want every single person in this room csh well, we should probably exempt children under the age of 6, but anybody over the age of 7, i want you to put something in this inveal lope for the effort -- envelope for the efforts of steve and his team of the faith and freedom coalition. get a check, put cash in, credit cards, there's a place to put a

credit card number on that form in the bucket. use a pen, use a pencil, use an eyebrow pencil. cut your finger if you need to, but fill out the check and put it in the envelope, because friends, we're going to turn out the largest, the most enthusiastic and the most dynamic pro-life, pro-family vote in the history of this country, and when we do, america is going to be restored to greatness. thank you, all, very much. god bless you, and god bless the great state of iowa. [applause] >> thank you, ralph. mrs. grassley reminded me of something i failed to do, and that is there's a special senate election on november 8 to tie this into the 25-25. i'm going to go and spend three days there next tuesday, and you

need to figure putting some people in a car and head it over there and help those people door knock, make calls because this sends a message across iowa, and we'll take the state and country back. help out where you can. i want to introduce a good friend of mine, a guy who came to the helm of the republican national committee in january of this year, rinse rinse was among those runs, and he's an earliest supporter ide like to say because he's the best person to lead the party towards victory in 2012. reince hails from wisconsin, and in wisconsin, they knocked off both the majority leader in the senate, the house, speaker, took back the state senate, took lack the wisconsin house, picked up two new congressional seats, knocked off russ feingold of all people with a great tea party

favorite, ron johnson, and picked a new republican governor, probably one of the most colorful, most adamant conservatives 234 our movement, scott walker, who has taken on the big unions, and reince, only 39 years old, but you are in good hands, so i don't want you to bad mouth him again because this man is single handedly going to res legislate this party and bring us great victories in 2012. without further adieu, my great friend. [applause] >> thank you, steve. thank you. and thank you for the great work here tonight. this is an incredible showing here tonight, and i got to tell you as a follower of christ, this is an honor and an blessing to be here tonight. when steve asked me to come by, i said, yes, absolutely, the work that he's doing here in iowa, and by the way, i want to

brag on also one of his partners, tim lee lehman, -- kim -- the national committee woman from iowa, where are you, kim? thank you to you -- [applause] and let me put on my party hat for a second here because you have a very, very serious iowa gop here led by matt straun who is not here tonight, but thank you, matt, for running such a great organization, and i have good news for you in iowa because just a few hours ago, it is official, nevada will hold their caucus on february 4th, so iowa will be the first -- [applause] the first caucus in america, the first contest in america. [applause] well, it's true. my name is really reince

preibus. it's true. it's a beczar name. i'm a regular guy, and to prove that to you, i want you to know my son's name is jack, my daughter is grace, my wife is sally, my dad is richard, and my sister is marie. this is what happens when a greek and german get married. it's a cultural disaster, but i'm learning to live with it. well, faith and freedom. it's your cause. it's our cause. we fight for freedom, we stand for faith because they both have long defined america, not separately, but together. faith and freedom inextrickbly intertwine and make america great. now, i told you that half of my family's greek, and i don't know

if there's any greeks out there, i see a few hands, but i -- in greek, grandfather is papou. i know you have a yaya and papou. as an 8-year-old little guy, i loved my papou. i loved my grandfather. i looked up to him more than any person in my entire life, and he loved politics, but he didn't live here. i remember going to greece as a 9 or 10-year-old little guy, and i remember walking out on the balcony and seeing out on the balcony a new democracy flag. there's three parties in greece. there's the new democracy party, there's the pasat, which are the socialists, and then the kke, which are the communists, and i remember next to that new democracy flag in downtown

athens was an equally large american flag out on the balcony, and i can remember my grandfather coming back to wisconsin where i grew up, and for those of you who have relatives from overseas, you know, like americans we go there for a week and race back. you know, my grandparents came for a couple months; right? i can remember at 10 years old, sitting on the couch for hours listening to my grandfather tell me stories, and y'all remember the world books; right? the old encyclopedias? i remember he would read those things for hours, and he took the letter "p" off the shelf for presidents and told me stories for two or three hours at a time, and it didn't matter who it was. it would be wig, democrat, republican -- it didn't matter. everybody had a story.

i don't think most of them were true -- [laughter] but he loved everything and every little detail about america. he loved this country, and he wasn't from here, and that had a profound impact on me growing up at 9 or 10 years old. i remember when we first moved the family out to washington a few months ago, i have a little guy by the name of jack, and he's six, and i brought jack to the world war ii memorial, and i can remember standing in front of that memorial with over 4,000 gold stars, each representing 100 lives lost in world war ii, and in front of those stars, chic led in the gran it, it says here we mark the price of

freedom. i happen to believe that we're in a battle for freedom in this country. i know that not a single person is here, and i'm not standing in front of you as the chairman of the republican national committee because i'm concerned about the future of the republican party. i'm not concerned about the future of the republican party. i'm not here because of that. i love the party. the party was founded in wisconsin in 1854. i love the party, but i'm not here, and you're not here because of anything like that. i'm here, and i'm here to tell you, i'm here because i'm concerned about the future of this country. i think -- [applause] i believe that we're in a battle for freedom. it's the same battle of freedom that founded our country. it's the same battle of freedom

that james madison reaffirmed in the bill of right, the same battle of freedom that founded our party, and here we are today. you see, it's a battle for freedom between governments and their appetite to grow and what's born and every american heart which is unique to america for individual and economic freedom, and that's where we are today, and we have a great debate in america starting right now, and that debate is do you want to have a economy of makers -- have a country of makers or a country of takers? do you want more people riding the wagon or do you want more people driving the wagon? you know, when my son, jack, is my age, it's going to cost 45

cents on every dollar made in america -- get that, 45, on every dollar made in america, just to run the federal government. i mean, that's a battle for freedom. if you know people that don't think that that's a battle for freedom, well, then, what is? what if it's 7 # cents? 82? what about 99 cents on every dollar made in america just to run the federal government? we are in a battle for freedom. i'm sure you heard that the president, what he was up to this week. he's yet on another bus tour paid for by the taxpayers, but he says we're not campaigning. there's nothing to see here. they just happen to run the bus through virginia, ohio, north

carolina, you know, they are not going to montana or utah. just so happens they are going through every battleground state in america. there's no doubt about it. this president is obsessed with politics, but good politics do not inherently create good jobs, good speeches don't create good jobs. the president has a love affair, and that love affair that he has is with the sound of his own voice -- [laughter] but he doesn't love following through on his promises, does he? [applause] the president says that he wants an america to live within its means. the president says that he wants to reduce the deficit and the debt ceiling, and the president says he wants to reduce wasteful spending in washington, but here's the problem. the rhetoric doesn't match the

results. what did he do? he said we wanted to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. what did he do? he introduced the biggest structural deficit in the history of the world, and not a single democrat in the senate voted for it. he said he wanted to get the debt under control, and what did he do? he introduced policies that ultimately passed. he, barack obama, no one else, he didn't inherit it, his policies put our country on track to accumulate more debt than every single president before him combined. that is the legacy of barack obama, and every day washington spends $4.5 billion just to pay its bills, and by 2040 on the current trajectory this

president put us on, on this trajectory, our debt will equal twice our entire economy. that's the economic definition of bankruptcy. i want to tell you a government that has to surrender its sovereignty to its bondholders cannot guarantee prosperity or freedom to anybody, and a country that buries its kids in an avalanche of debt can't rest in any vestage of the moral io ground, and certainly a country controlled by china can't compete with china. we have all been blessed in this room. in different ways. after it is all said and done, there is nothing but thankfulness and gratefulness to god for all of the blessings in

our lives. me included. i am just blessed and grateful that god gave us a hard to care about the future of our country and about what is happening in our government. there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. there is only one perfect person who walked the face of this earth. >> i plan on having a party of a concept of addition and multi indication, not subtraction and division. we have so much to fight for in this election. we're going to come together and i want you to know that the republican party, the rnc, iowa gop -- we're here to work with you. i've often said multiple times, this party is not in competition

with the conservative movement, this party is merely part of a conservative movement. i intend to keep it that way. i intend to work with you and i'll tell you what, i think together we can come up with the best stimulus plan for this country. and i think economists from los angeles to new york -- people, you know, like paul ryan and mitch daniels would sign up for our stimulus plan and here it is. fire barack obama, put a republican in the white house and get america back on track, back to work. thank you. god bless you. have a great night. >> after my brief introduction

for about 2 seconds, a candidate will give a speech for about 10 minutes and the senator will be asking two questions of the iowa energy forum and steve scheffler will be asking two questions of the iowa faith and freedom to that candidate. at this time, we request senator bane and steve scheffler take their seats up in the front here. [applause] >> in the interest of time, please only give a brief applause when a candidate is coming to speak and when a candidate is leaving after completing the answer to the fourth question.

please welcome the plain-talking, rapidly rising, no nonsense, nonpolitician and businessman, former ceo of godfather's pizza, herman cain. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you for this invitation. thank you for this meeting. it was ronald reagan who reminded us just how fragile this thing called freedom is, when he said freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.

we can't pass it on in the bloodstream. it must be fought for and protected for one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our grandchildren what the united states of america used to be like. i'm not going to have that conversation with my grandkids. and i don't think you're going to have that conversation with your grandkids to talk about what the united states of america used to be like. and this is a battle, a fight for freedom. it is a fight for freedom. and this nation has protected that precious thing called freedom since its inception for

235 years because of america's strength, the strength of the declaration of independence as conceived by the founding fathers. the strength of the united states of america. it simply needs to be enforced not rewritten. that's what the american people are looking for. strength in terms of our free market system. america's strength, we have the greatest economic engine on the planet. it's sputtering right now because we have an economic crisis. our economy is on life support. but when it receives the right fuel, no other nation on the

planet can touch it. america's great because of its strength. last but not least, because of the strength of our military and our men and women in uniform. [applause] >> but there's one strength that you rarely hear mentioned when people talk about america's greatness, and it is because of this particular strength that i am here tonight. that i am on this journey. that is america's ability to change and we got to change the occupant of the white house again in 2011. [applause] >> america survived because of its ability to change.

throughout its history, we've had some ups, we've had some downs, but we've been able to change whenever the will of the people demanded it. i know something about america's ability to change. if it had not been for america's ability to change, i wouldn't be here tonight. i grew up in atlanta, georgia. in the '50s and the '60s, during the height of the civil rights movement in this nation. it wasn't just in the south. it was all over this nation. i can still remember riding on segregated buses on atlanta, georgia. i can still remember the sign at the front of the bus that will

forever be branded into my memory, whites seat from the front. colored, seat from the rear. i can still remember that. but because of america's ability to change, i stand here today and i own the bus with my picture on the side. mra[applause] >> america's ability to change is one of our greatest strengths. and the founders it got right. they got it right in that document called the declaration of independence. they got it right in that document called the constitution. it wasn't so restrictive that it

didn't allow us to change when we had to. they got it right and they said endowed by their creator. not the president, not the congress. endowed by their creator the certain unalienable rights that among these are life from conception, no abortions, no exception exceptions. [applause] >> liberty and the pursuit of happiness and when they indicated that among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it suggest they might have been talking about some others. i happen to believe that there's another unalienable right. that the founders intended, and that's the right to protect

yourself. the right to protect your family. the right to protect your property. we call this the second amendment to the constitution of the united states of america. [applause] >> that's an unalienable right. [applause] >> the founding fathers got it right. you have to be the defending fathers. that means that we have to do three things in order to take back the white house and take back our congress and get this nation back on the right track. number 1, must stay informed. stay informed because stupid people are ruining america. [applause] >> we can win because there's more of us we just together outvote them. secondly, stay involved.

stay involved. it is great to see so many of you here tonight. and as ralph and steve challenged you earlier, when you leave here tonight after the speeches, don't just do the same thing that you might have done before. and as the great philosopher emerald lagasse kick it up a notch. now i know that some people in the press are going to say, he thinks emerald lagasse is a philosopher. it's a joke, y'all. [laughter] >> american needs to lighten up. [applause] >> and stay inspired. the liberals want you to believe that we cannot do this. the liberals want you to believe that they got this nation in a

choke-hold and that they are going to hold on to it and not let it go. but one of the greatest strengths of this nation is the will of the people. when the will of the american people unleashes the spirit of america, we can achieve whatever we want to achieve. i'm inspired by a lot of things, folks. i'm inspired by the greatness of this nation. i'm inspired by the face of that first grandchild back in 1999. i looked into that little face for the very first time. and the first thought that went through my mind wasn't what do i do to give hear good start in life? the first thought i heard was what do i do to make this a better nation? to make this a better world for her? all of the other little faces. and you see, we don't have a lot

of time to get this light we got to get it right in 2012. and i believe that we will because we're reminded that while we're on this journey, we all have just a limited amount of time to be here and we have to decide how we're going to use our time, our talents and our treasure in order to make a difference not only in your community, to make a difference in this world and make a difference in this nation. dr. mays at moore house college used to make the remark there when i was a student there. life is only a minute. only 60 seconds in it forced upon you. you can't refuse it. you didn't seek it. you didn't choose it but it's up to you to use it.

you must suffer if you lose it. give an account if you abuse it. just a tiny little minute, but eterni eternity is in it. in 2012 it's our ability to honor the memory of ronald reagan as he described america as the shining city on a hill but in the last few years, that shining city on the hill has slid down to the side of the hillsides. and it is our responsibility in 2012 to take that shining city on a hill back to the top of the hill where it belongs and never apologize for america's greatness. [applause] >> gentlemen --

>> thank you, mr. cain. more and more americans are coming to specific energy policies affect our jobs and our economy. what is your comprehensive plan to shape your future administration's energy policy and please include how this vision differs from the approach of our current administration? >> the current administration doesn't have a policy. [laughter] >> we will have an energy independence strategy because america has the resources to become energy independent. we have enough oil, coal, natural gas, shale oil -- we have the resources to become energy independent. and my team is already working on putting that strategy together. because energy independence is not only an economic imperative,

it is a national security imperative. because we do not need to be dependent upon foreign oil from countries that do not like us. so this is why we're going to become energy independent. now, the first barrier that some people like to say that we will have in doing that is that the epa won't let us do that. well, as president of the united states, i will make sure that the epa has an attitude adjustment. [applause] >> they work for us. [applause] >> if you could reverse one energy-related policy decision from the last three years, what would it be? and what would you have done differently? >> if i could have reversed one energy-related policy over the

last three years, what would it have been? i would have allowed the american people to decide what kind of light bulbs they want to put in their homes america believes in choice. [applause] >> green energy is a joke. you ought to be able to pick what light bulb you want. that's why we call it the faith and freedom coalition. [applause] >> thank you for coming this evening. we're honored that you're here. question number 1, what would you do specifically to prevent abortion on demand and defend traditional marriage? >> what would i do to prevent abortion on demand and to defend traditional marriage? i believe that we need a constitutional guarantee of marriage between a man and a

woman in terms of preventing abortion on demand. i would not sign any legislation where government-funded abortion. i would not sign any legislation that in any way allowed the government to be involved in it. i would strengthen all of our current laws that prevent abortion. i believe that abortion should be clearly stated and illegal across this country and i would work to defund planned parenthood and i would make sure that i appoint judges that follow the constitution, no activist judges and i would make sure do not allow any bureaucrats to get in the way in order to protect the life of the unborn. [applause] >> thank you, mr. cain. question number 2, what would you do to restore fiscal responsibility and promote creation of jobs in the united

states? >> in order to promote fiscal responsibility we need to do two things simultaneously. one, make sure that we grow this economy. this is why i have proposed a bold economic growth in jobs plan that i'm sure everybody in here has heard of. we must grow this economy same time we're going to be reducing spending in washington, dc. here's my approach to reducing spending in washington, dc, that would be an across-the-board 10% mandate coming from the president of all federal agencies. and then like most business people do, you do a deep dive into every agency to find those programs that need to be thrown out that are outdated. the government accounting office documents waste and inefficiency on a regular basis. but it's just that nobody has ever taken that report that they put together and do something with it. i believe that we can have costs coming down. so we can stop adding to the national debt but it stops by putting fuel in that engine for economic growth and this is why

i would throw out the current tax code and put in the bold plan that we have proposed called 9-9-9 in order to get this economy growing. [applause] >> thank you very much. and thank you. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you, mr. cain. please welcome the iowa-born woman with the titanium smile, queen of the republican party of iowa's august straw poll and conservative congressman michele bachmann. [applause] >> good evening, everyone.

