.. >> you're a businessman and you bring a dimension to the congress as knowing business. my dad was a truck driver. he didn't call the shots on how many hours he worked, but he had a contract. >> in the 11th hour or the 10th

hour actually going into the 11th cutoff that during that time there is a significant diminishment of capability, for in other words, any of you, and dr. david, i'll go to you. you looked at these studies. these studies are about how long you sleep. if you were to from the economic material you reviewed, if you were to review the risk of the 11th hour assuming you got a good night's sleep, confident, not distracted, and being sober for the previous 24 hours, any way to know what the risk was for the 11 hour, and if so, was it scored? >> i think the studies show the risk of a fatigue related accident does increase. the issue is how many of those are there and how many would be reduced by this legislation. >> right. if you were to score the 11th hour, or the difference between

10 # and 11, if you score that, what's the cost in isolation? as i see it, the study that supports this regulation, you have to throw in the cart, the horse, the buggy, the whip, and everything to get into a positive ratio of a cost benefit, isn't that true? >> i found the ratio was negative using the best and most current available data, and i note the only way to get to the negative is mentioning the issues related to driver health, not just the crash issue. look at the number of crashes, and they agree under their own analysis if the answer was in the negative territory. >> last question quickly. isn't it true that more crashes occur in the first part of the shift than the last part? the drivers actually have a poorer record in the last four or five hours than the last four

or five hours? you've been picked on, when do the crashes occur? >> typically in the first couple hours. >> you are more concerned about them going out not rested in the first four hours than the last hour based on real world experience? thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. >> i thank the chairman. now the gentleman -- >> i have a response. >> quickly. >> for one thing, crashes in the 11th hour, while they are not as numerous as in the earlier hours, that's because most drivers are driving the early hours, not the 11th hour, but the risk of crash is higher in the 11th hour, and that's been shown in the earlier hours that statisticically -- >> will you make the studies available for the record? >> absolutely. >> without objection, there's a research report and study showing the longer working

hours, and without objection, i'll submit that. >> i appreciate it, but i didn't hear the last part. you said "inadequate rest"? >> it shows an adverse health and safety effects from advocates for highway and auto safety. >> mr. chairman, i don't disagree with unanimous consent, i wanted it noted for the record that combining of long work hours and adequate rest makes a different point from the period of time you work. inadequate rest is something we are all figuring out how you get. >> without objection? >> without objection. >> thank you. >> a gentleman from iowa is recognized. >> how many of you actually worked as a licensed truck driver in your lives? any of you? i have. i can tell you from personal experience that the level of stress on a truck driver goes up in direct proportion of what's going on in their workplace

environment. 23 you haul grain in harvest season in iowa, you have more stress on you than you do on a summer day. oneful concerns i have is that we're really talking about two different things here today. the first four witnesses on the panel called by the majority are making a common point which is the rules proposed are bad for business. you all agree with that point, don't you? okay. well, in an ideal world, the best rule for business is no hours of service limitation where you were free to set your own time frame, and you shake your heads because you know there's a problem with that because there are backside costs, liability costs that will come if we don't have some reasonable restriction on hours of duty; is that correct? so what we're really arguing about is whether the rule that's been proposed or the rule that's in place make more sense for the purpose that this agency was set

up to address, and if you lock at that purpose, it is not called the federal motor carrier profit administration. it's called the federal moe tar safety administration to set up the rules of the road to give people a level playing field that protect both the interest of the people who want to haul commerce across the roads of this country, which i was proud to do, and also protect the consumers who use that same highway, and it may not be involved in that system. now, mr. miller, you made the point that one of the problems facing the industry, which i'm acutely aware of, is the shortage of qualified safe drivers. do you remember saying that? here's what i don't understand. we're in a recession now. there's a lot of people looking for work. 9% unemployment in this country. why is the industry not able to find enough qualified safe drivers if that is the case?

>> sir, i don't have a good explanation for you. i can tell you we are a premium driving operation operating a safe legal fleet. we rarely bump 11 hours, however, i go through an average of 500 applications looking for qualified drivers in my trucks, and that's the concern that people will be forced to put drivers 245 are not qualified and unsafe on the road. >> that's my point. as sympathetic as you can believe, one of the problems is there's a huge shortage of qualified drivers, and i think economists would tell us perhaps one the reasons for the shortage is people looking for work do not find the workplace conditions and the pay worth the risk of trying to become qualified to drive a truck, which i think is an honorable and noble occupation. one i was proud to be a part of. if we're looking at one of the

reasons that may be contributing to that, i argue it could have something to do with the hours of service requirement. one of the things we know, mr. jazny and dr. david is, this is not unique to the trucking industry, we've seen the same issue come up in resident physician duty hours as people become concerned that parent's safety is compromised by forcing resident physicians to work long hours without appropriate rest, and that compromises their ability to do their job effectively, and impacts patient safety. having heard the testimony today, i would like both of you to respond to the public safety concern and how that relates to the ability to hire qualified safe drivers. >> well, working conditions are always an important issue. certainly in shift work we've seen that in studies of shift work all over the world. it's the working conditions, and

these specific areas, if you look at the economists, there's a book called "sweat shops on wheels" essentially saying these are the modern day sweat shops because of the working physicians delivering just in time all the time under the gun, driving longer hour, and for many non-contract and non-union drivers, they are exempt from the fair standards agent. >> dr. david? >> there's no question reducing the amount of on duty time reduces accidents, but the question is how much, and is it worth it? we have rules restricted than the rules used to be, and before that, there were no rules. the questions is where do you stop? cost benefit is one piece of information you can use to get there as long as it's done properly. >> just so i'm clear on one the principle points of your testimony, your testimony was the economic analysis of the tradeoffs between the current

rule and the proposed rule is there were actual economic benefits to going to the proposed rule? >> well, there would be reduced crashes, but there would be increased costs, so i calculated that on net, the increased cost reduces the value of the net crashes. that is obviously sensitive to the assumptions you use and how restrictive the rule is, but under the assumptions used, i calculated the cost would be higher. >> but the point you also made is those costs include opportunity. in other words, the added cost of transportation for these same goods and services could result in new jobs becoming available, taking people off of unemployment, making the taxpayers of this country pay less of that burden, and having those new employees paying into social security, medicare, state, and federal taxes as well? >> i mean, this rule is not

going to be undone after the recession, so i would never recommend regulation to solve an unemployment problem, but in terms of the number of people driving trucks, that could change. >> the point is this is an analysis of the tradeoffs between safety on the one hand and what's good business requirements on the other hand, and you're always going to have tradeoffs. >> that's absolutely true. >> mr. david, you're not the only one concluding there's significant increased cost. the obama administration itself said there's increased costs with this new rule. >> absolutely. >> one of a handful of rules that said will cost at least over a billion dollars; correct? >> about a billion increased costs. >> at a time of 9% unemployment; correct? >> as i said, it's a billion dollars today and will continue to be a billion under their assumptions. >> right. thank you. turning to the gentleman from tennessee who is first.

doctor? >> thank you, mr. chairman. can you tell us about the steps your company takes to help ensure driver safety and health? >> i didn't hear the last word? >> can you tell me about the steps your company takes to help ensure drivers' safety and health? >> well, i don't know about health. i mean, we're required to go through regular physicals and so forth, but just our company alone, we do not have the on board electronic recorders, so when our drivers call in every morning, they have to advise our operations people how much longer they have to drive for the day and when their next ten hour break is up for their sleep, so we schedule pickups and deliveries around that availability of their time and for their sleep. >> okay. let me ask, do you think there's a pressing need for this rule, or do you believe the current rule allows your drivers to balance safety and driver health

department? >> i think the current rules are a lot better than what's being proposed. i would say that if you can add or bring back in the split sleeper broke provision, that will even add additional good rest and solid rest time. >> do you think there's anything else motivating dot to propose the rules other than safety and health concerns? >> well, there's a tremendous influence from union utl drivers that they are not impacted at all by the 34-hour reset provision, and some of those carriers, i would -- well, i would think they would be more adversely affected by the 11th to 10 hour change, but they are taking studies based on a small percentage of drivers that don't represent the typical motor carrier industry and try to broaden brush regulations over them, so there are definitely

other interests represented in this proposal. >> okay. thank you. i'll ask the same question. do you think there's anything else motivating dot? >> to tell you the truth, i don't know. i'm not aware of anything. >> okay. that's fair. mr. jansy, do you acknowledge trucking injuries declined since 2004 when the current rules are in effect? >> they went up initially the first two years in 2004 and 2005 that the rule went into effect. they've come down in the last two years, but it's been shown it has nothing to do with the hour of service rules itself per se. >> do you acknowledge the number of truck miles increased since that time? >> yes. >> do you acknowledge registered of large trucks increased at that time? >> last year and the year before, the number of vehicles miles traveled for large combination trucks is down. over all, the utl trucks made up

the difference, so vmt is flat. for the vehicles that are bumped up against the hours of service rule, most, that has gone down the last year and the year before. >> okay. based on these facts, it appears 2008 service hours regulation have been and continue to be effective of improving highway safety. can you never have too much regulation? >> no, not at all. you need the right regulations, and what we have now is not the right regulations for the reasons stated in the record. they are contradictory of the scientific evidence in the record, disputed by the court of appeals as being illogical and questionable validity, and i'd like to point out that in 2000, there was a notice of proposed rule making that actually would have applied different hours of service regimes to different parts of the industry and congress told the agency that they couldn't do that.