[applause] >> thank you so much for loving our country so much that you are here this evening. your presence says to the rest of the nation that barack obama will be a one-term president. thank you so much for your presence. he will be the one-term president. i know that because i've been on the front lines for the last five years in washington, dc. i came into office the same day that nancy pelosi raised her right arm and got the gavel in her hand as the speaker of the house. i have watched the destruction that has come upon our nation with the out of control spending, with the tax increases, with the effort to put into place the takeover of one-sixth of the american economy with the passage of obamacare.

and it was my honor to be called president obama's chief critic when it came to opposing him on the issue of obamacare. this is something that we know in 2012 as was stated earlier by some of our speakers. we must in 2012 have a very different kind of a president. every day i'm on a play somewhere all across the united states of america, and i can tell you from what i see, everywhere across the country people have made up their mind. they have decided that barack obama won't have a second term. now the question will be, who will we replace barack obama with? will it be a candidate who has a proven record of standing for us and for what we believe in? this is the year when social conservatives can have it all because from my experience, a

social conservative is a fiscal conservative. a social conservative is a national security conservative. we can have it all this year. growing up in iowa, i was born here; i was raised here. i tell people everything i needed to know i learned in the state of iowa. i thank god for the background and the faith that my parents gave to me. my parents from a very early age made sure that our family made it to church on the weekend and that we prayed at night and that we prayed before our meals. but it was when i became 16 years of age that i was confronted with a question in my own life. what would i do if jesus christ? what would his place be in my own life? and i made a decision on november 1st of 1972 when i bowed my knee and received jesus christ as my lord and savior and my life was changed forever. and at that moment, i radically

abandoned my life and myself to him. and said whatever i am and whoever i am and whatever i will be, it is yours. and it's for you to show me the way on that decision. and i thank god for what the lord has given to me and what he has done for me and for this nation and for all of us here. and over the course of time and in growing with him, i married a man who also gave his life to jesus christ. we established our home on jesus christ and after 33 years and five biological children and we've been raised 23 foster children in the our home we have received the grace of god in our nation. and with the values i have learned i've taken with me and i've stood on those values in washington, dc, as a member of congress. i have stood up as a firm, strong ally to our friend israel

and as president of the united states, i will stand with israel. [applause] >> as a member of the united states house of representatives committee on intelligence, we're a very committee that deals with the nation's classified secrets. i can tell you quite clearly that it was a tremendous mistake for barack obama to put daylight between the united states and our ally israel. we have been seeing the fruits of that decision and when he called upon israel to retreat to her indefensible 1967 borders in may of this year, that sent a signal. and that sent a signal to nations all around the world that it was time and open season for them to increase their hostilities because this is the first president since israel declared her sovereignty 11

minutes after she declared her sovereignty, harry truman recognized israel. every president since then has stood by israel until barack obama. he has sent those signals of weaknesses and today we have seen unspeakable actions including recently where literally in my mind it was an act of war when iran chose to commit an act in international assassination in our nation's capital. this is something that cannot be abided by. and something that the united states has to send a signal. that's why as president of the united states, i will stand by israel. and i will stand with our allies and i will stand against our enemies. which would be an iran with a nuclear weapon. in this last week what have we seen? besides the incident of international assassination, we saw president obama put the united states into a fourth war

with no identifiable vital american national interest. there is no important task for a president than to be commander in chief. i see that from the perspective of the intelligence committee. i would never consider negotiating and releasing the hostages in guantanamo bay in a hostage release. that is something we cannot do. we have the mastermind of the 9/11 disaster khalid sheikh mohammed in guantanamo bay. we would never consider negotiating those terrorists, admitted terrorists, for an american in a hostage situation. i also want you to know quite firmly, i stand for life, from conception until natural death. and a president must know and recognize what barack obama does not. he says that he personally does

not believe in abortion. but president obama also believes that the government should not intervene when it comes to the issue of abortion. i believe that the government must intervene and i stand for a federal constitutional amendment to protect life from conception until natural death. [applause] >> i also believe sitting on the intelligence committee we know now that there are 59,000 other than mexicans who come across america's borders every year. this is a national security threat. i'm the first candidate to sign a pledge to build a fence on our southern border. and i will tell you as president of the united states, i will not only build that fence in the first year of my presidency, i will make sure that we have the boots on the ground with the border security guards to deal

with this issue. we will cut out taxpayer subsidized benefits for illegal aliens. and for their children. we will not stand for subsidies for illegal aliens or their children when it comes to higher education. and i also believe that it's time to put forward legislation to deal with the issue of anchor babies in the united states of america. [applause] >> and english needs to be the official language of the united states government. [applause] >> this is our year when we don't compromise. this is our year when we don't settle. we need to look at the records of the candidates. we need to look at what we've done and what we fought for. for the last five years, i have been at the tip of the spear on issue after issue.

whether it's been standing up for our friend israel. whether it's been standing against out of control spending. whether it's been standing against barney frank on the financial services committee, i have done that against the job and housing destruction act also known as dodd-frank. it was said earlier that our president needs to come in after being sworn in to sign the repeal bill for obamacare. ..r obamacare. i will repeal obamacare because i fought against obamacare. i wrote the bill to repeal dodd- frank. i understand what needs to be done to repeal those bills. i grew up in iowa with three brothers and no sisters. that is the best preparation for politics any girl could ever have. [applause] we do these things not because

we are easy -- these things are easy, we do these things because they are part and because they must be done. >> i firmly believe that 2012 is it. i believe this is it. this is america's last chance to get it right because we know from the international monetary fund, this is the last election when the united states will be the premier economic superpower of the world, and we know that according to their figures, china will be that economic superpower before the 2016 election, and so you see we only have one chance, and we need to have a candidate that we can count on, someone who will cut back on the spending, and we have to cut it by 43%. we need someone who gets tough love. i get tough love. i've raised 28 children.

i'm the old woman in the shoe. you're looking at tough love. i've taken tough love not only to pelosi, but also stood up against the republican leadership in washington, d.c.. i know how to fight, but i also know how to get things done. what we need in the next president is someone who understands what this president does not, that our nation will rise and our nation will fall in the way that we uphold the values that america has stood for, and it was george washington and our fonders who told us that we stand on religion and morality and virtue, and our nation, since the early 1960s and supreme court decisions has knocked this off one by one. religion, throwing the bible and prayer out of the public school classrooms, and now out of the market place of ideas, throwing

morality out of mainstream public life, mocking virtue. our nation was formed on religion and morality and virtue. we believe in religious liberty, and once again as a nation, we must stand, and we must stand tall. it looks very difficult right now, but my favorite -- one of my favorite heros in the old testament is someone who you don't about often and that's jonathan with the father of sol, and sol led the army, and he was so defeated because looking at the top of the cliff, there's the philistines, and they had weapons, overpowering numbers in their army. king saul did not, did not have the weapons or the army. he gave up and was paralyzed, but not his son jonathan. he turned to the armor bearer,

the fellow soldier and said the lord will hear us if we climb the cliffs and if the pal steens say come up, then we'll know the lord is on our side, and we can scale the cliffs and see that victory, and the armor bearer said to jonathan some of the most faithful words recorded. he said i am with you heart and soul, and together jonathan and his armor bearer scaled the cliff, and the philistines said to them, come up, come up to where we are, and they by faith went to the top of the cliff, and not only did jonathan and the armor bearer defeat the philistines, but the scripture says it was the entire philistine army because you see that day there was faith, and that day there was a miracle, and it will take a miracle to set america back on course and

on our foundation, but i believe in miracles, but i believe in the one who sends miracles. it is not too late for the united states, and i know that together, together we can take this nation back, and we can restore it to the foundations that the founders still brilliantly gave and fought and died and gave the last full measure of devotion to secure for us, and i thank you. [applause] >> privileged to have you here tonight, and question number one is what would you do to prevent boshes -- abortion and defend traditional marriage. >> number one, i would be fully

supportive of a federal constitutional amendment to drien life from beginning at conception. i believe in life from conception until natural death, and i would support all pro-life language that comes across my desk. i've recently introduced the inform choice of heart beat act so every woman prior to having an abortion has to listen and see her unborn baby before making that all important decision to choose life. [applause] it's important for everyone to know we already have taxpayer funded abortion. obamacare for the first time in history gave us taxpayer funded abortion. we'll get one chance to repeal obamacare, one chance, and that's 2012 because $100 billion is already embedded in obamacare in a series of post data checks

that president obama's cashing right now to implement taxpayer funded abortion and obamacare in all 50 states. we only have one chance to get rid of what will ultimately become socialized medicine. this is a pro-life issue to repeal obamacare. i will not rest until i elect 13 like minded u.s. republican senators to join me in washington so we can actually repeal that bill. [applause] in answer to what i do to defend marriage, i did in my home state of minnesota when it was unpopular, i introduced the bill to marry one man and one woman, and we persisted. after leaving minnesota, i worked with my successors, and now minnesota is the first state

to have the definition of one man and one woman on its ballot in this upcoming year, and as president of united states, i would support the full marriage amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman. [applause] >> question number two. what would you do to restore fiscal responsibility and promote creation of jobs in the united states? >> i introduced my plan which is more than a tax plan, more than an energy plan. it is a comprehensive plan to turn the economy around and get it back on the right rails. we have to do frankly what i learned growing up in earlier, and it's this -- you can't spend more money than what you take in. [applause] this is a nonnegotiateble. we are spending 43% more than

what we're taking in, and this is a morality issue, an economic issue, but it's a morality issue because you must consider when ronald reagan was president in 1980s, america was the number one creditor nation in the world. we had all the money, and we were loaning it to other nations. we are now the biggest debtor nation in the world. from the time i've been in congress from january 2007, we were $8.67 trillion in debt, you know what it is today? after the debt ceiling volt that i was fighting against, raising that debt ceiling, we are now at the capacity to be in debt $16.7 trillion. we have almost doubled our indebtedness in four and a half years, that's why we have to have someone, as i've often said, with a titanium spine to say no and do the very difficult

thing that needs to be done, and that is cutting back. i will. i will shut down the department of education. i will shut down the epa. i will shut down the department of energy. i had shut down the department of interior. i will shut down the department of commerce. we have got to decide once and for all that federal government gets practiceically nothing rights, shut it down, send it back to the states. we can do this. we can do this. the country will be better for it. it will lead to a pro-growth economy. that's my entire life. i'm a former federal tax litigation attorney. my husband and i run a profitable business. i personally believe turning a profit is a very good thing. i stand for profit, and believe in profit, and so the first thing that we have to do is what you would do in your home and what you would do in your business. if you're in financial trouble,

you either freeze your credit card in the freezer or you cut it up. in the case of the united states, you take the credit card away. they have to cut back on spending, then you cut taxes to some of the lowest in the industrialized world. i will abolish the united states federal tax code and have a flatter, simpler, fairer income tax, and then you abolish the mother of all regulatory bills in its 11 points in my plan, so go to micheleba crarks hman.cc. >> thank you. what is your plan to shape the policy? how does this differ from the approach of the current administration? >> it's 180 degrees different than the current administration's policy on energy rmt i have been fighting

this in congress. this is one of the best stories that the united states of america has to tell. earlier this year, the congressional research service issued a report saying the united states of america is the number one energy resourced rich nation in the world. god has given us such a tremendous gift. if we legalize american energy production, which i have been advocating throughout my time in congress, we will create very quickly 1.4 million high paying jobs, increase domestic energy supply to 50%, and that brings $800 billion into the united states treasury. we have more oil in three western states than the former shell oil than all of the oil in saudi arabia. we have 25% of all of coal in the world. we have some of the largest spines of natural gas found recently in pennsylvania. we have trillions of cubic square feet of natural gas

incoming solar, winds, biofuels here in iowa. we have a all. i want to legalize it all and change the epa and get rid of the epa. we have 50epa's at each state level, get rid of it so we can open up american energy production and be the leader in the world and be the head and not the tail. [cheers and applause] >> if you can reverse one energy related policy decision in the last three years, what would it be, and what would you have done differently? >> there's so many, but the one that hurt the economy was the moratorium that president obama put on after the oil spill that occurred. there was devastation that occurred because of the oil spill that occurred, but there

was nothing worse than the moratorium he put on. the gulf coast region -- [applause] the gulf coast region still continues to feel the effects from the moratoriums. here's something else with energy. i toured anwar and the region in 2008, which, by the way, is the most perfect place on the planet to drill for oil, and we should be drilling in anwar. every lease, every lease that gets purchased for drilling before anything happens, there's a radical environmental group that files a lawsuit to drive up the price on those leases. we need to end that practice, and we need to set up special courts to deal with that because we have seen our energy policy absolutely tied up in knots. again, i spent four years on this issue. i know what it needs to be done,

and i proposed an energy policy that will open up, unlock, unleash, and create high paying jobs all across the united states of america. this is the first and easiest thing that the next president of the united states can do, and this will be the treasure-trove that god has given to the united states to turn our economy around, and i can't wait to do it. [applause] is that it? okay. thank you, all. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. i love you all, thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, congresswoman. please welcome a lifelong

conservative who's a proven leader in the fight to create jobs and to protect the unborn, texas governor, rick perry. [applause] ♪ >> thank you. [applause] thank you, all, for coming out and being with us tonight, and i want to say a special thanks to reinec for the leadership of the party, and, steve, thank you for the work you've done, the invitation to be here today, and it's important for all the candidates to come and ask all of you for your votes and support. i have a special connection to the iowa voters partly because of the little town in texas called pan creek where i grew up, and instead of growing corn we watched being harvested this morning with steve king, we were growing cotton, dry land cotton, and while not in school, i was

helping on the farm or over at mr. overton's place with the boy scouts of america, or i was at a revival because my mother said that's where i needed to be, so, you know, we had two churches there in pan creek. we had a baptist church and methodist choice. your choice. pick one. [laughter] the teachers lived around the schoolhouse, and that building it housed grades 1-12, and i will tell you, it was a bit signaler than hickory high in hoosiers. it was a tiny little place. because i'm the product of those humble beginnings, i never associated happiness with what we had materially, but let me tell you, we were highly blessed spiritual. the fabric of my existence was family, faith, and community. we were knit together by strong relationships of that abiding

faith. if a neighbor was sick, the community pitched in to help raise the crops. i know that spirit's still alive and well here in iowa. i was reminded of it a couple months ago when a little town called luana, they loaded up hay to send to texas to help our ranchers who are going through tough times in the drought. that's the way it is in small town america. people look out for one another, and it happens through private initiatives. it doesn't hatch because of government. as americans, we don't believe washington should be more central in our lives. we don't believe government exists to spread the wealth or dictate equal outcomes. we believe government exists to protect our rights and to guarantee our freedom. [applause] our founding fathers were some

of the rights are endowed by our creator, and that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. while liberty may be the gift of god, its preservation requires the sacrifice of man. in order for america to maintain its moral authority abroad, we must set a high moral standard at home. that starts with protecting our most innocent and vulnerable unborn children. [applause] 50 million, 50 million have died because america has not guaranteed the right to life expressly stated in the declaration of independence. as governor of texas and throughout my career, i have taken an unwaiverring stand in defense of life. i signed legislation requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion. i signed prenatal protection

act. i signed an informed consent law. this year i was proud to champion and sign two other protections, one a law that ensures pregnant women receive a sonogram before an abortion, and, two, i was proud to defund planned parenthood in texas. [cheers and applause] that sonogram bill is tied up in the courts, and that reminds me of one of the most important responsibilities of any president, and that is to appoint federal judges who uphold the constitution of the united states instead of rewritings. activist judges who gave us row versus wade, and it is time for activist citizens now to pass a human life amendment. [applause] on this issue you just don't need to listen to my words, but

you can look at my record. i appointed strict constructionists who defend our principles, but pro-life is not a matter of come pain convenience, but a core conviction, and that conviction should include the protection of embryonic stem cells. [applause] the real advances, the real advances in stem cell research involve adult stem cells. we do not have to compromise our values to advance science. this is true of embryonic stem cell research, and it is true of human cloning. one final thought on the issue of life. it is a liberal conard to say i'm personally pro-life, but government should stay out of that decision. if that is your view, you are not pro-life. you are pro-having your cake and eating it too.

[applause] we respect life. we respect life as a gift of god, and what god has created, we should always work to protect. that's not merely an article of faith. it is natural law. when it comes to faith, it is the core of who i am, an essential act. it's an essential act as much as breathing is an essential act for me. i came to faith by virtue. in reality, it was a struggle. it was only when i had nowhere else to turn that i turned to god. it was after i left the family farm, i'd gone off to college, i'd served my country in the united states air force, and i finally came to terms with the central guiding role of a personal god in my own life, and

i discovered my own limitations, my own brokeness, and i found the true source of hope and change, and that is a loving god who changes hearts of stone and the hearts of flesh. [applause] i think we can all find hope in the imperfections of people that god used to write about in the scriptures. look at moses. he was hot tempered. david, he gave into temptation. paul who once persecuted christians who wrote so personally about his human struggles in the book of romans in chapter 7, and, you know, in god's eyes, we are not disqualified by our imperfections because we are

weak. he is strong. that's the good news. we are not called to be perfect. if any of you have watched my debate performances over the last three or four times, you know i'm far from perfect. [laughter] [cheers and applause] but here's another thing -- [applause] here's another thing you need to know about me -- i stick by my principles no matter what comes my way, my principles stay the same. defend freedom, value life, make policy decisions based on what is best for our families. i will not accept today's status quo as the fate of america. i will not accept an america that is less productive at home and less influential abrowed. i still believe in american exceptionalism and believe that america's the last best hope of mankind. when i'm president, i will not apologize for our country or our

values. i will protect them. [applause] i will stand for life. i will stand for freedom. i will protect the right of people of faith to march on the public square and participate in this cherished democracy. i ask for your prayers. i ask for your involvement. i ask for your vote. god bless you, and thank you for allowing me to come tonight. [applause] >> thank you, governor perry. what is your comprehensive plan to shape your future administration's energy policy and please include how this vision differs from the approach of the current administration. >> well, it's really a pretty simple concept. make what americans buy, and buy what americans make.

pulling back regulations killing jobs and sphopping our ability -- stopping our ain't to use the -- ability to use of 300 years of energy we have in the country, reduce and refocus, if you will, that epa that has been talked about broadly here tonight, level the playing field for all of the energy industry. i talked about two weeks ago creating 1.2 million jobs by doing just that without going through congress and using executive orders to make those changes. my plan makes america more energy secure. the idea is what herman talked about that we would send billions, hundreds of billions of dollars offshore every year to countries that are hostile to our future is nonsensical to me. let's get america working and open up our oil and gas reserves, our coal, all the energy whether it's wind, solar, or nuclear, whatever it is, get america working and start in the

energy industry. [applause] >> if you could reverse one energy related policy decision from the last three years, what would it be, and what would you have done differently? >> yeah, i agree with congresswoman bachman that the most devastating policy was the knee jerk reaction of the deepwater horizon event and shutting down the gulf of mexico from drilling. what it's done -- if we just went back to pre-obama levels of job creation, 230,000 jobs, one-third of those which would be outside of the gulf region, could be put to work. 80% down on the number of approvals for our permits, it takes 400% longer today to get a

permit in the gulf of mexico. bobby and i were talking just within the last month, 12,000 jobs have been lost because of that. this president has killed more jobs with his regulatory schemes that have gone forward and that knee-jerk reaction of stopping drilling, and that is some of the fastest things that we can turn around with a new president. [applause] >> thank you. >> governor, perry, thank you for coming this evening. first question is what would you do to prevent abortion on demand and defend traditional marriage? >> do the same things as president of the united states that i did as governor of texas, and that is put strict constructionist on the court when we have that opportunity. clearly, justice is

understanding your role of reading the constitution, and when they read the constitution, they will overthrow row versus wade, and i look forward to the day where we truly have a constitutional amendment that protects life. a protection of life constitutional amendment, and any taxpayer funds for abortion would be vetoes if they came to my desk. [applause] >> second question is what would you do to restore fiscal responsibility and promote the creation of jobs in the united states. >> well, obviously, the creation of jobs is one of the most important issues that face this country from the stand point of how to get our families strong again, and i laid out two weeks ago a plan clear on the energy side, 1.2 million jobs by

opening up those federal lands, by pulling back those regulations that are killing jobs, by rebuilding the epa into an agency that's actually this for no other purpose than to work with cross state issues or what have you. you can get this country back working very quickly, but you need a president who has a record of job creation. just like in our state where you -- four simple principles. you keep the tax burden as light as you can on job creators. you send a clear message on the regulatory front that you're going to have a fair and predictable regulatory climate. you have a legal system that doesn't allow for over suing, and you don't spend all the money. i mean, truly, it is that simple, but you have to have a president that stands up, and if a bill comes that is spending more money than we bring in and they pull out a pen, a president that will stand up and say if you send me a piece of

legislation that spends more than what we are bringing in, i will veto it, and it will be something as magnificent as a sharp pi that we put pen to paper on to send the message we're not going to spend more money than what we take in this country. [applause] thank you, all, and god bless you and thank you for letting me be a part of this tonight. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, governor. please welcome the calm and cool man of ideas, the co-author of the 1994 contact with america, former speaker, newt gingrich.

[applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. i want to thank the faith and freedom coalition and thank all of you permly for coming out tonight. i want to thank you and steve for your great leadership here in iowa and thank ralph reed for what he's done across the country to build the faith and freedom movement. 2012 is the most important election in this country since 1860. next year, we will decide whether the disastrous policies of class warfare, bureaucratic socialism, radical judges, and bureaucrats who treat us as subjects rather than citizens

will be continued in office, or whether we will decisively repudiate an 80-year drift to the left, a drift in the newsroom, a drift in the colleges and universities, a drift in our bureaucracies, a drift o wore judges, and a drift with our politicians. that's how decisive 2012 is. let me give you one example. the president has announced what will be seen by historians as a decisive defeat in the united states and iraq, despite the best efforts of our military which is, i think, tacticically the finest military in the country, the failure of the civilian institutions, and frankly, the failure to understand the scale of the problem will mean we will have lost the third iraq war. this may or may not be popular

to say, but it needs to be said. we won the first iraq war in 1981 driving them out in four days. we won the second iraq war to defeat hussein in 23 days. for reasons i frankly don't understand, we changed the mission to radically changing iraqi society. after eight years, thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, we will leave in defeat. don't kid yourself. it is defeat. iran is stronger. when the head of iraq goes to tehran for a conference on terrorism, when he promises assad he'll prop him up as dictator of syria, when they refuse to sign an agreement to protect american forces from iraqi law, go down the list. we have lost influence despite

many american dead, more americans wounded, and hundreds of thousandses of losses. we have to rethink the policy throughout the region and recognize if iran is dangerous with one bomb, how dangerous is pakistan with hundreds of nuclear weapons. it's an example of what makes this such an extraordinarily important election. look, the process of recovery economically is not that difficult. i predict to you that late on election night as it is clear that obama has been defeated, than the democratic senate has been defeated, that late that night the recovery will begin. [applause]

people react quickly to news. investors start changing decisions. small businesses start hiring. we can have a dratmatically better christmas in 2012 if it's the good-bye obama christmas than we could possibly have if it was a reelect obama christmas. [applause] one of the slogans should be, want a great christmas? vote against obama. [laughter] even if many democrats, that would begin to be an appealing idea. [laughter] our key symbol is easy. he's the best food stamp president in american history. we want to be the best paycheck president in american history. [applause] president obama is just a start. while he personifies the move to the left, there's vastly more

work to do than defeating president obama. one of the first things i'll do is send a bill to congress asking them to fire bernanke immediately so we can replace him -- [applause] . i will insist the fed is add ited and insist all decision documents in the last three years be published so we can all know who got our money and why and who didn't get our money and why, and i believe we'll be shocked and sobberred to learn how out of control the federal reserve has been. [applause] when we replace bernanke, which i hope to do in the first 30 days, it's with somebody who is committed to a sound dollar. we should go back to the principle of a dollar as good as gold 10 when you save it it's worth a dollar your entire lifetime and not eroded by

thinkers who think they are smarter than the american people. [applause] you can see a great deal of what we're outlining if you go to newt.org and you look at the 21st century contract with america, which is a fairly elaborate comprehensive document that continues to grow and evolve until we issue the final version on december 27th, 2012, and the final executive orders version on october 1. everybody knows going into the final week of the campaign what this is all about. on executive orders let me say the first one which will be signed about four o'clock in the afternoon on the day i'm sworn in as president, two hours after the address ends, about the time the obama family leaves for chicago -- [applause] the very first executive order

will illuminate all of the white house czars as of that moment. [cheers and applause] the second executive order will reinstate ronald reagan's mexico city policy that no u.s. money is spent for abortion anywhere in the world. [applause] the third executive order will reinstate president george w. bush's conscious policy that says no doctor, no pharmacist, no nurse, no hospital can be compelled to perform any activity against their religious beliefs. [applause] and the fourth executive order will order the state department as of that day to open the united states embassy in jerusalem and recognize the sovereignty of the state of israel.

[applause] the fact is we're going to develop more executive orders over the next year. go to newt.org and participate. we're asking for advice and counsel. all will be written out laid out in a form so people know what they are, and in the last month of the campaign if the president says he's for something, we'll give him a chance to sign it right then and there so find out whether or not he really meant it. [laughter] there's a lot of things i'd like to get into over time, and the environmental solutions agency should replace the epa. all you have to do is imagine the bureaucrat who rides on metro to get to an air-conditioned high-rise office building to sit in the middle of washington imagining dust. [laughter] and then writes a dust regulation based on zero understanding of farming and zero understanding of america beyond the beltway, and you know why we should replace the epa.

[laughter] [applause] i would immediately move to defund planned parenthood and take that money to devote to adoption services to create an alternative to abortion. [applause] i ask people not to be for me because then you say i hope newt gets it done. i ask you to be with me. it's going to take eight hard difficult years, and in that process, there's going to be a lot of counter reaction from the left, fighting from special interests. it can only happen if the american people are with us, and frankly, if we're going to shrink government in washington, we need to grow citizenship back home. so we return power to people. [applause]

the last thing i want to say because this is the most historical election since 1860 and the issues are so complex and fundmental, as your no , nominee, i will challenge president obama to seven lincoln-douglas style debates, three hour each with a time keeper, but no moderator -- [cheers and applause] and to be fair, i would agree that he can use a tell prompter. [laughter] after all, if you had to spend an expwier three hour debate defending obama care, wouldn't you want to have the help of a teleprompter? [laughter] i believe that in the end,

he'll, in fact, agree to it. i think they'll be as historic and decisive as the original debates in 1858, and i think he owes it to the country not to hide behind a billion dollars extorted by a white house incumbent, not to try to smear and destroy his opponent, but to stand face-to-face so the american people have a genuine opportunity to hear both sides, and i awe sure you as your nominee, i'll be able to represent american exceptionalism, free enterprise, private property rights, and the constitution better than he can represent class warfare, bureaucratic socialism, weakness in foreign policy, and total confusion in the economy. i look forward to your questions. [applause] [applause]

>> thank you, mr. speaker. what is your comprehensive plan to shape your future administration's energy policy and please include how this vision differs from the approach of the current administration. >> you know, i heard you ask that several times tonight. [laughter] my first thought -- >> just being fair. >> tell us how it differs from the current administrations, you have to be kidding. [laughter] this is the most anti-american energy administration in history. it is just unbelievable. start with that. okay? this is a president who goes to brazil and says to them, i'm really glad you're drilling offshore. [laughter] i'd like us to be your best customer. [laughter] which i thought was a sign headed exactly backwards. the job of the american president is not to be a purchasing agent for foreign countries, but to be a salesman for the united states of america. [cheers and applause]

a friend of mine sayings the only way to develop alaska is to sell it to brazil, and then obama will think it's terrific. [laughter] if you go to newt.org in the 21st century contract with america, we outline an energy plan. it's pretty straight straightforward. look, michellebackman had it right. i've always been a supporter of ethanol. i supported ethanol when it was called gasahol in 198 4. if our next choice is iran or iowa, i pick iowa. if the next dollar is to go to saudi arabia or south dakota, i pick south dakota. if you look at the growing

efficiencies of corn production and the growing efficiencies of corn production, it's been a 25-year success story of greater and greater productivity keeping money here at home, enriched rural communities, creanted a better environment for the united states, and the fact is we need to develop more and better science in biofuels, not cut them off, and i just want to say one thing about -- [applause] i don't want to pick a fight with my good friends. who are running, but i get a little weary of people who represent oil which has consistently had tax subsidies for its entire history explaning they are not sure about the subsidies. it's always these subsidies, never the ones down there. when senator enter deuced them, he didn't introduce them for gas and oil because in oklahoma, 245 would have been suicidal. i extend and make permanent any credit for things like wind or

solar so there's a capital investment ratio, i mean, rationale, and i continue to develop flex fuel vehicles, and it's not a subsidy, but getting the flex fuel tanks and vehicles so that everybody in america can make a consumer choice because the truth is when oil reaches a certain price, ethanol is cheaper, not more comprehensive, but ewe need vehicles to use it and stations to have it. i'm also for oil and gas. i mean, it is crazy for us to have an area in the chuck tc, this is not a nwar that as the much oil and gas as the gulf of mexico, and our current litigation policies allow left wing environmental groups to give $3 billion and quit. i have a simple model. keep the $500 billion a year in energy that goes overseas here at home. it's better for the economy, better for american jobs, belter

for national security, and it makes it much easier for us to then deal with dictators overseas the way we should deal with them without concern about economic reprisal. [applause] i'm trying to be consistent. i was not trying to attack you. >> all right. >> you're not some news guy. >> no. [laughter] if you can reverse one energy policy decision? the last three years, i think you already said that. >> actually, the biggest ones are personnel. if you're going to have a department of energy, which i wouldn't, but if you're going to have one, you ought to have a secretary's that's pro-american energy. we don't. the current one is anti-american energy, favors a fantasy that works in the classroom, but makes no sense in the real world. [applause] by the way, i'd have a secretary of interior who favored american

solutions opposed to the current secretary who did everything he could to stop any production anywhere in the country. [applause] >> speaker, we're certainly gratified you are here tonight. the first question is what would you do to prevent abortion on demand and defend traditional marriage? >> i just released a fairly lengthy paper to find at newt.org that takes up item nine in the proposed 21st century contract and outlines the frame work for bringing balance back to the judiciary. most of the major crisis in the culture are driven by radical judges violating the constitution, violate american history and doing things that are droughtive, and for 40 years, conservatives say, well, i'll appoint better judges. after the 2002 ninth circuit court decision after the pledge of allegiance was seen as

unconstitutional. i got intrigued. i wrote a book called "rediscovering god in america, and then a movie was made about it, and several other books, taught a short course at the university georgia law school, and this paper represents nine years of thinking about this. the courts were third. read the constitution. first comes the legislative branch which is supposed to be closest to people. the second is the executive branch to excutes the law, third and least important of the three the is jew judiciary. the federalist papers, alexander hamilton says the judiciary never picks a fight with the two elective branches because it would inevitably lose it. the war in court in 1958 asserts outrageously that the supreme court is supreme over the other two branches. now, it's always been a supreme court within the judicial branch, but we were told that

the theory of balance met each of the three branches balance the other two. when asked about judicial supreme sigh, he said that's an absurd di and that's an ole gar ky. [applause] longes in the first speech says the dred scott decision, and you can say that led to the civil war, and because they said slavery existed every why in the country, and you couldn't do anything about it, and he says to believe that nine people could dictate to the entire nation the meaning of the constitution would be the end of our liberties. [applause] now, there's four practical consequences to this. consequence one is president's o on cation ignore the court. jackson thought the bank was

unconstitutional. they said, that's find. in the judicial branch, they couldn't believe that. in the executive branch we swear to uphold the constitution. we are co-equals in interpreting it. he promptly ignored them. that's doable. franklin roosevelt upon capturing 14 germans explained they would be tried and executed, and he would not accept a writ of habeas corpus and told his attorney general not to issue it. i'm commander in chief in the war, and they didn't. as president, i would instruct the national security apparatus to ignore the three recent decisions on terrorism and say those are null and void with no binding effect on the united states and as commander in chief i will not tolerate the president of the united states to have some misguided interpretation. [applause]