>> okay, do you believe that the regulations should have to at least contribute more benefits to society than a cost to society? >> i believe that it's clear from the regulatory analysis that these do. >> okay. driver fatigue can be a cause or factor in any accident, can you agree? >> yes. most crashes are multifactorial incidents. >> okay. are you aware according to dot's data driver fatigue is not the most common reason for truck driver fatalities? >> yes, but they also underestimate the crashes that involve -- >> okay. are you aware of percentage of fatalities due to passenger driver vehicles are higher than truck driver fatigue >> i don't know that statistic. >> okay. well, i guess in light of the

more fatigue related deaths with passenger cars, do you think there should be drive time restrictions on passenger vehicles? >> it's a different operating vehicles. they are regulated by states, not regular -- regulated industry, so it's difficult to do, and it's up to states to do that. >> i think the point is we all want safer highways whether it's trucks, cars, and the point is where do we find a balance in regulations, so that's why we're here. i'm out of time. >> right, going back to the 2003 final rule, from conception, that was wrong, and we're trying to correct that for the last eight years and save some lives. >> okay. well, for the record, the truck percentage was 1.4 and passengers was 1.7. i yield back. >> i now yield myself five minutes. for the record, i'd like to submit for the record a statement from the retail

industry's leaders association in kraft foods both expressing respect for the legislation, but feels it falls short of the proposed rule. without objection. first of all, some have left the room, and the chairman expressed our sympathies for their losses, but i think as i sit here, there's not a person in this room, whether you're a republican or democrat, we're american, and we want the highways safe, and to think that we don't is really disinjen ewous. we start with that premise. we have family members out there, we want them to be safe, but every time a rule or regulation is passed, there's a loss of freedom. in my mind, when we do that, we have to justify it. as i look at these regulations, and i see the statistics have improved with the current

regulations that are in place, i say to myself, why are we -- why are we taking these steps? what is it that's motivating this? when the statistics, and we all agree, and so much of this job is balance -- balancing safety, balancing our economy, and trying to get the economy back on track and be prosperous -- so when i look at the numbers, and the statistics, in 1979, there were 7,054 fatalities. in 1979, there were 0.641 fatalities, and in 2009, there was a decrease of almost 75%. it appears to me that the current regulations are moving in the right direction. they are making the highways more safer -- they are becoming

safer. the fatalities are down, and in the meantime, we're not disadvantaging or creating more obstructions and regulations for the industries, so my first question is why? why are we wanting to change something that appears to be working that statistics are working. >> because just as the dow jones goes up, individual stocks may be going the other way. in this case, while there's a lot of regulations we supported and the agency adopted in recent years that are improving safety, this is swimming upstream, going against the current. this one has not proved to help with fatigue. the statistics and even the agencies say in the notice of proposed rule making that there is no connection between the recent downturn, and from the

safety administration that shows crashes are not result of fatigue, but what are the economic conditions and the downturn in long haul vehicle miles traveled, so there's somewhere between 500 and 1,000 people dies in crashes involving trucks, and most of the victims in the crashes, 97%, are passenger car victims, people in passenger cars who die, not necessarily the truck driver, and so there is still about a thousand lives out there we think that can be saved by a better rule. >> dr. david, would you like to respond to that? >> well, clearly, restricting the hours can have some effect on fatalities and on large truck crashes generally, and the point is, when do you stop? that's a judgment to be made based on the data, so that, there's no question that there could be some improvement, but

whether it's a large improvement or a small one. >> two things, i'm a freshman here, and two things that constantly impress me here is the disconnect between washington, and in particular in this committee, businesses, and so when we look at the proposed rules, i'm always concerned the stake holders are not at the table, that the bureaucracies and agencies make rules that affects businesses. did any of you participate in or offer up any or have any input into these proposed rules? the first four? dr. david, when mr. jasny talked about the court of appeals striking down the last regulation, can you just comment on that? >> i'm sorry. i don't have any opinion about that. >> my understanding is mr. jasny, do you know why they struck down that regulation? >> yes. the initial decision struck it

down because it did not consider the health of the drivers when imposing a rule that would affect drivers, so that's the first -- >> it's procedural rather than -- >> no, it's substantive because there's a statutory mandate to consider the issue, and the agency did not consider the issue. the court then went on to point out all the problems that involve the substantive issues regarding safety, regarding the 11 hours, regarding the 34 hours that the court saw as problems when the case came back. >> i don't mean to cut you off, but time is running out, and i want to ask dr. david another question. you mentioned in your testimony, there were several errors in dot's methodology. can you just expand on that for us a little bit? >> well, there were a number of cases where assumptions were also made without any basis, and there were calculation, and it

means a difference of $100 million in the regulations, there were several other case which i outlined in my report. they total up to being worth several hundred million a year making the difference between a positive benefit and a negative benefit for this rule. >> on a scale to 1-10, what do you think dot's cost benefit analysis rates in terms of accuracy? >> i'm sorry, i've not been called upon to do that before. i describe the -- i describe what i find as either mistakes or assumptions made that don't seem appropriate given current data, and i think you have to make your own judgment how it grades relative to the other ones. >> if i may, i'd like to submit for the record a rebuttal my organization drafted with regard to the edgeworth analysis pointing out causing in their reasoning. >> without objection. thank you. >> thank you. >> congress is back in session next week. funding to keep the government open expires a week from today.

that means the house and senate must agree friday to avoid a government shut down. in addition to the spending legislation, the house of representatives is set to take up a republican proposal to extend the payroll tax cut, extend unemployment benefits, and avoid a cut in medicare payments to doctors. house coverage is live on c-span. the senate begins the week considering state department no , nominations, and they'll also work on spending legislation and extending the payroll tax cut. u.s. senate coverage, as always, live here on c-span2. >> an hour for your labor, no health care, that's the single biggest element, no pollution controls, no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there's a job sucking sound going south. >> ross perot spoke out about trade issues in the 1992

presidential don't. he made two attempts for the presidency. the first time getting over 19 million votes. more popular votes than any third party candidate, and although he lost, he had a lasting influence on american politics. he's the final candidate in the 14-week series, "the con tenders" live tonight at 8 eastern. to preview other video and to see all the programs from the series, go to c-span.org/thecontenders. >> part of the point of the book is to change the way we think about change, and to make us more much aware than i think we are instingively of the potential suddenness of disintegration or collapse and to realize what happens to the soviet union and financial systems in 2007 and 2008 and what is currently happening to the european union is something that can happen to any adaptive system. it can malfunction.