[applause] the second thing you can do is the congress can clearly use its power to define rights of appeal. the congress could have said, for example, and if we were clever, we would have not have the defensive marriage act. it's not appealable. it was done before in 1902. the third option that you have, and one which robby george in princeton studied and i'm intrigued with it take the 14th amendment saying the congress shall define personhood and pass a law which says personhood in the united states is defined as beginning at conception. [applause] that goes straight at the court. the last thing you can do is a bit stronger, and in 1802, and jefferson, his secretary of state was james mad madison so

assume they had some knowledge of the constitution. [laughter] in 1802, they passed a judicial reform act of 1802 which alollishes 18 out of 35 federal judges, over half of all the federal judges, just gone, no courts, no salary, go home, it's over. [applause] now, i'm not as bold as jefferson. i would recommend -- i mean, this very seriously. judge berry in scene tone owe on june 1 issued a degree that not only students couldn't pray or use the word benediction, invocation, god, couldn't use the word prayer, couldn't asked the audience to stand, and if they violated that, he would arrest the superintendent. that court should be abolished

now. [cheers and applause] [applause] >> we do not have to tolerate radical anti-american judges rewriting the american constitution, and pretending we are helpless and once we abolished the court, we should serve notice to the 9th circuit they are radical, and if they continue to be, they will become unemployed. [applause] >> mr. speaker, what would you do to restore fiscal responsibility and promote the creation of jobs in the united states? >> well, they are linked. the only way to get a balanced budget is a full employment economy, and here i don't have to offer you a theory. when i became speaker, we passed working with the liberal democrat in the white house, imagine how fun it will be 20

have a republican senator, republican house, and a republican president working in the same direction, but with clinton in the white house, we passed the first reform, two out of three people went to work or school, reformed medicaid and saved it for a decade financially, passed the first tax cut in 16 years and the largest capital gains cut in american history, and as a result unemployment went down. when you take people off the medicaid, off of welfare, off of food stamps, and unemployment, they take care of their family and they make money and pay taxes, and you get a sensitive scale. when i was speaker in 1995, the congressional budget office predicted over the next ten years $2.7 trillion in deficits. when i left office four years later, the office projected $2.2 trillion in surplus.

that is a -- [applause] that is a $4.9 trillion swing in four years. control spending, apply the principles of strong america now to fundamentally overhaul the working of the government to save $500 billion a year, use the 10th amendment to return power to the states, block grant medicaid, and save $700 billion in a decade, go through a process of fundamental change on things like unemployment by requiring a training program. if you need money, you have to get on a training program and we're not paying people to do nothing for 99 weeks. [applause] review every aspect of the federal government and start abolishing or shrinking departments by al bollishing the d. of energy that has been for 30 years the antienergy department, finally, i say to all of you, if you have the right approach, if you pass the

right tax cuts, if you repeal the dodd-frank bill, killing small banks, small business, killing housing, if you modernize the drug and food administration so it has the job of helping science get to the patient, replace the epa with a solutions agency, and if you praise and favor and like people who create jobs and get rid of class warfare at every level, you will be astonished how much we will get done, how people will get back to work. i'll close with this example. in september of 1983, and i was part of this, i helped in the campaign, i was serving as a member of the house in this period, and in september of 1983, because reagan cut taxes, deregulated, strengthen american energy, and praised job creators, we added in one month 1.1 million jobs. it's doable. we can do it.

it's not magic, but it takes courage, the right principles, and it takes you to be with me, not just for me because all of us are going to have to make it happen. thank you. good luck, and god bless you. [applause] [cheers and applause] [applause] .. >> thank you, speaker. please welcome the champion of civil liberties and a champion of the constitution, the advocate of the gold standard,

congressman ron paul. [applause] you area much.thk [applause] thank you very much. i'm very delighted to be here to visit with this nice crowd on a very important issue. i faithmp and freedom and family f course is very important and we are lacking a lot of the enthusiasm for that in this of e country today. my wife is with me this that ins country today. my wife iit evening family is very important. if a government gets too big, the family as undermined. if we resort to the government taking over family responsibilities, then the family is diminished. the family has been diminished

over several decades now, especially since the 1960's. you will find that the government has grown tremendously since the 1960's. we have a pretty strong admonition in the old testament about the strength of families. when the israelites left egypt, there were temptations' not to follow god's comment. when they got to their promised land, they lived under judges. they did not have a king. they had a patriarchal family society. they got bored with this. there was a time when the people came to samuel and said, other countries had -- have kings. we would like to have a king. we would feel safer and more secure. samuel was old and they knew he would die. the two sons of samuel were not

to be considered good judges. they needed something to reassure them. samuel responded by advising them strongly, and do not serve -- choose a king. they king will do you harm. stable raise your taxes, they will draft your young people. they will use your women. your society will break down. they said that if you pick a king, you are pushing got a side. it will undermine the family. it is amazing this. he talked about taxes and the cost it would be if you asked for a cane. i think we have drifted in the direction of excepting a king in washington d.c.. i would like to undermine this king that we have been building

for some many decades. we need more family values, not by the united states government. [applause] in first timothy it was said that anybody that does not care for his own family has denied the faith and that is worse than an unbeliever. the admonition is very strong in the new testament that we have obligations to our family. if you do not take care of your family, it is worse than being an unbeliever. we have a personal responsibility is. think of the breakup of the family. how many divorces occur. how many children are born out of wedlock. close to half now. the family is in serious trouble. i see this coming about. i witnessed this in the 1960's.

i was drafted into the air force in the 1960's. this was during the vietnam era. a lot of things changed in the 1960's due to this war that was not going well. it was an undeclared illegal war. there was a resorting to drugs in this country. this was the decade when abortion became commonplace. i was a medical resident at that time. the law still said, and no abortions. the culture change. the abortions were being done. they were being done in the hospital i was studying in. the morality was dictating the behavior. by 1973, what happened? the law accommodated to the moral standard of the people. we complain about the law. all that we have to do is change

the law and we will become a moral people. it does not work that way. morality can reflect our laws. the laws cannot make us a moral people. that has to come from our heart. [applause] in these last several decades from the 1960's on, there were a lot of changes. the work ethic was undermined. the welfare state grew by leaps and bounds. it was the introduction that government would take care of us for madison. we moved in the cover -- in the way that the government would take over our educational standards. we had a department of education. the family is supposed to be responsible for this. to deliver this power and authority to washington d.c. has

been very detrimental to us. one other area that occurred during this period of time, as so many things were changing, it was the issue of money. the issue of money -- a major cape -- change occurred in 1971 when this country rejected the issue of honest money. it issued in an age of a spendthrift government. since that time, the spending has exploded, the deficits have exploded. the money supply has exploded. at the same time, our personal liberties have been undermined. there is a direct correlation with this. biblically, there is a strong admonition about honest money. isaiah talked about the debasement of the currency. debasement is inflation.

diluting the mail -- metals or clipping declines. -- the coins. it was wrong. in leviticus, they say that we should always follow on test weights and measures. there are dozens of quotations in the bible telling us we should have honest money and honest measurements. we know that we are not to steal and not to lie. the monetary system we have had today is based on stealing and mining. it is equivalent to counterfeiting. if you cannot do it, why do we permit our government to commit the same crime of counterfeiting through the federal reserve by destroying the value of our money? we should look seriously at this matter. [applause]

education is now the role of government. we have a department of education. how did we get there? did we amend the constitution? the constitution gives no authority for the government to be involved in education. we ignored it. we ignored it going to war. did the obama administration asked congress to go to libya or to uganda. the wars since 1962 have been undeclared. our government got involved in night -- education not by defending the constitution. have we improve education? no. the cost of education has skyrocketed. the quality has crashed. we are graduates waiting people

from our colleges. they have over $1 trillion worth of debt. more than all of our credit cards. we got careless. this sounds good. we might as well do this and ignore the constitution. we did this with the housing effort. the government is supposed to make sure that everybody has a house. the people that they were supposed to help, they lost their jobs and will -- they lost their houses. we were so careless following the rule of law and following the constitution. we are challenged. we are challenged today because we not only ignore our constitution, but we have reneged on replacing the importance of government on ourselves and being personally responsible for everything we do and our family. if we had strong families, we

could have a small federal government. we have drifted a long way from that. we have accepted a notion that big government is good and it will take care of us. we believe that safety and security, as they wanted a king in the old testament saying that a king can provide safety and security. safety and security comes from our own efforts. that is especially true in a free society. in a totalitarian society you can be safe and secure. you will be treated like a cattle in a field, not like a human being. too much has happened over the past several decades. since 9/11, which have been so complete set in saying, do what you want. give us the patriot act. do what you can to make us safe.

that will not make a save. washington d.c. is incapable of keeping us save. what will keep us safe is a strong belief in our responsibilities to ourselves, our family, our neighbors, and assuming responsibility for ourselves. going in this wrong direction, we have driven this country into bankruptcy. we now face a horrendous problem because we do not believe in honest money anymore. the most significant and most rent in event to us as a result of the lack of understanding of families and civil-rights and the constitution has driven us to the sovereign debt problem. it is worldwide. this debt is so huge that it

is greater than anything in the world. it is threatening the breakdown of society. we see riots in the streets in greece. there is going to be a lot of anger. we have had too much dependence on the government taking care of our sales. not of enough faith put in ourselves. people of faith should understand how importing it is to not become dependent on the government whether it is in social ways or whatever. we need to cut back on the spending. i have made a few modest proposals. i think that this is so serious that in the first year i do not think we should make the proposed cuts in five years. if you understand how serious this is, you ought to cut now. i suggest that we cut $1 trillion out of the budget in one year.

if this is not done, it will get a lot worse and it will hurt everybody. if you do it in a deliberate fashion, you can cut some spending that will be a lot easier. you do not have to pick on the elderly or the sick. you can start by getting rid of a few departments. let's get rid of five of them. hud, that is a corrupt organization that did not provide houses. department of energy and the department of education. the department of commerce, the department of the interior. that is for starters. if you want big government to stop, you have to deal with the money issue. you have to have a biblical money. you have to have honest weights and measures. you cannot do it with a central

bank that has been given a licence to print the money. that is crucial if you want to get the economy working again. very simply, we got into this mess because we were careless with our constitution and we do not have an understanding of our civil liberties. we have to think about that one we think about our religious freedom and we think about our right to educate our children. protecting all of the liberties of an individual as well as obey and the constitution, i do not think it would be that difficult to get back on their feet again. if will continue to do what we are doing now, it will get much, much worse. i think are bad recession started as long as 10 years ago. no new jobs. we have been in the doldrums.

japan has been in the doldrums for 20 years. if we do the right thing and go back to our roots and look at our values and look at our constitution, we could be back on our feet in a year. [applause] >> thank you, congressman. i get asked this question again. what is your plan to shape your administration's energy policy and include how this differs from the current energy policy? >> my plan is that we need to produce energy the same way we produce cell phones. we need to get the government out of the way. we need a lot of competition. we need to deregulate. i have spent in washington off and on for a good many years.

i have met a lot of bureaucrats and politicians. they do not know anything about energy. they have the responsibility for providing the right environment. that is the market environment. that is the point i am making the cell phones. we have problems, but the market delivers the cell phones. could you imagine if they had one company? it would cost a lot of money and the cell phones would not work. we need to understand property rights. we need to understand contract rights. we need to understand competition. the obama administration does not understand any of this. i reject anything that they do. they want to put on moratoriums on the suspending regulations.

as soon as you can get to the concepts of property rights, all texas energy was developed without this. when we came into the union, we have no government property. out in the west, so much as government-owned land. we have to get private property owners. we need to get out of the way. [applause] >> if you could reverse one energy-related policy decision from the last three years, what would it be and what would you do differently? >> the overall policy of interference. the policy this administration has followed of intervention. he follows a philosophy of economic intervention. you have to reverse the policy

of keynesian economic intervention. 3 and still in the american people the idea of how free markets work and how honest money works. that has to happen. all of the policies that result from intervention disturb the markets. you cannot do that unless you have a lot of other things. in order to reverse that, you have to deregulate across the boards. you have to have a sound money system. who would generate the type of energy that we need? we do have the energy. there is no doubt about that. we do not understand the issue of property rights and competition. we are in this mess we are in. not deciding exactly where you are going to buy your oil, i do not fear the fact that you might

have imports. what if somebody wants to sell us something cheaper? you have to have freedom of choice. you have to have free markets in order to find out where the best deal is. that should be across the board with all products, not just energy. >> congressman paul, thank you for being here tonight. what would you do to prevent abortion on demand and defend traditional marriage? >> traditional marriages between a man and a woman. i have supported the defense of marriage act. and to protect the state's rights to make sure that the federal government never dictates or mandates the definition of marriage. i think -- i have a bill in that

has not been mentioned. we could accomplish a lot with marriage or abortion if wicks up one more principle. i want to change our courts and constitution. as an o.b. doctor, i know when life begins. i assume responsibility for two people. if i do harm to the fetus, i can be sued. there is no doubt about the morality and the legality of it. i support these efforts. my bill is called "we the people's act." we cannot wait until the courts change and not waiting to change the constitution. that is very, very difficult. lives could be saved by saying, why do we not get roh vs. wade appealed by removing the

jurisdiction of all of these issues from the federal courts? that is what we need to do. [applause] when roe vs. wade was the law in texas, it went to the supreme court. they nationalize it. i know it is tempting to wait for the courts to be changed and the amendment to be passed. it is taking too long. one of the biggest problems we got into, and i remember it so clearly because i went to that experience of watching the law changed in 1960, you can pass this with another law. it cannot be repealed. it could be done just by majority vote is bank president would sign it. i would work very hard on that

to revitalize that interest and to try to encourage people to say that it might not solve every single problem, but look at how much it could help. that is what i think we should do in the meantime until we finally solved the problem by changing the courts or changing the constitution. [applause] >> congressman, what would you do to restore fiscal responsibility and create promotion of jobs in the united states? >> the fiscal responsibility i alluded to in my opening remarks. it is related to the monetary system. it is related to the people's appetite for government. if we as a people continue to believe that we should have an entitlement system from cradle to grave and we should be the policeman of the world and have

150 bases in 150 countries, 900 bases around the world, if we reject the admonition of the founders saying stay out of tangling alliances and the internal affairs of other nations, said you cannot do it. we have allowed this desire to do so much, the appetite to do more than we could afford. it took so long for us to destroy the productive capacity of this country. for a long time, we were the freest and most prosperous. then we try to overspend. then we raise taxes. then we borrowed. there was a limit to borrowing. we set the treasury bill over to the fed. they created the money out of thin air, which removes the restraint on politicians. politicians get reelected by spending money.

they brag about it and get reelected. what do they do? they destroy our jobs and chase them overseas and gave us a mountain of debt. if you could not have monetizing of debt, if it you did what the founders said, there were biblically oriented. they broke the rules themselves with the continental dollar. they destroyed the continental dollar. they were burned. they said, no paper money and only gold and silver could be used. we threw that out the window without amending the constitution. we introduced this corruption in the money and then an explosion of the debt. you will not get jobs back until the debt is taking care of. the all the appropriation bill i've voted on was to help the veterans. we now have to deal with it.

when you have lower interest rates and pure amid -- pyramiding of debt, you get debt that runs away. you have to get your debt down before you can get your own personal economy growing. we have had a 30 million increase in our population since 2000 and no new jobs. that is unsustainable. we have to look at monetary policy, foreign policy, and the restrictions would best be done to get our jobs back by having honest money. we have chased our jobs overseas because of bad economic policy. we have lost faith and confidence about what a good economy is about.