>> on book tv's after words, neil ferguson on how western civilization came to dominated world and its possible decline, saturday 10 # p.m. eastern and sunday night at 9 eastern and pacific. also this weekend, craig shirley looks at the reaction from the american government. >> newt gingrich says if elected president, he'll move the u.s. embassy in israel from tel-aviv to jerusalem and appoint john

bolton as secretary of state. the remarks came wednesday at the republican jewish coalition. >> it's good to be back with a lot of friends. we're delighted to be here, and my daughter and husband are here. we have so many friends in the audience, it's amazing. i want to pick up on what peter said because i can explain my candidacy simply. he said we needed fundamental change, not just change on the margin. how many of you would agree that we're far enough off the right track that we need fundamental change? [applause] how many of you would agree that even if we win the election, that the forces that got us to the mess we're in, 4r fight every day to stop us from the changes over the course of the next four years? [applause] now, i happen to think both of those are true.

i believe this election is thee most important election since 1860. that's primaries now running. i think we're at a definitive choice and i believe if president obama's reelected after this mess that eight years of obama will truly make the country dramatically more difficult and have dramatically greater problems, so i think it's a very difficult deciding point. are we in favor of american exceptionalism or radicalism? in favor of earning a paycheck, or in favor of giving away food stamps? do we want to move back towards the balanced budget or borrow trillions of dollars? believe in rewarding those who create jobs or believe in class warfare? it's that big of a gap, and it applies to foreign policy. this is an administration which frankly should be firing the ambassador of belgium who gave a stunningly anarchist --

[applause] this is an administration that should be repremanning the secretary of defense for an insulting performance the other day. [applause] this is an administration which should stop next week's meeting at the state department with those who would censor the world on behalf of islam. [applause] so, there are huge gaps. now, i think the changes are so big that i don't ask anyone to be for me. if you say you're for me, you'll go home, vote, and say, i hope newt fixes it. i don't think it's possible to get the scale of change we need with the president alone. the constitutional system doesn't work that way, and our country doesn't work that way. i ask to agree to be with me for the next eight years, stand shoulder to shoulder, stand on change, remind the congress of what we need to do, to remind

the state legislatures, the county commissions, and if you take change on the scale we describe, you're going to make mistake, and if there's feedback mechanisms to tell us when we make mistakes or when the situation changed or when there's a better idea, then we're going to be dramatically better off, and then we can execute. there's a third reason i ask you to be with me. if we implement the 10th amendment and shrink the bureaucracy in washington, we have to grow citizenship back at home to fill the vacuum. it's a profound series of changes. i think in order to get to foreign policy and national security, i want to start with three fundamental questions that proceed it. one, we have to get the economy growing again. if you go and look at newt.org, we have the beginnings of a 21st

century contract in america to finalize next november. whether you look add that, we basically adopted the reagan play book. reagan cut taxes, cut regulations, developed american energy, and praised those who create jobs. that's the opposite of obama. there's a pattern there you'll find exciting. we abolished the capitol gains tax to lead to hundreds of billions of dollars coming into the united states. we eliminate the death tax so families can focus on job creation, not tax avoidance. there's a 12.5 corporate tax rate, the irish level, to liberate several hundred billion dollars to come back home, and means in the first time if a long time, general electric pays taxes because it's cheaper to pay the taxes than to hire the lawyers to pay the taxes. [laughter] [applause] we also have 100% expensing for all new equipment whether you're a factory, farmer, or run offices, we want a conscious

strategy of americans being the best e equipped, and best prepared in the world. we change employment compensation to sign up on a training program run by a business to get unemployment compensation, so we use the time to rebuild human capital, not paying people for doing nothing. [applause] . on the tax front finally, there's a proposal to create an alternative 15% flat tax in the hong kong tradition. we keep deductions or give up all detuxes and pay a simple tax with a one page form that worked well for a generation and a half in hong kong. on the regulatory front, we hope to repeal obamacare on day one. [applause] we want to repeal dodd frank, and we want to repeal sarbanes.

[applause] my goal is to run a campaign which is designed to be a team victory on a grand scale so we have a big enough senate majority and house majority, so the american people volt on an agenda to een i enable us to execute these ideas rapidly. i'm for a very dramatic american energy program, not just energy indense, but to become the world's reserve splier of energy, so if the straits are closed or persian gulf is not there, there's not an industrial depression in the rest of the world. we have to understand an american energy strategy is both a gnarl security strategy and an economic strategy, and it should be a very important part of what we're doing, and it's fundamentally opposite of obama. [applause] if we do the right things with the economy, if we rebuild the arsenal democracy, if we use science and technology, if we

dramatically improve our education system, then, frankly, we don't have to worry about china. china cannot compete with us if we do the right things. frankly, it's unrealistic to think we can be stupid to ask the chinese to be dumber. in order to compete, we have to be smart. this is a program to have a very high tempo, very innovate #*eu, very science and technology based future. i also want to apply cig sigma to the government because experts believe it saves $500 billion a year, and also you need a government that's much more agile and faster and belongs to the world that work, and not a world that fails if we are going to be the leading country on the planet. that's a background. we need a dramatically rethought strategy for the middle east. a few things that are a little bit politically incorrect for a minute. i want to -- this is basically

what i want to do. we did a movie on pope john paul ii going to poland called "nine days that changed the world qtsz, and we did it because we were told that the decisive moment in defeating the soviet empire was the nine days the pope came back and the way he aroused the polish people and the religious belief, and from that point on, they fought the soviets. they were fighting a dictatorship that could imprison you, beat you, kill you, they put up signs they said, two plus two must always equal four, and i was intrigued with this. if two plus two equals four as a fact, you have a factual basis, and poland was a fact, and i went from there, got involved, and writing in the novel, "the

plague," there's times a man can be killed for saying two plus two equals four because the authorities can't stand the truth. we have a sign that we have posted in our offices. orwell, in 1984 written about london, and the fear of totalitarianism is not moscow, but the descrallized planning leads to a dictatorship. orwell in 1984 has the state torturers say to the independent citizen, if the state tells you two plus two equals three, it's three. the citizen thinking, well, what if it's four, but he's tired of being tortured, so he goes along. lincoln said if a man can't agree two plus two equals four, you'll never win an argument because -- i gave a speech in

early 2002 taking apart the state department as an incompetent and i stand by that speech today. [applause] i wrote a paper in august of 2002 called operation switch for the defense department saying it's fine to take outside saddam in three weeks, but it took 2 days. i said you want to hire the iraqi regular army and get out because you don't want to redesign iraq. that's a long expensive proposition, and we'll fail. i will stand by that. in 2003 in december, i want to meet the press, and gave an interview saying that thanks to ambassador, we were off the cliff. we changed our mission without changing our resources, and that we were trying to undertake something we couldn't possibly achieve. i am very, very worried about

our entire relationship with radical islam because it's based on a pack of lies, based on a pack of self-deception, a state department engaged in appeasement. it is an agent 6 dishonesty to the american people, the fact that the justice department said all of its training programs and terrorism have to take out the word islam is an outrageous denial of truth. [applause] so, i want to give you a little bit of two plus two equals four. the president and secretary of defense in the speech the other day said how proud he was that we were helping with the iron dome project. now, think about this. why in a peace process would israel need to have a missile defense from gaza? i mean, can you imagine if the

next door neighbor were firing missiles at us saying, oh, can we come to the tail? that's why the speech was outrageous. panetta is a fine politician, but the speech was outrageous. how about saying to hamas give up violence and come to the table. say to the pla, recognize israel and come to the table. this one-sided continuing pressure saying it's always israel's fault no matter how bad the other side is has to stop. [applause] we are, today, in what will turn out to be the long struggle with radical islam is about where we were in 1946 when we were trying to understand the soviet union. we have not yet had george con

non's long telegram explaning the sources of soviet power or had the splee speeches of 1947 by truman, afterrenton and marshall that began to create the system. we have not yet had the berlin air lift or develop the document of 68, the basic strategy to sustain the united states. we contain the soviet empire for 45 years until it broke. it was a very hard, very difficult national dialogue to get to that point. we need this conversation in this country. we have mortal enemies determined to kill us. we allow them to set up a morally indefensible one-sided conversation. the fact that the state -- the fact that hillary clinton, secretary clinton, would talk about discrimination against women in israel, and then meet with saudis? [applause]

the fact that the state department's going to hold a meeting with a saudi funded group on behalf of censoring any anti-islamic conversation and won't say to the saudis this is terrific and as soon as you open up the church in mekkah, we're excited about the meeting. [applause] the one-sided, moral disarmerment of the judeo christian faith in the face of people who arrogantly -- tehran holds a conference on terrorism. the secretary sends a message of gratitude. our so-called two allies, the prime minister of iraq and the president of afghanistan go to the conference, and we are morally disarmed by the state department incapable of articulating the cause of freedom. in the newt gingrich

administration, opening day, there will be an executive order two hours after the inaugural address, we will send the embassy from tel-aviv to jerusalem as of that day. [applause] [applause] >> if you will accept it, i'll ask john bolton to be secretary of state. [cheers and applause] but i will only appoint him if he will agree that his first job is the complete and thorough transformation of the state department and replacement of

the foreign service culture with a new entrepreneurial aggressive culture dedicated to the proposition that defending freedom and defending america is the first business of the state department, not appeasing our opponents. [applause] i will ask the congress to liberate the intelligence community so we can once again go back to effective covert operations and to effective intelligence gathering and not be forced to rely on pseudoallies like the pakistanis who clearly had to be conspiring to hide bin lad p for eight years since he was hiding in the national military city. [applause] let me be very clear, i understand the constitution. i've been speaker of the house. presidents can only get so much done unless they have working majorities in the house and

senate. i need your help to get the nomination, but beyond that, i need your help to make sure that we have a big majority in the senate. bill nelson has to go. ben nelson has to go. let's go down the list. we want to pick up enough senate seats and house seats to have an effective governing majority on the first day, and i'll ask the new congress to stay in session january 3 to pass the repeal of obamacare and dodd-frank before i'm sworn in to hold it at the desk and bring it out during the inaugural to finish signing it. [applause] let me say one last thing, and i say this with some trepidation because after all, all 6 you are told in june and july that i disappeared, and it must be a great shock to have me showing up again -- [laughter] people talk about electability. if i do become your nominee, in

tampa, i will, in the acceptance speech challenge the president to seven three hour debates with a time keeper, but no moderator, in the lincoln-douglass tradition, concede and advance he can use a tell -- teleprompter. [applause] after all, if you had to defend obamacare, wonted -- wouldn't you want to use a teleprompter? [laughter] the first is he announced our president in february of 2007 in springfield, quoting lincoln. the second is he's a graduate of columbia, graduate of harvard law, editor of the harvard law review, and greatest or tore of the democratic party.

how does he look in the mirror being afraid to debate somebody taught at west georgia college? [laughter] [applause] the third reason is practical. i'm a student of history. unlike the president, i've studied american history. [applause] when abraham lincoln announces in 1858, he's been out of office for ten years, just two years in the house, a state legislator before that, announces against the most famous senator in the united states and the presumed next president, and he said to douglass, we have 105 days left, why don't we debate every day? douglass said, i don't think so. lincoln took up a pattern wherever douglass went, lincoln showed up one day later, and douglass got the news coverage was lincoln's rebullettal. he wrote lincoln saying, i'll debate you.

there's nine congressional districts, not going back to the two we've been in, but we'll go with the other seven. it was widely covered by ap then who printed about every paper in the country. they had the debates reprinted as a book next year, a major step towards his winning the presidency. i argue it is since the federalist papers, the finest collection of discussion on american freedom that you'll see in american politics in 200 years. remember how he got him to decide. if the president has not accepted by the time we get to tampa in my announcements, in my acceptance speech, i will announce that the white house as of that moment, is my scheduler. [laughter] [applause] wherever the president goes, i'll show up four hours later -- [laughter] [applause]

in the age of talk radio, blogs, and instant television news, i doubt if they can take the pressure for more than 2w0 or three weeks, but if they want me to chase him to election day with a country watch a man afraid to defend his own record, i think that works equally well, so either way -- [applause] i think we have a couple microphones. let me take questions for a minute or two if i could. >> i'm sillerglad, the republican distribute leader of the oldest republican club in america founded in the 1880s called the progress republican club, and it is cited in the east village in manhattan. we have two events of great interest to this audience. we were the neighborhood that reclaimed israel to life in

1848, the birdson group, and abraham lincoln became president by his speech at cooper union, a nation divided cannot stand, and my question is we have lost our manufacturing base in this country. thousands of companies have moved overseas, particularly in our state, new york state, which was once called the empire state, but some of us call did the empty state now, and under the leadership of ed cox, our republican state chairman, we're trying to bring back business to our state. how would you, as president, bring back the many, many businesses that have gone overseas from the seed bed for them in our country, how would you do that?

>> well, i think what i described earlier is the key step. you have 1 00% expensing, so manufacturing firms literally can write off all investment in a year, 12% corporate tax rate, zero capital gains tax so money pours into the country because it's the most profitable place to invest, you have a new model of unemployment compensation combined with training, replace the epa with a solutions agency to apply economic rationale to its decisions. [applause] you create a 21st century food and drug administration whose job is to go from the laboratory to the patient as rapidly as possible, not as slowly as possible. you design a new model of occupational safety and health that starts with performance and basically says you don't have any problems, nobody's going to visit you meaning you eliminate the bureaucratic.

there's 35 workers, said the major problem was in chinafuls the u.s. government, and so i think we want a government that helps you not huts you. [applause] >> i'm dr. trevor greene, a dentist from maryland. many of the people here live in the bluest parts of the bluest states and frustrating to know every race from school board up to congress, a volt would not make a difference as there's not enough republican supports to encourage good candidates to run. if chosen, what will you do to legislate republicans in local residents in the blue parts of our nation. >> first of all, good question, glad you asked it. it's the topic i care about a lot. first of all, remember that my background born in pennsylvania, was that we arrived at fort bening, georgia, when i was a junior in high school, and my first came pain was the nixon lodge campaign in the junior and senior years, and there were no republicans in georgia.

today when we dominate the state, we went to a state that was blue and then it ceased to be blue. i have some knowledge how you do this. for this campaign, i have two major breakthroughs for all to think about. i want to preach inclusion, not outrage. all of you understand this. outrage is when five white guys hold a meeting and cool you. inclusion is when you're in the meeting. whether you're korean-american, african-american, la tee know-american, native american, whatever your background, we want a new model system where everybody's in the same room. you mean you want to know why california's hard to carry? because california republicans can't figure out there's 600,000 careens in los angeles. we met with them. we had 6 tv cameras in korean. they were fascinated. they were thrilled that a republican candidate for president was willing to talk with them. you have to do this over and

over and over. inclusion's half of this. the second half is simple. the gorped -- underlying core principle on the one side, you have the best food stamp president in american history. more people have been put oven food stamps by obama's policies than any president in history. on the other side, there's candidate who wants to create jobs. we brought unemployment down to 4.2% creating 11 million jobs in the four years i was speaker. there's not a precinct in america where if you walk up to every door saying do you want your children to have food stamps or a paycheck? you don't get 80% or 90% saying they want a paycheck. it's a myth people like being dependent. i intend to go to every neighborhood and i hope the ncaap invites me to their convention. [applause] i was in new york this week in part to make one case.

this will be a 50-state campaign, and we will seek votes in every state in the united states. [applause] >> and from the middle east truth and the leadership of the rgc. as you know, many people in this room have confirmed our -- had our worse fears confirmed last month when the iaea came out with a report about how close iran is to nuclear bomb. would what would you do about that, and also, we have over 4,000 syria descendents killed over the last eight months. what would you do to support those who want to overthrow the brutal regime? >> good questions. on iran, the only rational long term policy is regime replacement and we need a covert capability. i would focus on their gasoline

supply, 40e% of the gas they use has to be imported, only one very, very large refinery, focused how to sabotage that every day. [applause] you know -- [applause] follow the reagan playbook. i would fund every group in the country. find the maximum amount of communications disability for the groups in the country, do everything i could to unnerve the regime and keep it off bans, and you would break it and replace it, and all of these studies, you know, it's amazing to me how little people study history. you know, the iaea says we're this close or not, but we were wrong about the pakistani nuclear weapons and wrong in the late 1940s. they got it used before we thought they would. why would you think we can relax? we know they have a program.

we know there's sincerity. therefore, assume they will later make the break breakthrough. it's better to stop them early than to stop them late. [applause] on syria, the policy of the united states should be to replace the asad regime and do everything we can, but without american forces 20 help the disdense rebel and beat the asad government that's a dictatorship of very small minority in a country which is largely sunni, and i think that it would be a significant blow to iran to lose syria and to lose asad, and it's worth the risk. i mean, we don't have any idea what the post after add sad regime would be like, but it's worth to risk to break up the relationship. >> i'm ross, a student in rutgers university, the state university of new jersey, and i want to ask about people who have concerns about your

electability focuses not so much on your congressional record, but more on your -- the accusations of past ethics violations. how would you answer that in the scheme of electability? >> i think nancy pelosi in the last two days has done a lot to answer it. [applause] the democrats filed 84 charges, 83 dismissed, and all that survives is my letter that the lawyers wrote, and i signed it, and the democrats refuse to compromise on that. she was one the three democrats in the process of refusing to compromise, or five, i can't remember the exact name of the committee, but i'll let you decide, if she's in the middle of it, how non-past san and just do you think the process was? on every charge, people said recently, for example, did we in-- as a ph.d. in history, did i inappropriately teach a course using tax deductible money? well, the irs backed off, apologized, and said they were

wrong. did we violate the fec rules? they backed off and apologized and said it was wrong. now, those who know coverage, but what the democrats decide the in the fall of 19 95 was they could not defeat the program, but could me. they ran 12 #1,000 negative ads attacks me. if we were clever, i would have immediately filed a countercharge against them for violating and abusing the ethics process, but we thought it would be fair and reasonable. the attrition effect on members of that many ads in that many charges has wore down people, and i gradually lost the ability to lead because, you know, i was ultimately so battered by the process, so what i tell people is look at the record. it's all public record. look at the total record. go to newt.org, my campaign site, and you'll see it, and you make a decision. i found at least in iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, it's not an issue, and people

generally are prepared to concede that my record of achievement is vastly greater than whatever scarring the democrats managed to do. [applause] ..