we have lost our determination to follow the rule of law and do only the things authorized in the constitution. if we did that, it would be a short period of time before we could be back on our feet again and have the jobs. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, congressman. please welcome a true and a consistent conservative, a defender of life, a strengthen our families, and outlawed partial birth abortions, former senator rick santorum. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much. are you numb yet? i am very impressed that everybody is still here or the vast majority are still here. i am really excited to be back in iowa. this is my 5,403rd trip to iowa. a little exaggeration. he reminded me that i have 21 more counties to go. we are working very, very hard here. i know you have been to a louche with candidate after candidate talking about policy. i was tempted to do that. to hammer through some more policy. i want to share some other things with you. to wrap up the evening and talk

a little bit more about why i am here. i am here because karen and i have been married 21 years. we have seven children. we are blessed to have those children. we home school those children. i am here because i believe as newt said, this is the most important election since the election of 1860. we need a leader that we can trust. i said in my announcement speech that in 2008 the american people elected somebody that they could believe in. in this election, the american public will elect somebody that believes in them. that is the fundamental difference. you have heard a lot of policy from a lot of people as to

whether the folks that are delivering this are authentic. can they be trusted? are these the people that stood up when they had their opportunity and did what could be done? did they stand up and fight the tough battles. did they have the policy prescriptions? did they fight those fights or did they have the opportunity to fight those fights? when it comes to national security issues, i thought those fights. i introduced a bill on iran. the iran freedom support act. it was the accent -- existential threat to israel. .. introduced a bill in 2004 called the iran freedom support act. i had no co-sponsors. nobody would sign on to that bill.

within two years, it passed unanimously in the united states senate. they understood what i saw. it was a very unpopular war that was going on in iraq. that is going on today. i stood up and said here is the problem. we need to do something to overturn the government of iran. what is going on in iraq right now is that we are losing the battle to iran. now. that's why we can't get a deal with them. that's why we can't protect our soldiers because iran -- that fear of influence is growing. look at the attack the other day. i shouldn't say the attack, the thwarted attack. it wasn't a mistake that the iranians focused here in america and the saudis. the saudis are the head of the islamist world. they are the head of the islamic

world and that's why they went after the saudis because iran wants to show that they should be leading the islamic world in an islamist direction. they went after them here in the united states because they wanted to show the rest of the world that they are not afraid of going after the great state because they believe the president of the united states is too weak to respond. they won't have the courage to do what's necessary to stop them. if they obtain a nuclear weapon, iran will now have a nuclear shield to be able thwarted on a day by day base and not worry what's going on with someone potentially attacking them because no nuclear power has ever been attacked. i was out there on the front line before any saw this. i was opposed by president bush

by secretary rice but i fought. i've been out there on the front line on the issue of the economy in reducing the burden on our economy through -- with these huge entitlement programs. i was the author of the welfare reform bill, not just because it cut money, because it transformed lives. see, i'm someone who looks at the basic economy of our country and as you heard in the debate the other night, there was a debate on bloomberg. it was about the economy. not one person except me mentioned the basic economy. and that's the family. if we don't have strong families in america we will not have a strong economy in this country. [applause] >> but i've been out there fighting the fight on the economy, on cutting government back and strengthening the family. i wrote a book.

it was in response to hillary clinton's book. she wrote a book "it takes a village." i wrote a book "it takes a family." and it's a policy proscription. [applause] >> it's a policy proscription, 4 some hundred odd pages that if we're going to transform america. i understand what ron is talking about. how we have to cut this and do that. if the battle in this election and when hopefully we're successful is whether we're going to cut taxes for higher income people we are not going to unite this country. we have to unite them on something that is commonly shared. that's a sense of the first economy, the family. we have to uniting them on how we're going to bring them together. to strengthen families. if you look at my economic plan, my economic plan is focused, yeah, we cut taxes. we do things but we focus on one very important thing.

and that is growing the opportunity for the middle of america to expand. i do it by focusing on the manufacturing sector of the economy. i do it -- we grow that sector of the economy. you allow people who are not college educated. college educated people are doing well in our country. the rest are struggling. we don't talk about this as conservatives. why don't we? let's talk about the family. let's talk about those who want to provide for their family and provide them a platform, provide a society with a platform where jobs can grow and who can employ people. our plan does that. our plan does it and it can get bipartisan support. i was in new hampshire the other day and spoke to the legislature, the bipartisan legislature. i call it my 0-0-0 plan. the zero is better than nine.

[laughter] >> it zeros out the corporate tax for americans and zeros out to corporate tax. it zeros out every regulation that affects ambiguous that cost over $100 million. it will create jobs in this country. and one of my supporters in the new hampshire legislature came up to me and said, you know, two democrats came to him and said they would like me to go into their district and talk about this plan because they could support something. ladies and gentlemen, we need to bring people together on the basic values of our country. on the basic things that i have stood for and fought for. this is a rally on faith and freedom. there's a book written recently where they interviewed a member of the chinese government who had worked in trying to figure out -- as china was opening, they were trying to -- what made

the difference in america? what made them the greatest country in the history of the world? and do you know what it turned out to be? they said first what we thought this committee that was put together -- first we thought it was their economy. no, it's not their economics. then we thought it was their guns, their military might. no, it wasn't that. then they thought that it was their -- it was their governmental system. no, it wasn't that. do you know what they decided was what made america the greatest country in the history of the world? faith. faith. people's beliefs in a transcendent god. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, i've dedicated my public career to all of the things i talked about. i talked about national security. i talked about the economy. i talked about cutting taxes but the area that i've dedicated and fought on the battlefield --

well, i'll just give you a coat from last night's bill mahr's show. bill cedric santorum is like a japanese soldier on the remote island after world war ii who didn't know that the war was over when it comes to the abortion issue and marriage and homosexual marriage. ladies and gentlemen, are those issues lost in america? are they lost? >> no! >> no. but we need to have a leader who understands in their heart and we'll go out and fight for them. i've done that. i did that when i was in the united states house and senate. when i came to the united states senate, i had something happen to me. we heard some stories of people -- how they came to the christ. well, i went to the united states senate and i found the

lord. [applause] >> and i did it in one of the almost casual ways. i ended up going to a bible study and found an amazing preacher by the name of ogilvy. and we had a great pastor and karen and i became on fire with our faith and as a result of that, i decided i had a purpose of being in the united states senate. i wasn't quite sure what it was. and then there's this bill that came up called partial birth abortion. and i looked at this and i said, no, i'm a senator from pennsylvania. it's a tough state, a state i should probably keep my head down and do what most folks up here do, just sort of check the boxes but not really step out. i decided, no. no more. that's why i'm here. i went to the floor of the united states senate. i fought the battle. i fought the battle on overturning president clinton's

veto on the partial birth abortion ban act. i fought it in 1996 and i fought again in 1998 and i fought again in 2000 and then the supreme court struck down the nebraska statute. we kept losing because he couldn't override the president's veto but i kept fighting. in 2000, president bush was elected so i went with a group of folks in the house of representatives and i said, look, the supreme court struck down the nebraska statute. we are an equal branch of government. we don't have to stand for this. let's get together, pass a bill that says right in the front, the supreme court, you're wrong. and lays out the cases for why they're wrong. we passed that bill. it was signed by the president and it was appealed to the supreme court and the supreme court reversed their decision and found in favor of it being constitutional. [applause] >> that -- that -- i hear a lot

of theory up here. that's practical. there's still a lot of folks we'll stand up to the court with tough judges. i did it. we took on the united states supreme court on the most controversial issue there is, the issue of abortion and we beat them. we took them on because it's a passion in my life. why is it a incarceration i'll share a little story as i close. the story that happened right at the end of the first debate on partial birth abortions. there was a discussion the final day and it was dianne feinstein and got up and talked about, children we found out mothers and fathers found out late in pregnancy that the baby they were expecting was not exactly what they were expecting. the baby was somehow not perfect, therefore, late in pregnancy they wanted to

terminate that pregnancy so feinstein got up and talked about how we -- mothers find out they have an abnormal baby that maybe can't -- doesn't have ears or eyes or has organs that are outside of the baby. basically say we need to cull the disabled in the womb and i got up and i'll quote you what i said. i said think about the nation we're sending to the less than perfect children in america. and the mothers who are right now dealing with the possibility of delivering an abnormal baby. my wife is due in march. we haven't had a sonogram done. we're hopeful that everything is fine. but what message are you sending to me if i look at that sonogram in a week or two and things aren't just right? a week later karen and i went in for that sonogram. the doctor went over and kept going over this one area. we were there with our three little children. they looked at us and said your

son appearance fatal defect and is going to die. we packed up the kids as quickly as we could and we went into the car and cried and cried. and i made the decision -- we said, no, we're not just going to sit here and take it. we're going to do something by it. i'd just been up to children's hospital a week before and found at a meeting at a doctor who had done this breakthrough surgery and i called him. i don't know if we can help but come on up. well, after a few days they figured out they could do something. of course, they recommended an abortion. why? why would we kill our son? why if your child is in trouble, not do everything you can to help? surgery was done. it was a miracle.

it worked. came home that night. packed up the next day because we had to head to a reunion, a family reunion over a 50th -- it's a 50th wedding anniversary of my wife's parents in pittsburgh. the next day i'm driving on an appointment and i get a call from my sister-in-law. come home. karen is running a high fever. we're told that everything would probably go all right unless she ran a high fever. so i came back home and her fever was 103 and she was in labor. we knew what was going. he had something that was holding his son and his body was trying to expel it. we went through hours of horror 'cause we wanted to save our child. yet we couldn't save our child.

he was delivered in the middle of the night. he was born alive. far too small to survive. we held him for two hours. two hours for he only knew love out of that life. the next day we took him home to our children. our children would know that they had a little brother. that he was real. he was a person. he had dignity and he was part of our family. karen and i struggled a lot. i remember talking to the pastor and he said to me pray for the gift of understanding. i didn't want to. i was angry. i had committed myself to the lord. i was doing the brave and heroic

thing of standing up for life, risking my political career in pennsylvania and this was my end, take my son. karen did more. she kept writing. she wrote letters. she always did with all of our children. a from the time that they were born. the time we found out of their pregnancy. she would have little sonogram pictures and diaries and notes telling the kids what their life was like because we knew that was our son or our daughter. she kept writing those letters about a month later her mom came to see her and she read all the letters. she published them and they will help heal somebody. she published this little book called letters to gabriel.

25,000 pictures from a publisher who had never published a book before and never published another book afterwards. there isn't a month that goes by that i don't meet somebody who was touched, whose life was saved. the baby was delivered or whose burden was lessened. i always tell my children if you can do for god and for life what your little brother did in two hours, you will be a great warrior for god. [applause] >> one final stage. it's from the final page of karen's book. last page of karen's book "letters to gabriel." it's a letter to our son. it reads as follows, during the

partial birth abortion debate a senator, senator boxer, i might add was thanking the women who had had partial birth abortions from coming forward with their stories. women in between the elevator of the senate office buildings and the senate chamber themselves who had had this procedure and they were button holing senators to get them to vote against this bill. she said quote their crying. they're crying how senators could take away an option. they're crying because they don't believe that those senators truly understand what this meant for their family. karen continues. daddy, said in response, the senator says she hears the cries of women outside this chamber. we would be deafened by the cries of the children who are not here to cry.

"the washington post" described what happened next. republican senator rick santorum turned to face the opposition in a high pleading voice cried out, where do we draw the line? some people have likened this procedure to an appendectomy. that's not an appendix, that's not a blob of tissue, it's a baby. it's a baby. the post continued and then impossibly, in an already hushed gallery, in one of those moments from the floor of the senate looks like a stage set with its small wooden desks somehow too small for the matters at hand. the cry of a baby pierce the room. echoing across the hallway,

echoing from a chamber across the hallway. no one mentioned the cry before a few seconds no one spoke at all. a coincidence, karen continues, perhaps, a visitor's baby was crying as the door of the senate gallery opened at that precise moment and then closed. or maybe it was the cry from the son whose voice he never heard but who has changed our lives forever. do you want to know why i'm pro-life? do you know why i stand up and fight for the family and marriage? 'cause god showed me that if you are faithful, you will be faithful. ladies and gentlemen, we need people where leaders in this country could believe that.

believe that the faithfulness of god that he has blessed this country and he has blessed each and every one of us. if we stand and we are faithful and fear not, this country again could have a rebirth of freedom like we had never seen before. thank you and god bless. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> senator, thank you so much for being here tonight. the first question what would you specifically do to prevent abortion on demand and defend traditional marriage? >> i think it's really important that when you hear this question to understand it's a question about marriage and abortion.

and you'll hear everybody up here say, well, most everybody say that they support traditional marriage and they support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. but you'll also hear if you listen to the debates people say that while they may support a constitutional amendment, they don't support getting involved in the states and doing something to make sure the states don't pass either through judicial fiat or through legislation, marriage is different than one man or one woman. that is all the difference. when i first took on -- there's been one vote on the floor of the united states senate on the issue of the federal marriage amendment. and i forced it when i was there. there hasn't been one since. there hasn't been one since. i forced it. we lost but we had the debate.

we went for the right solution. there are people up here who will tell you that they are for that, will they push the debate. will they have the vote. will they take it to the american people and one way you can tell how convicted they are they go to the states and fight it where the fight is. i will. i did. i came to iowa last year. i campaigned here in iowa against the three supreme court justices who delivered same-sex marriage to iowa and i'll come back. no matter what, i'll come back and make sure that not only do we defeat those justices in the future but that we go to every single state, why? because if we don't, if we don't, then one by one, these liberal states or judicial opinions will come down and the supreme court will say well, we could have we can't have all these different definitions of marriage, just like they did with abortion. the same game plan. so when people stand up and say

i'm for marriage but i won't do anything about the states because of the tenth amendment, the tenth amendment doesn't allow -- abraham lincoln said it best. the tenth amendment doesn't allow states the right to do wrong. [applause] >> if the state of iowa wanted to pass a gun ban, would all these folks say well, iowa has the right to do whatever they want. i wouldn't. no way. this leads to the other issue what is are you going to do about the issue of abortion? you've heard some people stand up there and say oh, i would vote for a constitutional amendment. did they? did they ever sponsor it? did they ever try to fight to get a vote for it when they had the opportunity? i did. yes, i fought for partial birth and i know there's a battle here in iowa and it's a good battle to have. i know it's uncomfortable.

but it's an important battle to have. do we stand on the 50 yard line on the issue of abortion? and do we throw hail mary passes trying to pass person hood amendment trying to get constitutional amendments that are adopted? or do we try to get a couple yards -- i was just at the a & m state game so i'm using football analogies. i apologize for that, but -- or do we try to get a couple yards? do we try to get some things passed like partial birth or fetal pain or other things? i find myself solidly in both camps but here's the issue. are the folks who are trying to do these incremental measures committed to scoring a touchdown? or are they just trying to pad their stats? they just just tried to make a few touchdowns to make everybody happy, the pro-life movement, and really not convicted to try to push that ball down the field. i feel like a good offensive

coordinat coordinator that's what i was. i was an offensive coordinator on the life movement. i was trying to move the ball down the field. my issue on that is, yeah, take your game. but sometimes as you know as an offensive coordinator you have to stretch the field. you have to mix up the defense a little bit. and you got to go for those long passes, whether it's the person hood amendment or whatever it is. >> the other thing is we have to have a discussion when it comes to what we can do and there's lots of things a president could do, mexico city is certainly one of them. we can repeal the obamacare reg on making businesses can carry abortion policies and carry the phony conscious clause that doesn't protect people from providing other types of drugs. we can do all those things. we can go to the legislature and we can try to do fetal pain and we can try to do those things. but we do it in the context of

saying this is a human life from the moment of conception. and it is wrong -- [applause] >> and we will take this a few yards. but we are coming back because we will not differentiate what is a legal and biological fallacy that a human life is not a person. that a human life is different because it's located in the womb as opposed to outside of the womb. some of you may remember the debate i had with barbara boxer on when a child was born. we were talking about partial birth. and the partial birth bill the baby was delivered all but the head so i asked her the question, what if the baby was delivered all but the foot? it's still a baby then. it's on youtube.