for a couple of ingalls. one is i believe in levelling out by giving everyone a chance to be more successful he believes leveling down. i believe in creation, he believes in wealth redistribution. i believe the primary problem is they're attracted institutions to destroy their future and the problem is we haven't sent them big enough checks while keeping track and the fundamental, this is why i want the debate next year i think the difference would be so vivid and clear to most americans that it's important and [inaudible] [laughter] >> i want to take a minute to talk about a recent example of this. i believe that it's really important for children to learn to work. how many of you -- [applause] how many of your earned some money before you were 15? okay. a fairly wealthy young lady two days ago could clearly be living

on her trusten and her grandfather paid her to run errands and i said how old were you when this started? she said five. [laughter] why am i saying this? the other day i said -- and this goes back to an article some 20 years ago i think was a new york magazine. if you look at the price of new york city school janitors who are paid more, the entry-level janitor is played to the copay does much. my model would be to have a janitor and an assistant janitor who are full grown adults than to take the rest of the money and hired lots of kids part-time and to hire them part time to be a clerk in the front office or part time to work in the library, you could hire them part time to work in the kitchen. there's lots of things you could do. but what i want to do -- and

these are the poorest neighborhoods have no experience working the reaction on the left has been hysterical. when moynihan used, and since the left went crazy because you go with the heart of the belief system. if the problem is we need to have people from the culture of work and the culture of seating and we need the idea of the value over time he just made this country dramatically more conservative and so the left goes nuts at the idea that you are going to let kids learn? i used to argue for equity at public housing people in public housing don't suffer from severe mental or physical problem should have a responsibility to help take care of the department and they take care well enough over time they would have a base what equity and acquire ownership.

there's one great debate and barney frank said -- [laughter] said i realize if you allow poor people of new york city to actually own their apartments these apartments could be sold for several million dollars and they wouldn't be poor anymore. [laughter] i'm for an america where they have all had a chance to rise. thank you very much. [applause] presidential candidate jon huntsman also spoke to the republican jewish coalition. >> thank you for the kind introduction far more than i deserve. i appreciate respect and distinction coming out in introducing me. ladies and gentlemen, members

rjc, i'm honored and grateful to be with you today. i need candidate for the presidency of the united states of america. if i speak a little bit with a new hampshire accent you have to excuse me. i've been spending a little bit too much time in the granite state because i believe regardless of the polls have to say in other parts of the country that new hampshire is always going to be the state that a bense conventional wisdom. so wherever we are today, we are likely to be somewhere else tomorrow. all i ask this for your consideration, for you to take a look at what we have done in terms of my own public service track record. what i've done as a twice elected governor in the state of utah, what i've done in terms of my experience living overseas for time serving three times as the united states ambassador most importantly being a father of seven children. i have three daughters who are on the campaign trail with me

about ask you to go to youtube and see what a video bomb viral actually means. so the candidate can give a speech on foreign policy and it gave hits on youtube my daughter can do a spoof video and ago fire will overnight and i beginning to understand the nature of political communication these days so those girls are on the campaign trail with me. the boys in the united states navy and honored and delighted they are willing to wear the uniform of the united states. [applause] too little about the girls went from china and one from india and every day i look into their eyes when i'm home which isn't often and i reminded of the bald they are about to step into which leads me to where i am here today. i just want to tell you straight up i'm not going to pander, i'm not going to come toward myself into a pretzel of you want one of those you can look elsewhere

and the candidate on the debate stage who will not do that. [applause] thank you. why will not go to a donald trump debate either by the way. [applause] i don't want anyone leaving this room without understanding exactly why i'm running for president of the united states. i'm running for president of the united states of america because i think it is absolutely unacceptable that we are passing down the greatest nation that ever was, the united states of america to the next generation. for the first time in the nation's history and a condition that is less good, less productive, less competitive, more divided and more settled with debt than any time in recent history. and if that fact alone, ladies and gentlemen, doesn't grab you

by the lapels and shaking out of your sense of complacency, i don't know what would. i was born in 1960. we exported $3 for every $2 we imported. we owned 36% of the world's gdp science technology standard of living. was all ours. it seems all the nobel prize laureates came from the united states of america. 25% of our gdp was derived from manufacturing and i look at where we are today. 9% we have no leadership, the nation that was, the late ronald reagan used talk about, the shining city on the hill, that moves people and transforms the world is not shining that light of proof. is not that big and reflects liberty, democracy, human rights and free markets. and i would argue in the united states is strong, the world is a

better place. when the united states speaks up about what it means to be a friend and ally the world is a better place. we haven't spoken of as a country in a very long time about what it means to be a friend and ally of the united states, and that must change. so too must of the deficits we face that i think are at the core of where we sit today. number one is an economic deficit. we have $15 trillion in debt. and i would liken it to cancer which is metastasizing in this country. when you are a 70% debt to gdp and rising because under this president, and i would argue if we do not get new leadership we will see a lost decade of economic growth. and for the most optimistic blue

sky the world has ever known that is a high price to be paying. i would argue we need tough medicine in terms of how we coral that debt and spending. i have a very short speech on how we think it ought to be corralled. i like the rollin plan. i think the plan takes a hard hitting and aggressive approach. thank you. [applause] $6.2 trillion over ten years people say why and i say why not? you cannot sustain this nation with 25% spending to gdp we've got to get back to 19%. something that is more sustainable, and the rye plan allows us to do that. but beyond debt and spending, because that is only part of the equation, ladies and gentlemen, i want to do for this country what i did for my state and i come from a pretty good state but it wasn't number one in the nation. i ran for governor in 2004 on a

promise to my people in the state of utah that we would fire the engines of growth and we would reform the tax system and deliver that state as the number one seed for business in the united states people laugh when we talk about that but i got elected on that platform in 2004. it took two years but we deliver a flat tax to the people of our state. i hear candidates talking about tax reform a little nibbling around the edges here or there. i don't know another candidate in this race who's actually deliver a flat tax and engaged in the kind of meaningful tax reform that i delivered to the people of my state. what it allows us to do it allows us to triple the rainy day fund and allows me to deliver the largest tax cuts seen in the history of our state to read it allows us to become the best managed state in america. so said depue's senator. it allowed us over time to get unemployment down to 2.4%.

remember those days we became the fastest growing state in america because people simply wanted the dignity of a job and i say this economic deficit that we are facing today is having profound consequences, the likes of which i don't even think are registering for a lot of people. this thing called joblessness. 15 of our fellow citizens who were without the dignity of employment and millions more beyond that who were so dispirited they've just given up trying. that's homes and neighborhoods, that's communities who have been shipwrecked by today's economy. that is and dads in the families who find it impossible to get back on their feet today. and i would tell you this divided that stands in the way of we as americans is not natural. it is and who we are.

and we will not be able to address this divide we have in this nation until we can address the issue of joblessness. we are not going to be able to address this issue of joblessness until we can grow out the debt in spending which is having a drag on our economic performance. you get to 70, 80, 90, debt to gdp our economy just won't grow as a former senior negotiator between the united states and japan ten years ago working on issues like non-performing loans, structural barriers and the system that made it impossible for new business start-ups to get on its feet by say this country is too good and too smart to move in that direction. deficit number two. as president of the united states i want to go after with equal enthusiasm and energy. it isn't an economic deficit. ladies and gentlemen, is a

deficit of trust. today in our country, people no longer trust their institutions of power and no one wants to talk about. no trust left in congress, 8% approval? cyberattack to find where those people are hiding out. no trust in the executive branch with a president who cannot lead at the time when this nation so desperately needs leadership. no trust toward wall street with banks that are too big to fail. when you see me as a candidate and watch our rise and new hampshire because that is exactly what is happening we have gone from a margin of error candidate to now a candidate knocking on the door of third and fourth place low double digits. i want you to see me as the candidate who's going to deal

with that economic deficit by also want you to see me as the candidate who is coming to deal with the trust deficits because here is what needs to happen. we need to go to congress and we need to say you need reform. people have no trust in our institutions of power. ladies and gentlemen, we need term limits in congress. [applause] i understand there are a lot of people who aren't going to want to talk about it because if you get half of congress who comes out and supports you will be a status quo. this nation needs term limits in congress, and you know what else? we need to close the revolving door that allows members of congress to file right on through to become lobbyists where they can trade in on their relationships and their inside information. you know what that does? it leads to a greater and a deeper sense of cynicism among our people. and i say as president i will

talk about docking or lessening of their pay until they can balance the budget. [applause] there are a few things that ought to be required of members of congress and then i'm going to go to wall street and i'm going to say we can fix our taxes like i want to do i put forward a tax program that is similar to what i did in the state of utah. it calls for the phasing out of loopholes and deductions in total. i want to clean out the cobwebs and create a level playing field for entrepreneurs and innovators in this country and i want to go to the business side of the tax code and say corporate welfare, gone. i can't think of a better way to clean up this town than eliminating corporate welfare in total because if it is nothing to lobby for on capitol hill in terms of additional breaks and loopholes, there's nothing to lobby for. we've had enough as people. we want it eliminated along with

subsidies in the country because we can no longer afford subsidies given where the economy is we have hit the wall. but as we move forward recognizing that we need to fix our economic deficit but our trust deficit as well we can cut taxes and we can get the regulatory environment in line and to do that we have to repeal obamacare. we have to repeal dodd-frank. thank you. [applause] part of the reason why dodd-frank is because it gives rise to two big to fail. the president had an opportunity to address this issue but he didn't. so it doesn't matter what we do with tax reform and regulatory reform and taking steps towards energy independence which i think is absolutely needed and doable in this country. if we are left with a system that has six banks that have

combined 66 to the nation's gdp, $9.4 billion. none of them can go down because we all go down if they do. we are too big to fail. they then have an implied bailout on the part of the taxpayers and i say as long as we have that system that is up, running and recognized, we are setting ourselves up for long-term disaster. that is something i will deal with as well. ladies and gentlemen, finally, let me say from a foreign policy standpoint i've lived overseas for times and have a good sense of the world. it is time for the world to understand who our friends and allies are. it is time for the world to understand we stand with israel during this time of need. [applause] so it doesn't matter if there is change in the region brought about by the arabs burning or whether the wind of uncertainty is blowing. what matters to me is the

commitment to israel. if we are willing to stand tall and ensure that there is no blue sky between us today there is some ambiguity. there is a sense the we are not together. those days under my administration will be gone. [applause] but ladies and gentlemen, i look at the map today and i see 700 installations in 60 different countries, and i say our foreign policy has a little bit of a cold war overhang, the old george kennan mindset from 46, 50,000 troops in germany and 27 different installations i say the world is a changing place. the russians are not coming anymore. and i look at afghanistan and i see 100,000 troops in afghanistan. and i say this nation should not be nation-building in

afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built. you see we have no foreign policy in this country. we are not able to project and reedy the values the we stand for until we fix the core and that is our values and our economy. so under the huntsman administration, i want a foreign policy that recognizes where we are in the second decade into the 21st century. i want a foreign policy that is led first and foremost by economics because it is one thing to secure the premise of the world without the economic benefit and it's another thing to secure the promise of the world while everybody else gets the economic benefit. so it used to break my heart in beijing running the second largest embassy in the world 100,000 troops in afghanistan involved in a counter insurgency when the chinese would go and they would take the mining concession and i would say there's something fundamentally wrong with this picture.

ladies and gentlemen, i want a foreign policy that recognizes the value and the power of free trade. i want to foreign policy that recognizes the value and power of investment in international economic engagement, number one. second of all, i want a foreign policy as far as the eye can see in the 21st century we have a problem called terror that isn't going away anytime soon and we have to be prepared for it whether it is in southwest asia or southeast asia. we don't need to be nation-building with 100,000 troops, but we do need something that speaks to tactical intelligence gathering that speaks to bolster its special forces capabilities and rapid deploy ability coming and we do need something that speaks to ongoing training with our friends and allies not just in south was asia, not just southeast asia but i would argue in every corner of the world. i want a foreign policy once again the reminds the world what

it means to be a friend and ally of the united states. and when you are a friend and ally of the united states, there are certain commitments economically and from a security standpoint that we will stand up and we will meet. fourth, nothing happens from a foreign policy standpoint until such time as we get our core fixed in this nation we have no foreign policy if we are broken at home. it is time for us as americans to come together. finally spending two years in china leads me to conclude a couple of things, number one, they are moving down in terms of economic performance no longer will we see the eight, nine, 10% economic growth rates we've seen for 30 years. what we will begin to see in the years ahead are the four, five, 6% economic growth rates which means that unemployment will rise which means the larger itinerant work force which comes

in from the countryside will put greater stresses and strains on the large cities centers, which means by extension there will be greater political uncertainty and unpredictability as you look at china's future which means that investment dollar that just moved into china from manufacturing purposes and has for years will be looking for an alternative and i humbly submit that we are crazy in this country if we don't recognize that reality. and we are crazy in this country if we don't find the kind of leadership we so desperately need that would fix our competitive environment and yes that is taxes and yes that is the regulatory environment and vocational training in order for this nation to launch a manufacturing renaissance. it is within our grasp as the people that investment dollar is going to go someplace and it needs to come right here to the

greatest nation in the world. thank you. [applause] the one thing in mind from living overseas is as the economy goes down there is tremendous uncertainty about their future. they think their days have arrived. a lot of blue sky in that china, a lot of years of economic growth that has put them in exalted position so to speak. and you will get this country from 10,000 miles away and i don't know any other way to put it, ladies and gentlemen, but we are in a funk as a people. we are dispirited and dejected. we find yourselves in an economic cold with no leadership and no confidence. i say the time has come in this nation for that to change. [applause] we need to get back on our feet and we need to start doing what every generation of americans

have been able to do. he faced the challenges head on and you leave your people with better place. but i also recognize from 10,000 miles away as you look at this great country that we have every attribute, we have every quality any country would ever want to succeed and we sometimes don't even recognize it in ourselves. we have stability, we have real flaw, we have the longest surviving constitution and the world. we have private property rights, we have the greatest universities and colleges in the world and people still flock here to attend them. we of the most entrepreneurial people wonder if enologist be let free to work their magic in the marketplace. we have a very brave and courageous armed forces. [applause]

what we don't have as leadership but we don't have as confidence, ladies and gentlemen and what we don't have is a way for word. barack obama won the election in 2008 on this thing called hope. who wouldn't want hope for heaven's sake proving the point you could win the presidency on a mantra. that doesn't guarantee can lead and we see the consequences have been. the president had to years to get the economy right, to infuse a little bit of confidence in our direction he has failed. that door has closed and it doesn't matter whether he goes to illinois, ohio, california or new hampshire, nobody cares. nobody's paying attention. it doesn't matter if he puts the proposal on the table.