look at it. for five minutes she can't answer the question. she won't answer the question. we started the debate with her standing right there. by the end of the debate she was at the back of the senate chamber trying to get out. because she couldn't answer what is the truth. that it's an artificial line that we draw. we have to have the courage to say the truth no matter what legislation we are bringing forward. >> next question is, what would you do to restore fiscal responsibility and promote creation of jobs in the united states? >> i talked about my 0-0-0 plan how we're going to bring the manufacturing base of this economy and grow the middle of america. i also talked about what i did in the area of trying to reduce government spending. yes, we need to do to the rest of the programs in washington, dc, food stamps, medicaid, housing programs, education and prank programs all of these

programs have no business being in the federal government. we should do to them what we did with welfare, block grant them, send them back to the states and give the states the flexibility to implement those programs what they should be doing all long and put requirements. what we did with welfare i had two things that we required. they were the two bases that i was refusing to negotiate on. and that is we had to have a time limit on welfare and we had to have a work requirement. people should not be able to get government benefits unless you're disabled, unless you're either working for them or you're on for a very short and temporary period of time. that's the deal. that's why we named welfare temporary assistance for needy families as opposed to aid to families with dependent children. that's one idea. here's the big idea, of course, which is the balanced budget amendment. i was for cut, cap and balance but i argued during that time that we were dealing with the debt ceiling what we really needed was balance, balance and balance. we were focusing on cuts and

what we should have been focusing on is focusing on the american public saying we need to balance this budget. and we can do it. we can do it over a period of years. if you pass balanced budget amendment it will take four years to be ratified. it takes five years after that to be implemented. you're talking seven to eight years, nine years. plenty of time to get to a balanced budget but you put a wall. one of the things i learned in washington, dc, and you learn a lot with experience, you learn how the other side things, how they act and all the tricks. but the one thing that i do know is the only way you're going to change the way things operate in washington is to change the rules of the game. ..ngton rules ofo change the the game. that means you have to make it painful. have to put a wall. do you know what day of the week almost every bill passes? thursday night or friday. why? because people want to go home

for the weekend. it is a wall. it creates a backstop. read a backstop. i pledge to not only will i try to pass our economic plan. and we will reform these entitlements, but i will go across this country and we will get the american public, just like we did with welfare, we will get the american public behind a balanced budget amendment to put fiscal sanity and maintain freedom in this country. [applause] >> thank you. one last time i get asked this question. what is your comprehensive plan and to shape your future administration's energy policy and please include how this bill -- mission would differ from the approach of the current administration. >> i share with everybody else that the reason there is a deliberate attempt by this administration to destroyed the energy future of this country or are they incompetent?

pick "a" or "b." at the current rate of extraction, we have 263 years left of oil in this country. we have 300 years of coal, which may be going up, not because we found more but we are producing less under this administration because you cannot get a permit. and they are in the process of deregulation and shutting down 60 power plants. we will be to the point where you turn on the switch and it will be russian roulette. is it going on or not, because of this administration. and what they are doing to our power supply. and of course natural gas. it was mentioned earlier. we found the second-largest find of natural gas in the world under mostly pennsylvania. we are drilling 3000 wells a year. and guess what happened to the natural gas price? you heard the president earlier this year give his energy speech. he gives an energy speech every

year. and he gives this energy speech and he says, a drill baby turtle was a joke -- baby drill was a joke. they made fun of it. this was at cleveland state. all listings are laughing. julian does not work. supply does not work. it is like a teacher at the school, instead of economic 101 he went to economics 50 1/2. he ignored supply. the only way to reduce prices by reducing demand. well, guess what happened to the natural gas price as a result of what is going on in pennsylvania? when i left the senate six years ago, the gas prices was about $12. it is $3.60. supply works. [applause] we need to drill in pennsylvania

and alaska and offshore and wherever we can. we need to have an energy policy. and i disagree with the speaker on this. we do not disagree on much. he wants to fund everything. i want to cut every subsidy. let the marketplace work. [applause] and that includes for oil and gas. we need to cut all the subsidies, let the market work. i agree with newt. i learned a lot coming here to iowa about the efficiencies created. i have no doubt that this industry can compete. let it compete on an even playing field with the rest of the energy options in this country. [applause] >> the last question would be if you could reverse one energy related policy decision from the last three years what would it be and what would you have done differently? >> i think i agree with

everybody else that the moratorium on gulf drilling was an outrageous cost to the taxpayers. lost revenue. it was an outrageous cost to the people of louisiana and texas, that area country after being devastated. it was devastated again by the actions of this administration. i would say to you that we need an administration, a president who has common sense. in my book "it takes a family," i said liberalism is an ideology. look of the presence job package. it is the same as it was before. failure. abject his answer is propose more of the same. why? because liberalism is an ideology, not based on fact or real-world experience. conservatism as i defined it is stewardship of patrimony. fancy words that mean taking

what we know is good, what wek n know of true is of nature and ordereds god, how we are in our world. taking those natural laws and taking what has worked and applying what our founders created, which was free people, free markets, and the ability to be able to pursue not just your dreams but god's will in your life. you allow that to continue in america, you allow people to transform this country like we did in 1776. i remind everybody, at the time of the founding of this country, life expectancy in america as it was in most of the west was 35- 40 years of age. the same as it was at the time of jesus christ. we were an agrarian society, the

same as it was at the time of jesus christ. 1800 years of kings and emperors ruling the world and the human condition did not change. then america, the declaration, rights coming from the god of abraham isaac and jacob and his laws in order to serve him, as i said in our declaration. in 235 years, life expectancy has doubled. we have been through ed industrial and technology revolution. the poorest person in america today is wealthier than the wealthiest person. wealthy from the standpoint of creature comforts, the wealthiest person 50 years ago. how many of you want to go to a hospital that is 50 years old? how many of you want telecommunication that is 50 years old? 9% of americans have cell phones? why? because we have limited government and we have a president and leaders in washington who believed in you. please, i asked your help and support.

elect someone who has proven that they will stand up for the values that made this country great and be able to win elections in states like pennsylvania, so we guarantee that we have a republican president in this next election. thank you all very much and god bless. [applause] >> thank you, senator. now we invite pastor of the desmoines church of christ to give the benediction. would you stand as we pray? >> we thank you, heavily father, for your grace to us in spite of we are and as a nation, father, we are seeking a new

leader. our current leader has turned its back on righteousness and truth and is leading us further into decadence as a nation. and even though there is a cacophony of voices in our current culture that say that we are antiquated fools for following you, father, we know you are the only place we can turn as we seek out a new leader. so we ask you, father, to help us elect a leader that is a true christian, one who is guided by your word and your spirit and is a person who desires to make his or her days count for the kingdom of christ. we ask for a leader whose commitment to christ and love of country compel him or her to stand for truth and righteousness in government. we need a leader who recognizes that he or she will ultimately

give account to you, father. we know, lord, the time is waning, and the day will soon arrive. let us not squander what you have given to us as a people. our nation is a true blessing. and we ask, father, that you hear our prayer and the name of christ jesus our lord and savior, amen. [applause] >> thank you for attending. have a safe trip. thank you. ♪ ♪

we're the people of god, ♪ ♪ we are the redeemed we are the word urgh ♪ ♪ arrived in this world, we will shine we belong to jesus ♪ ♪

we are the spirit of god. freedom reign. we are liberated by a king we are the people of god godpeople of ♪ ♪ [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> live to the floor of the u.s. senate now convening for a brief pro forma session today.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., october 24, 2011. to the senate. under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3 of the standing rules of the senate i hereby appoint the honorable benjamin l. cardin, a senator from the state of maryland, to perform the duties of the chair. signed daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 11:00 a.m. on thursday, october 11:00 a.m. on thursday, october

>> our review which we issued last week, a report identified that weaknesses exist in key security patrols and each of the 24 major federal agencies and partners. >> sensitive personal and classified data stored by the federal government is at high risk of cyber attack. that is the finding of a just-released gao report. find out more of the gao head of information security issues tonight on "the communicators" at 8:00 eastern on c-span2.

>> coming up in an hour and a half here on c-span2, president obama on the economy and home refinancing.

since its creation in 2002, the department of homeland security has had three secretaries, tom ridge, michael chertoff and janet napolitano and earlier this month all of those spoke at george washington university about protecting the nation from terrorist attacks and natural disasters. this is an hour and a half. [laughter] [applause] >> good afternoon. we would like to welcome you to this afternoon's important

discussion of homeland security. it is also a particular honor to welcome secretary janet napolitano and former secretaries michael chertoff and tom ridge back to our campus. here at george washington we have a unique opportunity to engage the world from this nation's capital and to enable our students to witness the power of knowledge and action. one of the ways we do so is by convening discussions with the urgent issues of our time and our ability to do that depends on in many ways our partnerships with the institutions and the agencies that surround us. we are very glad to have is one of those partners the united states department of homeland security, which has long supported a range of policy research and educational efforts across our university. george washington's washington's homeland security policy institute leads much of our work in this critical area. we offer training programs for first responders and graduate program's in the fields of cybersecurity and emergency management and security policy.

in fact the university city -- university hosts an array of initiative spearheaded by entities as diverse as the elliott university of affairs and the school of engineering and applied science. today we will have the opportunity to learn an exceptionally distinguished panel. i look forward to hearing their insights on the homeland security environment looking forward. i'm also delighted to note our thad allen retired commandant of the united states coast guard former national incident commander for the deepwater horizon oil spill and now a professor in our school of public policy and administration will moderate this afternoon's discussion. before hearing from secretary napolitano, chertoff and ridge and admiral allen, we will first hear from our host, frank cilluffo, director for homeland security's policy institute and marc pearl, president and ceo of the homeland security and defense business council. ladies and gentlemen please join me in welcoming frank cilluffo.

[applause] >> thank you dr. knapp and let me echo your welcome to everyone today. it is a distinct, distinct privilege to be able to cohost today's session. as i was in the room outback i literally saw a decade of my life collide simultaneously. i mean you don't get better public service than the three that are joining us today, and i have had the privilege to work with all of them. we have had the privilege to host all of them in the past, but never simultaneously, so i know i certainly am excited to hear what they all have to say and thank you all for joining us today and that may let me that may also thank are cohost, marc pearl. he has done yeoman's work in trying to translate the nouns into verbs in terms of public private partnerships and i'm delighted to work with him and of course our friend admiral

allen. thank you all and i look forward to this. thank you. [applause] >> i want to thank everyone for joining us today. and particularly the homeland security policy institute at gw, president knapp and everyone in the gw family for helping us put together an important and what we think is going to be an exciting program. this is the second in the homeland security and defense business council's national conversation series that is trying to look forward to how we can continue together to build the structures, processes, the assistance needed to have the smartest most successful homeland security possible. while the phrase, this is the most critical time in our nations history, is overly used, this truly is a pivotal time in our nations history. we are at the crossroads of a perfect, not necessarily welcome, confluence of a global, economic social and political dynamism that will not only have

an impact on the infrastructure of our nation but will test on how we proactively rather than reactively tackle the issues that bring us together today. we need to look closely at what the government's role and responsibility can be in preventing, preparing for, responding to and being resilient in the face of a major catastrophic event whether it is by terrorism or by nature. while what we do and what has been created and nurtured since 9/11 including katrina, h1n1, abdulmutalab's trial begins today, times square, fort hood, printer cartridges, tsunamis, oil spills and the decimation of al qaeda in just the past 10 years is still an evolving work in progress. industries, particularly those that provide the homeland security technology, services and product solutions is ready, willing and able to work even

more collaboratively with government going forward. our goal is to enter into a fruitful substantive and ongoing dialogue focusing on working together to achieve mission success. the council's march, national conversation at the american red cross, which features the fema administrator in the head of the american red cross, focused on preparedness and resilience. today, on this gw campus in front of an audience of experts i might add, in their own right, we have asked for individuals who have long since graduated from dhs 101 to help us tackle the issues surrounding the evolving homeland security, homeland defense landscape under a new normal of politics and policy. what will and what should be the framework going forward. the council calls council calls a day 2020 homeland security vision combining the need for clarity and exploring what the world must look like in homeland security in the year 2020. one housekeeping announcement.

we have provided you with a card that you can write down a question when we open up the floor to questions. i urge you to pass them to the outside. if you think of a question during our conversation we will pick them up and get them to our moderator. speaking of our moderator, there are few individuals as president knapp mentioned in our nation who understands as much as thad allen the true meaning of how to successfully, operationalize homeland security and what better person to moderate this distinguished assemblage of public service and expertise? his capstone of his career and the commandant of the coast guard started -- when he started in the coast guard in june 1971 was as everyone well knows being the principle federal officer in 2005 in being called down to that region again in 2010 to become the national commander of the deepwater horizon spill. a "times" article times article referred to his appointment, to

lead the oil still response, that it was simple and to the point. his candor and confidence brought an aura of calm to the crisis. long before his face was splashed across her tv sets on a daily basis, and twice over the past six years he had already given so much to our nation. he led the modernization, the first modernization of the coast guard since world war ii. and while the head multiple honorary degrees, he also got his bachelor's in science and engineering from the coast guard academy, is mpa from this very school, the george washington university and his masters of science. so in order to bring in some order and calm and to help us in our mission today to lay out the next decade rather than just look back, i'm excited to turn the proceedings over to an individual who has worked closely with and under all three of our dhs secretaries, admiral thad allen. [applause]

>> thank you mark for that very interesting introduction. [laughter] the panel here really needs no introduction. i told them backstage i had a lengthy biobut i would like to make a couple of comments. i've had the great fortune honor to work personally with these three great leaders. i think a couple of comments probably are appropriate before we start our discussion here today. i will serve as secretary rich. he gave up the economy of being a chief executive in the state of pennsylvania. he came for when the president asked him to be the first homeland security adviser and i remember when the president signed the legislation on the 25th of november of 2002 to establish the department. that was done between sessions of congress in midterm elections with a 60-day mandate to stand up the department which had to be placed into effect on the 24th of january with the new agencies coming over on the first of march. march burka remember seeing secretary rich for the first time in a dilbert-like you

buckle and we walked over to the coast guard warrant officer and gave them a travel card and he was the department. so thank you for being here. >> an army of one. [laughter] >> secretary chertoff left the safe confines being a federal judge and arrested all but coming back to washington and we are glad he did that. fire to my intimate relationship with him during hurricane katrina, he launched a major review of the department based on the feedback he had gotten from secretary rich and the experience of the first couple of years. we looked at the border and transportation security undersecretary at to make sure that was the right format to look at border security and he launched the second stage review which was an attempt to take a look at what i would call the department 2.0 and dealing with significant challenges associated with the legislation is -- especially with the revised role of fema and national preparedness.

somebody i dealt with on a daily basis at it with the president during hurricane katrina somebody i have the most respect for, the secretary ridge. in december 2000 after elections and before the inauguration, i was home visiting my parents in tucson arizona. i thought it would move me to go to phoenix and meet my governor at that time janet napolitano. we had the opportunity to get to know each other in a very good conversation without a lot of distractions around, pave the paved the way for a relationship that extended past the inauguration and into her first years of as secretary secretary of homeland security. we have experienced some of the same types of external pressures related to it and you can't predict that secretary chertoff and i have. i've arias i have arias appreciated her forthrightness and always grateful and proud to

serve for her as secretary. [applause] the general goal of tonight's discussion and we really want to be a discussion and encourage the interchange between our secretaries that are here. starting off with a couple of comments at where the department is right now. there have been a lot of retrospectives on the department said it was the agencies they came over in march of 2003. we have been through the first quadrant of homeland security review and we have had certainly sufficient oversight by congress. >> i would concur. >> what i would like each of the secretaries to do is comment on what i would call the dhs enterprise. this is a term that is taken for more for the last 24 months partially as the result of first quadrennial homeland security review. it tries to take a look not only the the department's role in terms of function where it is that an mission in relation to the statutory mandates contained in the homeland security act in some of the following policies offered such as hspd-5 homeland

homeland security directive five and take a look at the broader issues that are confronting the homeland right now. in relation to following -- not what the department is that the role of individuals communities in the private sector academia, our national labs and a goal from that starting point after we had the initial discussion to walk through some current issues, including the current and developing threat environment. some of the challenges are laid out for a structurally in governing incidents right now relating to coordination and cooperation and more specifically how the department of homeland security and apprise interacts with the department of defense. particularly to support civilian authorities. the significant action taken place over the last two years for the council of governors and i hope we can talk about that. then i think we would like to have the secretaries give us their thoughts on the evolving threat environment that has been so well summarized in the opening remarks. we have moved away from a

monolithic al qaeda and dealt with homegrown terror plots. we are looking at all hazards and all threats coming into the purview of the department including germs, weather, or the whatever can create a national challenge or pretty much on the plate of the homeland security and apprise moving forward. following that i would like to focus in on the relationship between the department and our private sector partners. the homeland security and defense business council have done a great job of laying out i think the essential elements of where we are adding what has happened but only from the nation buts but to the homeland security enterprise. i think the questions left open and we would like to zeroed in at the end of this are the things that we can do together and not only because of the private sector owns so much critical infrastructure and has such a lead role to play in cybersecurity, and having the means of production to solve a lot of problems inside the government, but also had with all the really complex problems

to generate requirements that are well beyond the capacity of one individual organization and governments to solve and we have had some very very sensitive oversight activities at least in my tenure. i think some conversation about how we need to collectively move forward with the whole of government response to solve a hard and complex problems will be worthy of this discussion and then finally just some comments on public-private partnerships. i think that term is probably overused as much as some of the others we talked about earlier today. i think we probably need to move around -- away from general euphemisms and talk about what is generally important in the private sector and we look forward to comments on that. if that is a general overview on our way forward let me first ask secretary ridge to make a couple of comments about the day on the 24th of january when he walked into your office and a couple of thoughts you have on the dhs enterprise moving forward? >> as you know we grew from that one individual to 180,000 now i think we are at 2.4 or 2.5.