people have to now and now they are looking to 2012 and i humbly submit that this would be the most important election. [applause] i humbly submit to this will be based on real leadership and solutions and i will be your candidate. thank you very much for having me. i appreciate that. thank you. [applause] i would be happy to do questions. spec ladies and german, the q&a microphones are available in the trial. >> jennifer from the israel project. it was a pleasure to meet with you in china when you were the ambassador there and you were very grateful and helping to deutsch ruben this do it to -- tremendous things. the ambassador could not have

spoken more highly of what you have done for israel and the relationship been pushing the joint agenda for work. you didn't address those in your prepared remarks and your extraordinary achievement in the sanctions on china and given the important role that china plays in the future i just wondered if you could comment on that. >> let me just say that ambassador was a close friend, is a close friend. in a place like beijing, when you are working in pretty difficult and challenging circumstances, you begin to understand who your true friends are in the world and i had no closer friend the in the league ambassador to china. thank you. [applause] i would say we must recognize first and foremost the transcendent issue of the decade is iran and their aspirations to

achieve the nuclear status. i believe personally that they've already made that decision internally where they want to become a nuclear power. and i think they've done so having analyzed north korea which has a few crude devices and they've looked at libya for example where they have nuclear status was given up in exchange for friendship abroad, and i think they've concluded that they want nuclear status. so we can talk about sanctions and we can limit additional sanctions on top of those that are there. all the while the centrifuges continue to spin. and at some point we are going to face the reality of enough fissile material out of which to make a weapon. that's the reality. i realist, ladies and gentlemen, and i don't pretend to see if any other way. we can pretend to go back to china and russia and work on more security council

resolutions but i think what needs to be done at this point is specific language in the annex of the security council resolution. you can get the language most members of the security council will buy into and that is kind of where things are and then you have to get specific beyond that about trading companies, banks, individual companies that are part of your sanctions. that's the hard part and that's where i think it will be difficult to get the chinese on board and i think it will be very difficult as well to get the russians on board. so we are left with an environment that means more than ever before our consultation of friendship, our alliance with israel really does mean something because i think we will get down in the next one to three years to a conversation with israel that will go something like this, coming from the government for you with us one of?

i think we will have that conversation coming and we as a country better be prepared for that conversation. as for me, if you say you want to live with a nuclear iran, then you have to live with the implications of proliferation in the region. saudi arabia, turkey, probably egypt. i can't live with that outcome because i think the consequences of that kind of outcome and the proliferation implications are disastrous for the region. so if you can't live with a nuclear iran, and i can't, then you have to say all options are on the table, and for me all options are on the table, and it means that when israel strikes of that conversation as i believe they will, you better be prepared to remember and put in place with that relationship and that alliance actually means.

thank you psp mix thank you. [applause] >> hello, ambassador. i am eugene from northwestern university. as a former diplomat as someone who served as the ambassador, what would you think of the comments made by the ambassador to belgium and what does it say about the administration's policy that it hasn't publicly rebuked and what measures would you find appropriate in the current circumstances having served this administration in its capacity? >> i would say that it speaks volumes about the continued ambiguity that his administration has towards israel and you have those that are using that kind of language i would say these are not speeches that are cooked of the local level within the embassy. they go high up within the state department and probably within the national security council. and i think somebody ought to ask for an explanation in full as to what this means and who is responsible for the language

because the chances are just the diplomat, but it goes high year than that. thank you. >> what would you have done under the circumstances? >> if the ambassador was not at fault, you could easily recalled the ambassador, but i say it would probably serve it better and deeper purpose by finding who hire up within the organization was responsible for that language and deal with it at that level. yes, sir? >> thank you for being here to become governor. i'm from philadelphia. a week ago in jerusalem post there was an article that ranked the republican candidates in terms of being good for israel. and there was some characterization and there that i am concerned about and want to ask you to react to, and that is the following. while sympathetic to israel, huntsman plans palestinian authority actions on the israeli

positions representing a fundamental misunderstanding of israel's predicament. would you react to that, please? >> i have to find out where that language comes from. i'm not sure where it does come from. you can look at my policy platform. you can look at what i have talked about, and that is recognizing the importance of the u.s. israel relationship, the alliance, the free trade agreement that is the oldest that we have dating back to 1975, and the care and concern through this alliance we should have with respect to israel's security. it does that mean i'm going to force the peace process? of course not. does it mean i'm going to micromanage the outcomes like this administration has done? of course not. it doesn't mean we are going to stand shoulder to shoulder with israel during a time of need? great influx and uncertainty in the middle east? absolutely it does.

that's when you need to know about me and about how my administration would handle israel. [applause] >> it looks like the time is up. but i want to thank you all who are members of the rjc for the work that you've done, for the education and you bring to candidates and for your willingness to be involved in the republican party. i say that there never has any time quite as important as the times we face today to wait for you all to be involved and to be active in rebuilding the greatest nation that ever was. in rebuilding the strength of we all know we have within the united states of america is critically important because as we strengthen hu br, we radiate that goodness. we've radiate that set of values to the rest of the world. and i must tell you having lived overseas for times, i see how

those values moved people, change events and make history for good. thank you very much for being here. [applause]

congress is back in session next week and funding to keep the government open in addition to the presidential race next year voters will elect 11 governors,

33 senators and all 435 members of the house of representatives. the republican governors association posted a discussion on the 2012 election at its annual conference last week. ns will hear from pollster frane luntz and two governors bobby jindal of louisiana and haley barbour of mississippi.[inaudib this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> republican governors have already transformed the nation's politics.politics. they've provided a clear contrast between republican executive leadership and that of barack obama. lower taxes, balanced budgetsraa and a laser light focused oning jobs on one hand. hiher

[inaudible] firsus higher taxes, recordde deficits and uncertainty andciso decision on the other. but in 2012, the republican governors' association's impact will grow even larger. republicans will have a governor or an election for governor inut all but one of 2012 swing states and the veto rga will be an o offense in 11 states holding hog governors races next year. of those 11 states with governors races next year ninese of them will also be holding a u.s. senate race. race. given the strong correlation vetween electing a republican governor and picking up the u.s. senate seat, it will only bea emocratic governor candidates r who feared than investing in their state one. >> the taxpayers' expense but simply from the state's new >> organization has a greatera influence on the nation'szationa

politics than with the influence republican governors association. >> republican governors are leading the effort to cut government spending, keep taxesm low and get the economy back onc track by making the states more competitive. >> ladies and gentlemen, pleased welcome governor haley barbour.b [applause] >> g >> good afternoon. goodaftern good afternoon and welcome to the first plenary session where we are going to talk aboutssion politics of all things, joined by the great professionals and politics business frank luntz may be the best known focust group conductor since mozart or some kind of conductor and who

has done tremendous work for the rga and the polling firm public opinion strategies is one of the premier firms i do want to say thanks for the work that you'ver done for us including the poll that you yopresented this mornig to the governor's. and then maybe you can tell us something about politics, bobby jindal was held a 66% of theld vote in the reelection campaigne and you might think 66 or 34,nk actually the persian who finished 48 points behind, i think you are going to enjoyoy inar hearing from each one of them and i'm not going to let them have an opening statement.oing t we are going to go straight to him in the discussions and a bit like to start off with you because of the survey that you did this morning.use o t the election was the biggest moi repudiation of the president's policies in the midterm election

perhaps in american history. was almost exclusively about jobs, the economy, deficit debt. what about the 2012 election? >> those are going to be the same themes and issues alongame with health care, obamacare tooc your list of issues come and look, this is a situation wherei the president's approval rating when they get reelectedw president tend to have aney ge approval rating in the mid-50s. when they lose it is not 40% on average mid-50s. when they lose its around 40% on average. this president's approval rating is 43% right now. and when you look at measures like consumer confidence, for example, he's right at the level where jimmy carter was at this point in november of 1979 from our consumer confidence is. he also by the way where ronald reagan was in 1983 at this point, obama is 25 points lower

than where reagan was. so he's got real problems with the economy and how people feel about him overall. one of his drinks though as he is a rocksolid base. the african american voters are strongly behind him. he does well with hispanics and other minorities as well. so demographically, that is his best hope of getting reelect bid from the political environment standpoint. he is running in to head with emily to a jimmy carter had in 1980. >> and obama run for reelection on his record and went quiet >> on his record, but he can run and attributes. >> one of the things i've been going on for the last couple years as a political people to move away from traditional issues of budget, taxes for governors, education, transportation and focus on the attributes, and accountability,

personal responsibility. i give you an example. two examples in terms of language. if the fight is over the middle class, which is still an attribute, not really an issue, democrats are going to win. they spent the last 30 years fighting over the middle class to try to demonstrate that they represent them and they have an edge and with what's happening in our economy with wall street they could win on that one. they cannot win if the site of some hard-working taxpayers. we can say we defend middle-class and the public will say i'm not sure about that. but defending hard-working taxpayers, republicans have the advantage. a second example is over tax cuts for the rich and battles a different governors are having now in dealing with tax policy. if you talk about raising taxes on the rich, a majority of americans, including almost half of republicans support a tax increase. but if you talk about government taking money from hard-working americans, the public says no. taxing the public will say yes. taking the public will say no. so my challenge for the people

in this room is to see whether they are so precise about the work that they use that changes the dynamic that obama canceling. >> bobby, when you look at the issues that are what will the election be about, in louisiana, is that all the economy? is the energy of a party that? >> certainly our economy has done better than the region of the national economy. but like everywhere else, jobs even more specifically as a part of the economy is absolute top concern, has been a top concern for 25 years we're exporting his temper for your son and are we a people move back and reverse migration. people are concerned about lingering affects of the moratorium was still got 11 rights come from the polls and even though the unemployment rate is lower than the national average, there still are people that could be working if we produce more energy at home.

you look at the impact of the ongoing impacts of obamacare, very unpopular back home in louisiana. one of the things interesting about this campaign and you said this during this conference, and that this may be -- i know this gets said a lot, but this may be the most important election in terms of the direction of our country. for whether the republican nominee is going to be, it is hard to remember in the last few election cycles a wider ideological divide between our nominee and their nominee. the reality is this election is not about who's the best speaker. if you remember four years ago when the president is running, i believe he did a good job presenting himself to independence is less than ideological, more confident, just the money will change the tone in washington. number one, this is clearly an election about the direction of our country. it's about $15 trillion of debt, federal government spent 24% of the gdp of obamacare for the federal government is getting more and more faltering health

care. gives the federal government for baltimore in a private sector companies and more and more of the economy. i think the first point i make about the election if it's not about or shouldn't be about personalities or was the best speaker who looks the best in a zoo. there really is about a vision for this country. we want to go the way of european socialists democracies or do we want to preserve another term used often that we continue to be an aspirational society at dynamic earth society. the second point i make is the president ran a different type of campaign. hope and change. my concern is i don't think he can run on his record when it comes to unemployment rates can a stimulus obamacare. this campaign will or should be focused on tearing down the republican nominee and will be a much -- a different kind of campaign that what we saw four years ago. >> that's a reminder that the one promise upon a cat as he is going to change in washington

d.c. and it's gotten worse. a lot worse. as you are making a point, issues of policy versus attributes or something else, it does bring me back to the idea, as bobby said, obama can't run for reelection on his policies. he's got to tear down the republican. but with verity cnet. >> we tested it last night here in orlando which is a great swing state. cannily the. cannily the act had an impact on what people thought about romney. the reason why is it was done with humor rather than anger. what's interesting is there so much advertising already out there that is so vicious and tone and we are a year away from the election and the public is saying no. so if you can make them laugh you're more than likely to connect to them. you need to connect in ways they live. everyone talks about jobs at the governor said in your talk about creating jobs. watch this.

by show of hands among the people on the outside, which you rather have a job for a career? you cannot wonder the other peer job or career. raise your hand if you want a job. now raise your hands if you want a career. so why are we talking about jobs? i don't necessarily have faith that the republicans will get it. and you and i have known each other for a while and i've been poking for a while. i think they are better than they have been. i don't know if they really feel it or not. >> yeah, it is an issue. i think he probably does the same thing in louisiana that we try to talk to voters about your children and grandchildren can stay in mississippi and have careers. and you're right. i'm not sure how that applies to the presidential election, but it has clearly better for her page. >> the other question because we should be talking to people

rather than questioning them. are you better off in her parents work when they were to reach? says yes. it can turn the lights on. how many of you out there truly believe that your children will be better off than you -- not that she wants him to be. how many believe your children will be better off when they get to be your age, raise your hands. we've got one governor and eastern kansas, so that's not it. last night now that is such a powerful -- he's got five kids? okay, three of her five kids will be better off. i'll let you choose which three. that is the power of questions. it's not just are you better off today than you were four years ago, which is what glenn and i would do because it's political. are your kids be better off than you could size human. and obama can't answer that question. >> in fact that's killing me. what do you think about the

issues that for next year? you know, the issue was all jobs as the top about. do you think that will -- that it will become something different or not? or do you think rather than being about policy hypnotist frank says turn out to be a campaign that focuses on something other than policy in the results of those policies? >> i think a couple things. one of the echo frank's point about obama has to run a very indicative destructive campaign. he has to turn it against whoever the republican nominee is because, you know, if he runs on its own record that's not really much to run on. look at health care for example. you know, before it passed and it was unpopular, wait till it passes will be more popular. that didn't work. they said okay wait until people get to know more about it.

wait until people you're about it. and if anything is more people now, the more they don't like it. and then they said wait till some of it goes into effect, that they really going to like it. so that is why he got to run a destructive campaign and negative campaign from an issue standpoint it is going to be overwhelmingly about jobs and the economy. and the supreme court is going to make sure health care is a major part of the debate as well. it's going to be about spending and the deficit then those issues -- look, could something have been from a foreign affair standpoint? yes. but she never can assume that something major will happen on that level. so i think the issue agenda is pretty well defined right now. and that's not always the case going into the presidential election. but there's no sign the economy will turn around anytime soon. but you see most of the science

and there's some encouraging news from the economic standpoint. for the most part, there's way too many questions. either from business as. you know, they just don't know that they contrast with the administration is going to do. >> i was interested in weapons research that the most popular public republican position that you tested for voter approval was in all of the above energy processes. for abundant americans affordable energy. >> first of all that's exactly right. i want, and something that frank said that think is so important for us to understand and truly out time. you know, i'm a conservative. i think the federal government is doing too many things and i

just believe it should be as bigoted as an wants a permit to bigger government. the reality is there to translate why that's an everyday people's lives. in louisiana we commenced able to make tough choices about covering government spending to make the changes in ethics class. the reason were able to do that as we connected it to the welfare of the children. the reality is just one quick example in louisiana. we've done a survey and tied for first place for businesses from investing in my state. tied for first place was the sense that corruption, the perception there is so much corruption that who you knew was more important what you knew. we did our first special session that went from the bottom to the top of a bunch of these good list. the reason we're able to do that is because whenever change those laws. they've been away for a long time. it wasn't just because they want to be number one. people were tired of seeing their children a more important to grandchildren that they stay.

when you talk to voters to to say we just had thanksgiving last week. how may times yet to get on a plane? how many times do you see her grandchild per year? you watch them play soccer or you've seen them twice a year? that got people's attention. it is because of those politicians acting out, maybe we need better ethics laws. i think the same thing as true in the national scene. it is great to talk about government as a percent of gdp or $15 trillion, but we've got to translate what that means as higher interest rates, what that means and most importantly exactly what frank has had come your children and grandchildren may not have the chance that the american dream we inherited. give us more opportunities than we inherited from parents. would i want to be the first generation that spends their children's inheritance. i think that they motivate folks around the big entitlement programs and government spending. going back to energy, my state

has asked berkeley provided oil and gas to the rest of the country. the week that a new company that will hire 600 people to build the blades or wind energy. we have a company hiring 14,000 people to build modular components for nuclear energy. we have a company first. tyson built a refinery to make bio diesel to use these products. alternative energy projects we have a clean coal facility at the northwest louisiana. we are absolutely for all the above strategy. we want to provide energy to the rest of the country and we believe in renewables and oil and gas and nuclear including: conservation of all of it. i think the problem washington is dennis put ideology ahead of practicality. all of a sudden you have a moratorium in the gulf coast and uncertainty about the shale and tracking. all of a sudden you have uncertainty about permanence for coal mining. and you have dial-up and all that means two things.

more of our dollars are going overseas. higher energy prices at the pump. even as important and sometimes this gets overlooked. it's another region for manufacturing took overseas. billions of dollars coming back to america back to louisiana in part because knife cut affordable natural gas. i just last week with a company that moved about 90 jobs from china back to louisiana and they are able to get some of these high-value, high paying manufacturing jobs, to america. this administration could drive jobs overseas for their ideology of her practicality when it comes to energy policy. >> he talks about grandparents and grandkids. the strongest family relationship of all our grandparents and grandkids because they both have the same enemy. [laughter] that's right. i'm a dad. it's a joke, but it's true. and you talk about overseas. when it comes to energy, talk

about the middle east. when it comes to jobs, talk about china because these are specific places people relate to. we talk about domestic energy. it's american energy, american oil, american natural gas. sometimes we're the biggest offenders in new business people sitting around the corner. they are the ones who should be responsible for providing the best language because they try to defend what they're doing. i'm so scared of this anti-wall street after. i am frightened to death. okay, they should occupy a job and take a bath. i get that joke, but man they are having an impact on what the american people hi ... and so trying to get to work removed and placed with economic freedom or free market. but the public now believes capitalism -- they still prefer capitalism socialist, but they think capitalism is immoral. if were first seen as