i am glad we got them down by the border by the way. if i might be a will to set the stage for my colleagues i think it is important for this discussion or release for your potential frame of reference for all of you is to give dhs as a holding -- and on the day we were assigned responsibility to integrate people from 20 plus different agencies and 180,000 people at a time who had mergers and acquisitions in startups and investors church. all going on at the same time and unlike the private sector we didn't have a year to do it. i was sworn in on the 24th and by the way the national security council showed up a couple of days before march 1 and said we are going to go into iraq in a couple of weeks so as you set up the department you are to build an infrastructure in case of blowback for terrorists. okay, not a problem. we will do it. so if you take that frame of reference and a any think about the following things, first of

all, there were a couple of principles we try to embed and i think my colleagues are basically done the same thing and they really build upon it because the first thing you know is that initial structure you are going to have changes and i think one thing that the three of us have demonstrated is the openness to change and then need as a holding company for continuous improvement. the first iteration, the second iteration and the third iteration. the threat warning system is a great example. has started with ashcroft ridge and mueller going out and saying be alert, beware have a good day. then we went to the color-coded system and secretary napolitano said we are going to downsize differently because public messaging is a critical feature of the homeland security piece. the second iteration as secretary chertoff took a look at the structure that was created and supported i.v. administration took a look at past experience previous two and half years and said i think there are other ways we need to integrate some of these resources. a couple of quick thoughts.

hope and security is a national mission. is a federal agency. but really one of the biggest jobs is an integrated capability with state and local academic and the private sector. i think we all agree on that. one of the principles we all agreed is if you push her border out as far as you can, we want to secure, make sure the goods are secure and get as much information about people who come into the state whether they are getting on a bug flying on an airport so it is a national mission. pusher border at as far she can. won the biggest challenges we have in my colleagues can comment on this was it was also a new culture. the culture of information, the cold world culture with a need to know and homeland security would be most effective and needs to share. not only needs to share horizontally within the federal government but down in the states and the locals and the police chiefs and alike. that was a real challenge for us. i presume it has gotten better but frankly as they take a look

of couple of things that happen over the past year i think there is plenty of room for improvement. while you are doing to business integration and that is everybody has their own i.t., everybody has their own per curiam and. people have different budget modalities. i think we approve in pretty well we can execute the game plan in terms of policy but remember this agency is subjected to more political scrutiny and pressure the instant of the moment sometimes drive change not necessary the change we would necessarily agree to. then finally our challenge was at that time and i believe my colleagues have said it successfully he do all these things. consistent with the american brand. you do it consistent with the rule of law, consistent with the constitution of the united states so remember we start out with the big holding company and then you embed in your mind continuous improvement every step along the way and i think my colleagues have demonstrated not only their desire to do so but their ability to execute on improvement.

>> secretary chertoff? >> first let me say, i was lucky when i stepped into this job, after two years, after they have birth of the department because tom did a phenomenal job of standing up the framework and foundation from scratch. it is still probably not completely mature and by way of reference if you go back to the department of defense, most people would argue between the department of defense being established in 1947 in goldwater-nichols, became considerably afterwards, it was a tremendous amount of maturation that took place, which most recent lee gave us the most tremendous success against osama bin laden in may of this year, so we understood there was a lot of work to be done. we had a great foundation. i would say that you know, from a high-altitude standpoint there were three basic challenges. one was to get within the department of culture a

jointness, shared understanding of the mission and shared execution of the mission which is part of any organization and particularly important when you are bringing in constituents from a lot of different agencies, some of which had varying degrees of enthusiasm about being put into a large agency. you know -- >> putting it very mild. >> so there are those that element. the second almond was a vertical element, how do you coordinate with state and local governments in the private sector? probably more than any other cabinet in the department and certainly more than the other security departments, dod, the very heart of dhs's mission was having a robust relationship, with state and local government and the private sector. and a lot of the challenge there is in the fact that there is not a command-and-control relationship that operates on a vertical basis. in fact, used to get asked all the time and i am sure tom did

and i'm sure janet is, who's in charge? the answers in many cases, there is in any one person in charge. even the president's authority when it comes to matters that occur domestically within a state or locality is limited and the governor should start. you really learn it is a different culture. is a cultural coordination and how do you maximize teamwork? i used to say to people, you know basically it is like a baseball team. we might be that bandage her but the manager is not out in the field while they play is going on. to shortstop throws the ball to the third baseman. what you are doing is training and establishing plays up front and then you are allowing the information to operate in a coordinated fashion. so that was the second challenge. the third challenge was dealing with a set of expectations that people have about homeland security.

homeland security was a new concept. i grew up in a world where the defense department and the justice department had completely separate and distinct areas of authority to deal with security threats. you basically looked at a security, if it was it the nominating a military issue, a matter of war-making, then you had a set of entities that dealt with it, set of authorities and a set of legal rules and processes. if it was a criminal issue as law enforcement and a different group of people, different set of authorities, different set of laws, and there was very little overlap. what homeland security has adopted was forced to grow up with is a world that it not fit into those categories, world in which we are often using all of these to deal with threats, and which tools we use buried in particular situations. so we can have someone like bin laden who was an indicted

defendant that was also somebody that was a military target. and they need to bring together a department that embodies a new doctrine and one that spans what used to fall neatly within the jurisdiction of different federal organizations i think was a challenge in and of itself. i think one of the things that we went through with admiral allen was to try to build a strategy and a doctrine that takes account of a very different menu of threats. one in which you can be dealing with medical threats, biological threats, natural disasters, or transnational criminal groups, smuggling border security terrorism and sometimes the line is not very clear about where one and send the other one begins. so these were i guess the next stage of building after the basic framework laid out by tom, and i am happy to say i do believe in the department over

four years certainly had some bumps in the road in in the process is. >> thank you are. generally when there is a transition of authority in this country we have a presidential transition, there is a party that has been out of power and is usually a cadre of folks who are cohort that is in academia or a business, consulting or someplace that are kind of waiting for their -- to happen again. the transition between the bush admin is raised and the obama administration was the first transition to a new party for that cohort did not exist outside in those different areas. secretary napolitano as we move into the discussion on the homeland security review maybe you could comment on the challenges associated with a party come in and they didn't have the alumni group already out there. >> well, yeah and first of all, thad you are a marvelous coley to have and we went through some very large matters together and

you provided great leadership and counsel for me, and i think to my predecessor so i want to just say thank you or that. and i was also very lucky in my two predecessors, because i knew governor ridge a little bit and i knew mike from our days as former u.s. attorney so we had some prior knowledge. and, we did have a challenge. why? because this department was so new. it has never had a transition before. it had to be designed out of whole cloth. mike designed it. his department and the department executed it, but i began to get a glimmer of what i had gotten myself into, when these people started arriving in phoenix where i was still serving as the governor with dollies full of three-inch binders of things that i needed to absorb and more acronyms than you could possibly make.

they finally gave me, a glossary of acronyms and it was 94 single spaced pages. i am pleased to say now three years after-the-fact i know virtually every acronym that was on that list, which is a little scary in and of itself. but, it has been and continues to be a process of building and maturing and adapting. building the department still coming together as what we call one dhs with some items that are common culture, common expectations, common business practices among the different agencies, adaptation, deciding what initiatives we need to pursue and looking at them from a variety of angles, a question can involve issues that implicate the coast guard and

customs and i.c.e. and fema and the office of health affairs and science and technology, the national, or the npp deed directorate, so taking a look back and using all the tools in the department to adapt and deal with new and emerging threats, and then continuing to identify what the threats are out there that are real. there are lots of speculative threats and we all do some of the what-if, what-if, what-if but there is enough intel that crosses their desk on a daily basis that teaches us really who our adversaries are maybe thinking about technologies or other capacities they really do have at their command and what do we need to do to enlarge or maximize our ability to prevent something from occurring and then our ability to respond and recover as quickly as possible.

so, those things all are having -- happening simultaneously. lastly, i think one of the things -- you know the department of homeland security has been the largest organization, reorganization of the federal government since the creation of the department of defense. it has been immense and i think it is not until you are in it that you realize how imminent it actually is, but as that reorganization has occurred, it impacts other participants in the so-called interagency, because for example, the department of homeland security actually has a huge international footprint and where actually negotiating international agreements all the time. and we have people stationed in 75 countries around the world today. and so, that culture, which is relatively post-9/11, where home secretaries, ministers of the

interior, homeland security secretary tether on international pathways to communiqués and relationships. that is a new and evolving set of international relationships that i think will only grow more robust as time goes on. conversely, now we have a situation where as the department of homeland security matures and there is a greater realization about its role, its responsibilities, its statutory mandate, that dean's adjustments and other members of the federal family as well. it can be dod, can be the state department, it can be the justice department, it can be members of the intel community, but all of those departments now are having to make changes in a good way but in a good way that really works with dhs so that access and leverage their

probally. i think that is still a process and adaptation underway. >> if i can make a quick observation to the secretaries credit and still the transition because i remember calling secretary napolitano the night before she was going to be announced. i was in europe and i said i'm going to take the liberty of speaking to my successor secretary chertoff. there are only two people in washington that know what they are they're getting into. [laughter] the range of challenges, the complexity, and made there is really only two people that know it all. any of our deputies as well but i think you need to feel comfortable to the secretaries credit from time to time we get calls and heads of this is what we are doing that will affect a change of mckay calls to say what you think about it? the whole transition continues and it is far beyond what i think most people who normally associate with going from one administration to the next. >> if i could carry this discussion a little bit further.

it is and ask looming over everybody's head but we have this discussion backstage and had this discussion for a number of years in washington. across-the-board cuts in the words of secretary robert gates perpetuate mediocrity. there has to be a better way to have a discussion about risk being assumed and trade-offs that have to be taken. in the context of the evolving evolving homeland security enterprise, and appointed you all have made about the evolution of the department, we have had what you think is germane right now and evolving threat environment and what are the types of criterion things we need to be focusing on as we are all going to be entering a kiss -- constrain budget environment. those have to be in form changes based on our best understanding of the threats and risks that are out there and having the ability to have that conversation separate from some kind of mandatory budget level i think is really important and maam i think we will start with you on this one.

>> well, thank you. [laughter] listen, one of the things that has changed his come is, as the department was building, it was getting big budget increases every year as its needs became more manifest and the like so if you actually traced the appropriations process of all the departments, you would get 6% increase a year. i think some years it was actually 7% over the prior year, and we are not in that environment now. we are in the environment, something equating to a freeze or a percentage point or two below that, or even in some scenarios, five percentage points below that. so, it has put a premium on really evaluating every activity that we do and how can we do it more cheaply and effectively? it has meant really i think getting control over our

acquisitions process. and i wanted to point that out because i know some of you in the audience are interested in this, but really taking sure that we are not spending good money after bad. if you try something for a long enough time so you either sense that you have got something or you don't than making hard decisions about when to cut expenditures off so that we can conserve resources for other activities. it means that we really need to look at what is the right mix of manpower to technology, and are there some things in the hopper, logically speaking that will be forced multipliers for our manpower, even though that maybe down the road, so it continues to make sense to invest there. and then, again, this whole

business of the enterprise. you know, the sharing with the state, the local, the private sector, nonprofit. part of that is because homeland security is not neatly described it in an organization. does involve a lot of things but part of it is you need to be able to share the division of responsibility, share the work, so that everybody isn't doing all the same thing all the time but you are actually doing, and sometimes this is unintentional as well as intentional but really what you are trying to aim for is a mix so that everyone's budget is used to its maximum effectiveness. that is a very complicated process because when you go through your own departments appropriations and budget process, doesn't necessarily take into account impact of others who may be in the enterprise. how we grow and acknowledge that

aspect, that complication, you think is still ahead of us. >> now i think that is very true and first of all i would like to say i completely agree with you, thad that an across-the-board cut is a way of doing everything half-baked action. what you decide you want to do you should do well. what you decide is not worth doing well you shouldn't do it all. we were in a period of rising budgets and it was a real tendency for everybody to feel the federal government ought to pay for all the security and why aren't you covering bad and why are you doing that? in some ways, i want to be careful and say to a degree, a period of austerity can actually be a good thing from the standpoint of the department because it allows you to say no to people. when i was there, she said the members of congress we don't think we should do that, that is not a federal responsibility they would say what's the matter

with you? you don't believe in protecting the country. now there is a more powerful response which is we can't afford to do it. we have got a limited budget and we have got to make choices so it can be a healthy environment. that being said, what is required is to think about not just what are the core missions of the department, but where are the best locations for the various levels of responsibilities? there are a host of things that have been done on a security standpoint quite well at the state and local level. and, those ought to be done at the state and local level and they perhaps ought not to be done by federal agents or by federal -- with federal money. i understand that the state and local level they have a budget issue and this is a moment when they say we need more help from washington. but, what i would suggest is are people who have their hands on the fiscal pipeline, is it ought not to be about who screams the loudest. it out to be about something all

three of us have been committed to which is to look at the risks, figure out what is the right level of investment to manage, not eliminate that manage the risk, and most importantly who is best situated to actually execute on that risk mitigation? sometimes it is the private sector and sometimes you have to say to the private sector, we will give you information but we are not going to give you the money. so there can be a useful exercise here, provided that it isn't overwhelmed by the tendency of a lot of loud voices to overwhelm the decision-making process. >> secretary ridge you have been in the marketplace of ideas consulting. you have your own firm and i know you also do work with state and local governments. having been a governor, can you maybe give us a count -- point mack and counterpoint on how you would counsel the state and local authorities to respond to that? >> first we all agree that one of the challenges of homeland security frankly is to get the

people on the hill, the political class to no homeland security is about risk management and not discrimination because you just can't eliminate all of this. you have to prioritize the risk internally and is both secretaries have said then under the austerity measures we have now, prioritize. and then determine not only what the risks are but who is best situated to deal with the rest? when i was governor used to walk in my budget secretary's office in way we did see a sign that was unavoidable. before you talk to him the sign says nothing stimulates the imagination like a budget cut. [laughter] now think about that. you have the dollars right now presently. i think secretary would say probably beefed-up in terms of the muscular manpower and woman power and you have got personnel so as you are thinking about these very austere and difficult times you really, the burden will be on the department and again they are going to get pushback from the hill. that is what we need to understand, that this is where

we believe we need the resources and it is going to be real battle for the secretary and her team once they have made this difficult decisions on a case-by-case basis to preserve the funding in those areas. we need to understand that. i think secretary chertoff's notion about identifying who is best equipped to deal with certain elements of the risk, some of us need to evolve back down to the state and local level. part of a certain bias i have as governor, you can secure the country from inside the beltway. you have to start trusting not only be -- at the private sector so you need to do an assignment and perhaps reassign some of the responsibilities. whether or not you send the money remains to be seen and what other responsibilities yeah. in his budget times you have to enable legislation. is called c.o.t.s.. when he commercial off-the-shelf technology. no more experimental technology. there's a lot of stuff out there

that can be embedded if you believe in risk management. someone may come in with a bright idea, we can eliminate all the risk. show me you have done it someplace else. manage the risk here and finally i think technology is probably the place where there is going to be some additional revenue and perhaps not in the overall budget line but if you are going to be focusing on technology and i notice you have upset some the contractors in the room. you might have to take a haircut, k.? you might have to take a haircut. professional services during the past couple of years in dealing with governments and one another over the past couple of years has reduced their fees a little bit and you may have to take a haircut. hope you don't mind secretary, but i thought i'd throw it out there for you. [laughter] ..

>> maybe you could pine for us on some of the very difficult problems that could be susceptible to a private sector solution and how to move forward on that with the current threat environment. i'll start in the middle this time. >> we can talk about this in a lot of contexts. i spent a fair amount of time on cyber security, and i do now as well. i thought for awhile, there's a challenge in cyber security in that most of the assets are in private hands, and we're dealing with an area where there's a lot of sensitivity because we're talking about how people

communicate with each other. there are countries in the world where the model is to have the government sit on the internet and control everything going back and forth, but their agenda is not security how we think about it, but a different p -- kind of security. the idea of the government to intervene from preventing bad things from happening is not going to receive a hospitable reception in the united states. 245 being said, the government does have an incredible set of capabilities that are valuable and important, so, to me, this is a great example where the private sector has a place to go. the ability to create trusted agencies or entities in the private sector that have the capability of working with enterprises in the private sector on security, now how to work with the government, handle class fied information so they can interface with the government in terms of sensitive

information, but actually wind up executing with private set of hands on the controls, and this creates the kind of dispersion of power that reduces the risk that our government's going to abuse its position on the interpret, and yet because you have people who live in that world that have an opportunity to see what's going on in a way that makes them more capable of managing network security, then a company in another business and only sees what comes into its own doing -- domain. that's one place where the private sector actually has a lot of capability, not necessarily to sell to the government, but to sell to other parts of the private sector and work with the government in producing that result. >> madam secretary? >> well, when you think about cyber and that whole evolving area, first of all, in terms of homeland security, it's thee

most rapidly evolving area, and, you know, it's an area where there's no international rules really. there's no legal frame work on which to hang things where things by their nature cross national boundaries ology the time. we know the internet is an axel rant of certain recruitment activities. there's good and bad to it. we know there's limits on the internet. we know there's a lot of economic assets of the country that are stolen by the internet. there's a lot of work that needs to happen in this arena. we also know that 85% or so of the nation's critical infrastructure is in private sector hands, and it's dependent on a cyber network of some sort or another, and one of the

things -- one of the more interesting things that i think will happen in congress now is they are going to be taking up legislation to try to define some rules and speedometers and statutory jurisdiction primarily what is in the department of defense and what's in the department of homeland security, and the basic issue that i think defines the different -- the two major bills that are pending is to what degree the private sector will be mandated to do certain things and what degree they are incentivized to do certain things or at what degree will the market take care of an issue or a problem, and that -- that issue, as it will be incapslated in the debate really will go to the security arena,

to what degree do we think the private sector incorporated security con cements as part of their own core competencies that they take on voluntarily or what degree they do control critical infrastructure that everyone's dependent on, is there a governmental interest to be taken strongly into account. this is all underway right now. >> quickly, if i might. you know, when i think of cyber security, i think of attribution and accountability. technology is good now. we're generally able to attribute an attack to a particular source, but i'm skeptical that the global community will come into some accountability standards. if you do this to us, these are the penalties you pay. maybe that happens in time, but i think we need to do everything possible to make sure they don't gain access so we don't worry about accountability, and i

think as the secretary pointed out, if there's a pace, if there's an area, if there's a dimension within which you absolutely need the public private sector partnership, this is it to the point where i think that the congress and the executive branch should look at their regulations that really inhibit the ability of the private sector to come in and sit and work closely with the immensely talented people we have in the government sector, but they still don't have the brett and depth in my judgment that's available throughout the digital community in the united states, so i think both secretaries hit on something that's critical. it may be the highest priority. by the way, the private's sector backbone 1 the government's

backbone. if the grid goes down, government suffers, it's there. it's a classic. if there's one spot, one place and dimension where the public-private sector relationship for national security reasons is absolutely imperative, this is it. >> i had the opportunity several weeks ago to have a conversation with the chief technical officer working were john, the science adviser to the president, and he postulated there was an opportunity to have a public conversation with some leading cio's from the private sector and the folks grappling with the problems inside government, and he longed for a metaphorical switzerland where you can go and say what's the rules inhibiting us or what's it do in terms of the regulatory requirements placed on the private sector, and he longed for a way to have that discussion with a set of

principles to come with that to govern the way forward. let's crank it down to the hard part. i think there's consensus on the stage right now on this particular issue of what needs to be done. the real issue is when we have a congress not reformed to the 9/11 recommendations, we built a tyranny to the present that we all talked about. how do you construct we move forward? madam secretary? >> well, i think first of all i think we begin with the president's review of cyber security from how to organize the government itself because realize the government itself has all kinds of overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities, and when you really, you know, boil it down to, it's the, you know, dean has responsibility in the dot universe and dhs has responsibility if the.gov universe, and there's others with the private sector, and doj

and other equities have entities in there, but the basic assessment if there and then the question is who gets to use the nsa, the greatest technological resource the country has? do we need two of them? somehow you have to figure out how both streams can utilize that resource. secretary gates and i negotiated an mou that basically identified how a civilian agency can tap into and use the nsa, but that is in and of itself an evolving relationship, and so we see those thing, and then you get to the fast question which is well, how do you bring the private sector to bear, all those cio's and what have you. quite frankly, i don't see the lack of a metaphor switzerland.

i think the key question is who gets to come? you know, at some point we say he's the metaphor switzerland and everybody will raise their hands saying i should be there, and i think what we need to do is not only just be working with critical infrastructure players, but again be thinking about moving forward and what is it we need as an end product? do we need a regime, for example, where financial institutions must tell you, must tell the didn't when they had an intrusion? something that many are reluctant to do right now. do we have a regime to create some kind of intellectual lock boxes where information can be deposited and anonymous so it can be exchanged in some fashion? well, how do we do that? what things are so critical and

so impactful that government mandates really are the most appropriate way to ensure the public's safety. those questions, i think, are still not answered. these are things that are all going to be debated in the context of legislation, but, you know, even afterwards i suspect. >> this is really a challenging area because it's not one problem. there are a whole set of problems, and frankly, the problems are of different levels of consequence, how they present themselves 234 different way with different solutions. we're way beyond the point of one bullet to solve the issue. we're talking about cyber fraud, and really pretty much the same as fraud we've seen in the past against people, you know, for financial purposes where there are some technical issues, but it's not different from what we saw before.

there's intellectual property on a 345szive scale, some for criminal purposes, some by nations, others by states. there's concern about attacks and malware that could be used to detect or destroy critical systems incoming control systems, and these are different problems. the consequences are different. they are all bad, but some are worse than others. some of them implicate interests that are private and others have consequences on a huge public effect, and others can be dealt with from a market stand point because people want to protect their own assets. some of them because of the collateral consequences are areas of market failure because a company's not going to invest more than the property of the asset and many times that has a huge impact external to the

enterprise itself. to me, you look at all of this stuff and figure out what is your doctrine? how do you treat the threats? what do you view as private sector and what is principally public concern? what's the role of the government versus private sector or quasi government and agencies in dealing with the issues, and that requires hard choices. when do we regard an attack as an act of war? when do we regard it as something that's not an acts of war? once you put your doctrine together, which is a very challenging intellectual process, then i think it's possible to look at the total set of tools we have, incentives, information sharing, rules, mandates, and regulations in some circumstances, and perhaps direct government action in others, and we can overlay those on what the doctrine is and who is best situated to

carry out the mission of dealing with that particular challenge. the one thing i would say is this. it's been my experience however many times i've been in and out of government, and i can say this because i used to be a judge. i can trash lawyers. [laughter] the biggest problem is the lawyers because the lawyers come into a problem set with the concept that here's what the laws, here's the authorities, figure out how to make this work within that constant. i argue something different. i would say take the constitution, that is the boundary, the one thing that is immuneble and restricts you. within that, everything else is a matter of statute or regulation. those things can be changed. we ought to put together a dock -- doctrine based on a serious policy decision about the optimal way to deal with the challenges. once we have agreed on that, then congress ought to make the laws fit what we think the

doctrine and strategy ought to be rather than fit the doctrine and strategy into a set of legal rules built in the 20th century before we really had a robust internet. that's my one big suggestion for how we go about this process. >> what would you add to the blueprint, sir? >> yes, just a couple things. one, it's a skepticism to think government moves as fast as technology. [laughter] >> well founded. >> i just have a feeling that that's why it's more important for the kind of collaboration my colleagues talked about between the private sector and government itself. secondly, i suspect, given the 25bg9 fact that you invested as taxpayers billions of dollars across the board that there's probably some capabilities and some digital capabilities that for national defense and security reasons can't be shared publicly. i suspect that's true.

i don't know it to be true, and i have to understand that because there's homeland security that's about risk management in terms of national security, there's a level of risk management, and the capability that nsa, dod, or someone else requires in order to protect certain risks that they say may be great in the private sector, but once in the public domain, it's accessible, and so you have to assess those capabilities internally so if you're skeptical as i am, you move with the ability and foresight as fast as technology. they move at glacial-like speed, technology changes every day, and accept the notion there's risk and probably some digital capabilities within the government that will never see the light of day unless they go to 3.0 # and share 2.0, and finally the final word is "trust". i like the notion of

switzerland. everybody has to have a seat at the table. at some point in time as i go back to the battle we had early on in homeland security, you have to create a culture of sharing info, and there's always a reluctance to share with the governor and big city mayors or the police chiefs, but if you can't trust americans to secure america, who will you trust? if you can't trust the digital private sector to be patriots as men and women who want to help the government deal with the threats of sovereign incursion, organized crime, and the long list of people given the internet, we are attacked from multiple sources at multiple times for multiple reasons, so who can you trust? again, i'll put an exclamation point on what my colleagues said that that is the place to have the robust collaboration between the public and private sector. >> if i can roll that back to the original conversations we had starting the panel this

evening and put that in the context of the dhs enterprise with the larger effort we're trying to do nationally and what a whole of government response would be to this. i worked several issues particularly as the chairman of the interdiction committee working for the drug czar on information sharing and migrate technologies successfully used inside nsa to the southwest border to be able to take advantage of pattern recognition and some of the cloud computing, and for those of you in the room who are not military by background, the j-6, the joint command is the cio responsible for the security in those types of issues. i remember sitting around the table talking with everybody saying i wish there was a cosmic j6 that could step up and provide oversight or structure or be the convener or leave the conversation. going back one more time to say in the context of the evolution of the homeland security enterprise, is there a broader role or a more clearly defined

role for homeland security, and is there a limit to that role if we're going to move across boundaries into some areas we talked about. how do you construct a model that if you had the right people at the table, you can convene that meeting? >>21st century creation has the opportunity to model itself in a different way. it is about networks now, and that means you don't control things, but you cooperate with thing, and you work together in a collaborative way. that sounds a little too new agey, but think about it practically, even the president doesn't have the power to control the state and local government or the private sector as president truman learned. how do you get everybody working together? i think one of the things we've grew up over a period of time in dhs is recognition of getting people together to plan, to identify the problem jointly, to plan jointly, train jointly, and

to exercise jointly, and that gives you a running start into how things work. i'll give you a concrete example. in 2008, we had a couple hurricanes, one in louisiana, gustav, and the other in galvaston, hurricane ike. we spent a lot of time and effort doing detailed planning which state and local government in the gulf including doing things like a census of everybody in nursing homes, and very detailed evacuation plans and back up plans for buses and i remember this being part of it. when hurricane gustav was about to hit, we had the ability to evacuate everybody from new orleans who needed to be evacuated including something like 35,000 people in hospitals who at the last minute the administrators believed had to be moved.

that was not just the fact that the president had the power to order the state and locals to do things, but that the joint planning and training paid off in terms of cooperation, so, to me, part of the issue through the enterprise is about using collaboration and coordination as tools to move a lot of different independent bodies playing off the same shoot of music and producing a unified tune. >> just a comment, my own observation watching from my television at home. i thought the performance of the local governors was an indication of the maturation of what the states believe their roles are in advance of an event. >> to add a couple things, i think at the end of the day, we have to start with -- if we b handed out cards, give me your

definition of cyber security. i don't think it's unanimous. i think in this -- in this switzerland, could be dhs or the white house, why don't we bring the practitioners from the grid from financial services, from manufacturing base, ect., and dod and msa and say, all right, based on experience, what do you see as the greatest threats? is it access? is it encryption? what is it? i would suspect out of a meeting like that since dhs all we see is the private sector anyhow, it's not a bad place to start, and from that convening you can probably hand out task and assignment. i'm a strong believer in once you identify the problem, task somebody to it and then come back. it's fascinating -- i've asked

this question many, many times, and depending on where you are and the problems you encountered and what you look at over the horizon, you probably have a different set of priorities. as a country, we have to build on these priorities. it's risk management, and then based on what we collectively agree what the priorities are, we might find individual capabilities where the private sector can help build and respond to whatever the risks we see truly exist in the digital world. >> thank you. just to remind everybody, we are taking questions from the audience. if you filled out a card, pass them to the outside, and they'll be collected. i have one to pose to the panel here. give your extensive political backgrounds, i'll throw it to you. does divided government impact our national security? >> well, that's a huge question. you know, i think the answer to that is actually no. i'm a believer in the system that we have, which i think works well, be it has certain

challenges, and it's just like in great britain or canada where someone has essentially are given the reigns of power, and if they have 5 majority in power they can take it as far as acan in the term until they are voted out. i think our system works well for us. it does create certain challenges. that being said, i think there's actually a surprising degree of agreement across party lines on the kind of core requirements of security. now, that doesn't always get manifest in what you read or see on the media where the media gravitates -- sorry to the reporters in the room -- tends to gravitate to people at the extremes, but on a working level, it does actually reflect the reality. the charge we have is not a challenge of divided government, but of world power. you do have to make decisions. they will be unpopular. i remember doing the western hemisphere travel initiative

that requires a much more secure document to cross the land border with canada than was the case prior to 9/11. you know, the 9/11 commission recommended it. it was passed into legislation. we, again, the process of making that transition. there were some members of congress from the border districts that were adamantly opposed to it feeling it would hurt the economics of the local communities. in our view, it's necessary to protect the country, and to protect not just those districts, but those in the interior that might feel the brunt of an attack if someone snuck across from canada, and there's a concerted effort to push back. we got it, you know, a substantial way down the road, and then secretary that poll dnapalitano picked it up and got it down the line.

you had to be willing to take a certain amount of flak to make it happen. this is a broader comment about security, but in the end -- i'm a nonpolitician here, never ran for office and never will, but you have to ask what am i here for? if i'm here to occupy a position, that's one thing, but if i'm here to do a job, figured out the priorities, i have to make the decisions and drive the result even if it's going to wind up with a certain amount of personal unpopularity and unpleasantness. that, to me, is the solution. >> secretary ridge? >> well, if we're going to talk about national security or foreign policy, that involves a critiquing, some of the things that are going on, and we're not here to do that, so i'm not going to do that. i think it's important, however, if you're talking about national security vis-a-vis homeland security and the role that the department is playing and how it is playing out in the

international arena with our friends and allies, i would will very interested in secretary napalitano's sense, but we have to convince the state we need a presence there, and we now have a presence in 75 embassies, and i think that's very, very important. i think from my point of view ever since 9/11 from a law enforcement point of view and from an intelligent gathering and sharing point of view, i think we're probably locked up as good today as we were ever before. i think it's -- and, again, i think secretary's effort to push that into more and more a state department co-sharing responsibility is -- so i think the divided government in washington about foreign policy and domestic policy, i think it impedes both branches from performing as effectively as they could, but having said that

looking at the global arein that, i think it's working well, but it needs -- the first thing you have to do is push the border out, and the only way to do that is buy in and get allies and friends who buy into some of the things you want to do. imp we had a tough time getting little information from the european union about travelers coming into the united states. beautiful thing, secretary chertoff said it's a nice start. he said it's not about foundation, but there's new algorithms, and after a couple years they negotiated and got it. they pushed that further, so i think i'll reserve my comments and leave it at that. >> well, when i think one of the problems -- if we think of divided government as separation of powers, i do think that the inability of the congress to reorganize itself to align with the creation of the new

department has been a problem, and it's a problem for a number of reasons. one is the sheer number of committees and oversight panels and reports and things that the department has to undergo takes a lot of time and effort and resources away from other work, and in anker ray when -- an era when we talk about flat or decreasing budgets and maximizing and squeezing out every dollar it's highest and best use, i will share with you that there are a number of reports that we are required by statute to prepare, submit in writing, not online, that i seriously believe are not ever read by anyone really, and so, you know, that -- that's a problem. the resource demands that